On top of this we would redundant systems in animals...Would we really though?
Pointing out grammatical errors should be done in a serious way thank you.On top of this we would redundant systems in animals...Would we really though?
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?I don't understand what you're saying here.
These facts are so blatantly obvious that I think you are posting this as a joke.
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
That's like asking why were humans the only ones to invent anything and that also being proof of evolution not occuring.Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!Wait a second. Are you saying that there are other creatures who have the feeling of modesty? That, I find hard to believe. And if you aren't then are you telling me that modesty could not be an evolved trait? That, I also find hard to believe.
Why don't reptiles wear sweaters? Who better to wear a turtle neck than a turtle? Also, if clothing was not an inherent trait made only for humans we would see an evolution of clothing, perhaps clothing would become more complex as we became more skilled at making it. You see NO evidence for this. Also, you would see things like chimps using leaves to shield themselves from the rain.
Finally all other intelligent animals live in warm climates, or aquatic ones. It would make no sense for them to have clothing in such environments. If they were meant to have clothing too they would obviously live in much colder climates.
Warrdog is finally starting to think unlike you sheeple.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!Wait a second. Are you saying that there are other creatures who have the feeling of modesty? That, I find hard to believe. And if you aren't then are you telling me that modesty could not be an evolved trait? That, I also find hard to believe.
Why don't reptiles wear sweaters? Who better to wear a turtle neck than a turtle? Also, if clothing was not an inherent trait made only for humans we would see an evolution of clothing, perhaps clothing would become more complex as we became more skilled at making it. You see NO evidence for this. Also, you would see things like chimps using leaves to shield themselves from the rain.
Finally all other intelligent animals live in warm climates, or aquatic ones. It would make no sense for them to have clothing in such environments. If they were meant to have clothing too they would obviously live in much colder climates.
Warrdog is finally starting to think unlike you sheeple.
It has always been to my understanding that humans began wearing clothing when they developed complex emotions such as modesty and love. Love developed from the need to have a partner to care for our young. I've always assumed that somewhere along that line is where we began wearing clothes.
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.Please....explain....
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
could you explain that? what is the difference between a tool and clothing?
I would say clothing is a tool if you think about all the things it is worn for. (ie. sex, title, warmth....)
Also, okay, so some cultures wear little clothing but they still cover up parts of themselves. I haven't seen a single tribe that hadn't been wearing at least some clothing in some form. Yes they may be bare-breasted but the women still wear loincloths.
And other animals aren't modest because they haven't developed that complex of emotions. They may feel pain, happiness, sadness and fear. But that's all basic.
I see what you're saying Raist but I still don't understand something. How do you get "evolution does not exist" out of most people wear clothing? Unless, you really are trolling and don't believe anything you just said. In which case, :P.
That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
So, just because they evolved differently, evolution didn't happen. What about platypuses? They lay eggs and have bills.Yeah. If they didn't grow lungs they would drown in the air. And if they didn't grow legs, they would drown in the water.That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
Irreducibly complex.
So, just because they evolved differently, evolution didn't happen. What about platypuses? They lay eggs and have bills.Yeah. If they didn't grow lungs they would drown in the air. And if they didn't grow legs, they would drown in the water.That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
Irreducibly complex.
They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.
No but, we're talking about an animal that shows traits of two different groups. You have your frog who is mostly anphibian but shows characteristics of a fish. You also have a platypus who's mostly mammal but shows charactaristics of a reptile and/or bird.Uhhh neither of those things would kill a platypus. Are you posting high again?So, just because they evolved differently, evolution didn't happen. What about platypuses? They lay eggs and have bills.Yeah. If they didn't grow lungs they would drown in the air. And if they didn't grow legs, they would drown in the water.That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
Irreducibly complex.
Isn't it? I call it trollecation. (though it gets hard when they take a wrong turn to correct them, because you try to prove them wrong whether they are right or wrong)fitting name. i think sometimes (in a case you described) it can be quite frustrating because no matter what answer they give it appears to be flawed. as a side effect they learn debating.
My question is, how did the first ones gain the ability to grow lungs without already having the ability to go on land?
No but, we're talking about an animal that shows traits of two different groups. You have your frog who is mostly anphibian but shows characteristics of a fish. You also have a platypus who's mostly mammal but shows charactaristics of a reptile and/or bird.Uhhh neither of those things would kill a platypus. Are you posting high again?So, just because they evolved differently, evolution didn't happen. What about platypuses? They lay eggs and have bills.Yeah. If they didn't grow lungs they would drown in the air. And if they didn't grow legs, they would drown in the water.That being stated, evolution didn't happen. This can be seen by frogs. They grow gills in the second stage of their life, if they didn't they would drown in the air, meaning they are irreducibly complex.Evolution didn't happen because of frogs? :-\
Irreducibly complex.
And on your more specific question: They were probably evolved from a species that already had the ability to go on land but went back into the water for a number of possible reasons.
Burden of proof is on those who claim something. You claimed that evolution never happened ;)Can you prove that it didn't?Humans clearly evolved from pirates.
Evolution didn't happen.
Burden of proof is on those that claim something did happen you big silly.
Finally, an evolution win I agree with.
So you forfeit? Evolution did not happen. I win.
The only thing keeping me from ripping into this thread is that Raist's posts are so outlandish I cannot decide if he's joking.
This was total trollbait, and I loved it.
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.
Obviously, it's not like other species use items that are not part of them for shelter. Like apes using leaves. That's completely different.
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.
Obviously, it's not like other species use items that are not part of them for shelter. Like apes using leaves. That's completely different.
Inorite?? Shelter against the elements and clothing, even in warmer times are completely different. It's like these people can't even figure out simple logic.
Good thing for God, huh?
Clothing is shelter silly. It's portable shelter. We've just been given by god the knowledge of how to make portable shelter for privacy.
yes.Good thing for God, huh?
Clothing is shelter silly. It's portable shelter. We've just been given by god the knowledge of how to make portable shelter for privacy.
Second, remember the evolution theory is just that- a theory. This still has not been proved absolutely 100%, and even those in this field know that they have yet to prove it.100% proof only exists in mathematics. What Evolution theory does have is a shit-ton of evidence.
and certainly not the short span between a tadpole's life and the time it becomes a full grown frog. Therefore the frog could NOT have evolved, for the time period is too short.I really hope you aren't this ignorant. I suspect you are, though.
This is in reference to Raist as well as some of Warrdog and Dann's comments particularly Moonlit's comments. This is in reference to the remark that Raist made about frogs growing gills in their 2nd stage of life. Evolution or evolving takes time, and even scientists who subcribe to the evolution theory know it takes quite a bit of time, and certainly not the short span between a tadpole's life and the time it becomes a full grown frog. Therefore the frog could NOT have evolved, for the time period is too short. Second, remember the evolution theory is just that- a theory. This still has not been proved absolutely 100%, and even those in this field know that they have yet to prove it.There is a difference between metamorphosis and evolution. If you don't know the answer look it up.
As far as I know, no one has been able to adequately explain the origin of life itself...
Creationism is not an explanation. It is an unsupported and arbitrary hypothesis. Our collective ignorance is not a win, but a failure for our species in general.
We would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling universe...
Here is a video on the topic. It illustrates science's current thinking on abiogenesis . I hope this clears up some christian brainwashing for you.
Here's another very informative video on evolution.Reported for spamming a serious discussion board.
Here's another very informative video on evolution.Reported for spamming a serious discussion board.
Is that intentionally ironic or are you an idiot?I planned to delete my post afterwards, so that anteater had an opportunity to see why it was removed.
That is about how you will get treated by me in any scenario.Good to know.
The topic itself is a parody of the creationist side.So you do believe in evolution then?
He was about on par with the rest of the thread.I gather that the thread's intent was to made creationists find and highlight their own flaws through simple substitution, which seems like it could/would be done with serious intent and execution.
Evolution happened, it just wasn't a random, purposeless event. The on-going discovery that even the most simple of cells are basically uber-computers operating under strict guidelines completely kills that idea. In other words, Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" has been murdered by modern science, and using evolution as a means of becoming an "intellectually fulfilled atheist" is now D.O.A.
I know this isn't what you self-deluded folks would like to read, but it's the truth.
Ok, so whoever thinks evolution didn't happen should stick there head in a microwave.Troll alert.
I hope you stupid people all burn in heaven.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
I'll have what you're smoking.Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" has been murdered by modern science...
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.
I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?
What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever. We have shelters to do the same thing. Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly. The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack.We have to draw the line somewhere.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.
I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?
What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever. We have shelters to do the same thing. Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly. The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack. Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.
I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?
What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever. We have shelters to do the same thing. Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly. The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack. Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.
I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.
And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.
I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?
What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever. We have shelters to do the same thing. Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly. The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack. Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.
I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.
And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.
I assume you can't understand the Queen's English - my apologies for the assumption. I was just asking you to keep criticism constructive rather than make childish comments - which you have done so again. And while today, clothing is indeed used to protect modesty, among other things, at the time of its 'invention', it was most likely used as protection from the elements.
Exactly, just because we have a brain devoted to using tools does not mean we would wear clothing. I mean even though the concept of a tool and clothing is basically the same, clothing IS NOT A TOOL!
Depends how you look at it. One could argue that clothing was a tool invented as a portable shelter, if you will.
Oh yeah, and turtles just made some portable shelter for their backs cuz they was all like, I need a house.
I've heard ignorance is bliss, can I ask how awesome your life must be?
What's wrong with what I said? Clothing is used to shield us from the elements, cold, heat, rain whatever. We have shelters to do the same thing. Ergo, clothing is a crude shelter, broadly speaking admittedly. The site is all about putting forward what sound like outlandish theories and ideas, you hack. Do try and keep a civil tone if you read something you don't like.
I don't wear clothes as shelter, I wear them so women don't see my male parts and become all excited, poor little things, they lack the intelligence to control themselves. Bit sad they couldn't have "evolved" (wink wink nudge nudge) brains the size of ours. If it's cold I go inside where it is warm like a normal person. If your clothing is the only thing keeping you from the elements you should have worked harder and gotten a job as something other than an eskimo.
And your second to last sentence makes no sense. Please try harder next time, I know you descended from a monkey, but that doesn't mean you have to type like one.
I assume you can't understand the Queen's English - my apologies for the assumption. I was just asking you to keep criticism constructive rather than make childish comments - which you have done so again. And while today, clothing is indeed used to protect modesty, among other things, at the time of its 'invention', it was most likely used as protection from the elements.
I understood the sentence completely. It was in relation to everything else that it made no sense. With no apparent context you stated "this site is all about putting forward outlandish theories and ideas," then you trailed off into some ad hominem attack. Are you saying that clothing being shelter is an outlandish idea? Or are you saying my ideas are outlandish, which fits the site, but makes me a hack. Neither of those are very useful things to say.
Also, you should probably read more of the thread than the first post before you begin a debate, you may feel a bit smarter, and see what has already been discussed thoroughly.
Yes, I was admitting that my claim was quite outlandish, as I of course have no proof.You have no evidence to support your claims (which you admit to being outlandish) and yet you feel that jokes made at the expense of such absurdities are unjustified? You, sir, are the hack.
I DID read the whole thread, what started me on this particular topic was Wardogg's claim that 'Clothes are proof evolution never happened'.
My attack was simply in response to the turtle joke you made, as I felt it was unjustified. Hence I called you a hack.
That device is obviously used to communicate the fact that you are a homosexual. Of course gays would believe in evolution.
LOL.
No you aren't, but I'm now pretty aware of the kind of person you are. You think you are smart, yet you still have no idea what is going on. You take sarcasm at face value and then find people hostile. You refuse to read an entire thread, or even pay attention when I say I was making a point.
I was starting to think you were semi intelligent. I give up on you. Later.
LOL.
No you aren't, but I'm now pretty aware of the kind of person you are. You think you are smart, yet you still have no idea what is going on. You take sarcasm at face value and then find people hostile. You refuse to read an entire thread, or even pay attention when I say I was making a point.
I was starting to think you were semi intelligent. I give up on you. Later.
No Raist - I KNOW I am smart and I have a pretty good idea what is going on. As I stated I did read the entire thread, but I responded in particular to Wardogg's statement. And what point were you making with that sarcastic turtle remark?
A homophobic anti-semite remarking on my intelligence? Really, that has made my day.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
LOL.
No you aren't, but I'm now pretty aware of the kind of person you are. You think you are smart, yet you still have no idea what is going on. You take sarcasm at face value and then find people hostile. You refuse to read an entire thread, or even pay attention when I say I was making a point.
I was starting to think you were semi intelligent. I give up on you. Later.
No Raist - I KNOW I am smart and I have a pretty good idea what is going on. As I stated I did read the entire thread, but I responded in particular to Wardogg's statement. And what point were you making with that sarcastic turtle remark?
A homophobic anti-semite remarking on my intelligence? Really, that has made my day.
So anti semites can't be intelligent? How fucking bigoted are you? Hating jews is now somehow related to intelligence?
I was asking you to reread this thread minus your standard knee jerk reaction. You really do come off as a know it all twat. Maybe you'd realize I do believe in evolution. And all my questions are answered within my posts, perhaps to get people to think about how flawed the creationist topic is.
Now shut up and quit thinking yourself smart. Omg, I said the word jew? I must hate jews. Yup, only answer for it. Jesus christ i seriously hope you get in a car accident.
What intelligent reason could there be for hating every member of a race or group?Isn't subdividing our species by race politically incorrect these days? ::)I KNOW I'm smart. And secure enough in my self not to be insecure around homosexuals you sad, sad, little man.Why can someone not be secure in their revulsion toward homosexuals? I know I am.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
I can't believe you're this stupid.
Naws, I read the whole thing. A bit boring in the middle, but it picked up toward the end. The part where Wardogg was gay and everything was cool.
All in all, I like it, it has a good beat, and I can BUG out to it!
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
You are a fool. Have you ever actually studied evolution? If you had you would see the many similarities between the species. And if evolution never happened, then how did it happen genius? And how can we adapt and change to meet the needs of our environments?Fail.
Don't try to feed me some crap about God either.
So instead of giving a half reasonable answer all you do is an automatic fail which basically renders the person asking the question null and void?
If that is all you can do then surely the person calling fail has failed themselves.
LOL, I fully understand evolution you patronising tool.
What you fail to understand is that evolution is not soley confined to species changinging/evolving into other species.
One species changing ever so slightly to adapt to its surroundings is evolution. Just like the fact we no longer need our appendix.
Smaller doors easier to defend? Thats going down as my signature now. HA HA.
Look lads i know the moat, the 60 foot wall and the boiling oil have now been conquered, but i just cant get into this 4ft door. Come on back to France.
And im the one who has embarrassed themselves.
Genius.
Clearly you think you have all the answers, enlighten me.LOL, I fully understand evolution you patronising tool.
What you fail to understand is that evolution is not soley confined to species changinging/evolving into other species.
One species changing ever so slightly to adapt to its surroundings is evolution. Just like the fact we no longer need our appendix.
Smaller doors easier to defend? Thats going down as my signature now. HA HA.
Look lads i know the moat, the 60 foot wall and the boiling oil have now been conquered, but i just cant get into this 4ft door. Come on back to France.
And im the one who has embarrassed themselves.
Genius.
I understand that you think that you understand evolution. Please, further you study in the subject and the reason for your embarrassment will become apparent.
There is no real genetic advantage to height that would make someone more likely to survive or breed. Indeed, tall men are generally preferred, but mid-to-short women are also preferred, meaning that the gene continues perfectly well. There has never been a point where short people never got any sex at all ever, nor has there ever been a mass-midget cull, so there is no disadvantage to being short, either. Not only this, but the assumption that the height of the average man going from <4ft (I assume from your mention of 4ft doors, as you provided no link) to around 6ft in hundreds of years is ridiculous. Evolution happens over millions of years, not hundreds. You're debating for the right side, but you're doing so against a troll and doing a remarkably poor job, too.I honestly cannot believe someone so pompous could be so incorrect.
There is no real genetic advantage to height that would make someone more likely to survive or breed. Indeed, tall men are generally preferred, but mid-to-short women are also preferred, meaning that the gene continues perfectly well. There has never been a point where short people never got any sex at all ever, nor has there ever been a mass-midget cull, so there is no disadvantage to being short, either. Not only this, but the assumption that the height of the average man going from <4ft (I assume from your mention of 4ft doors, as you provided no link) to around 6ft in hundreds of years is ridiculous. Evolution happens over millions of years, not hundreds. You're debating for the right side, but you're doing so against a troll and doing a remarkably poor job, too.I honestly cannot believe someone so pompous could be so incorrect.
Evolution is not dictated to by timetables, it is however dictated by circumstance.
Genuinely shocking!
LOL, I fully understand evolution you patronising tool.
What you fail to understand is that evolution is not soley confined to species changinging/evolving into other species.
One species changing ever so slightly to adapt to its surroundings is evolution. Just like the fact we no longer need our appendix.
If people are changing diets/nutrition over period of time and thus changing their phyical appearence as a species, then this is evolution.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Even the Vatican, the head of the Catholic church, accepts evolution and agrees that Darwin was correct.
Evolution occurs in millions of years, according to an organism's habitat.
Don't forget the fact that among humans, intelligence and survival skills no longer confer evolutionary advantages: the opposite is true. The white trash guy who has 12 kids because he doesn't know what condoms are (and is too drunk to care) spreads his genes much further than the Nobel Prize laureate who only has 2 kids.Evolution occurs in millions of years, according to an organism's habitat.
It's much more complicated than that. There are more factors than just the time that has passed which need to be taken into account - for instance, the main reasons humans no longer evolve are that we have frequent long-distance travel (which turns the whole world into a blend of different races) and our medical technology has allowed all but the harshest of diseases to be non-fatal. On the other hand, entire species have become extinct due to human activity in the past millenium, which is obviously a far smaller timescale than millions of years.
I am going to be honest. That was depressing.Don't forget the fact that among humans, intelligence and survival skills no longer confer evolutionary advantages: the opposite is true. The white trash guy who has 12 kids because he doesn't know what condoms are (and is too drunk to care) spreads his genes much further than the Nobel Prize laureate who only has 2 kids.Evolution occurs in millions of years, according to an organism's habitat.
It's much more complicated than that. There are more factors than just the time that has passed which need to be taken into account - for instance, the main reasons humans no longer evolve are that we have frequent long-distance travel (which turns the whole world into a blend of different races) and our medical technology has allowed all but the harshest of diseases to be non-fatal. On the other hand, entire species have become extinct due to human activity in the past millenium, which is obviously a far smaller timescale than millions of years.
Don't forget the fact that among humans, intelligence and survival skills no longer confer evolutionary advantages: the opposite is true. The white trash guy who has 12 kids because he doesn't know what condoms are (and is too drunk to care) spreads his genes much further than the Nobel Prize laureate who only has 2 kids.Evolution occurs in millions of years, according to an organism's habitat.
It's much more complicated than that. There are more factors than just the time that has passed which need to be taken into account - for instance, the main reasons humans no longer evolve are that we have frequent long-distance travel (which turns the whole world into a blend of different races) and our medical technology has allowed all but the harshest of diseases to be non-fatal. On the other hand, entire species have become extinct due to human activity in the past millenium, which is obviously a far smaller timescale than millions of years.
To be fair, life expectency is much lower among such demographics, so it probably balances out.
To be fair, life expectency is much lower among such demographics, so it probably balances out.
Apparently you've never been to Wal-Mart.
and possibly a little smarter due to nutrition.
I dont think Religion all together is dismissed as one big lie.
When they refer to the sun of god, They are actually talking about the physical wheel that's in the sky, Which in the bible says that when jesus got crucified and came back 3 days later was actually meaning the wheel in the sky.
the wheel in the sky.
the wheel in the sky.
the wheel in the sky.
the wheel in the sky.
the wheel in the sky.
No, I just don't see the point in beating a dead debate
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
No, I just don't see the point in beating a dead debate
That's pretty big of you. Admitting when you're wrong and proven wrong.
???
How am I wrong when I have been with the evolution argument saying that evolution didn't happen?
Thats okay that you think its total bullshit. Its your opinion. I have my own.
I dont think Religion all together is dismissed as one big lie.
And...
Pongo, Religion is one big lie, If the people in the video seemed intelligent to you then you are done for.
They believe what they are saying cause the people have been brainwashed through decades of indoctrination by the cathols.
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
I guess sometimes you just dont get it.
The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.actually national Geographic had an entire article explaining how it could have happened. I explained how it happened in a different thread and I don't feel like explaining it again. if you want to know how it could happen use Google.
I wasnt using the "eye" as proof, only as an example. Just to get the brain juices flowing. Dont take it so personal.Pongo, Religion is one big lie, If the people in the video seemed intelligent to you then you are done for.They believe what they are saying cause the people have been brainwashed through decades of indoctrination by the cathols.
Are you trying to say that only non-intelligent people can become brainwashed? There are many highly intelligent theists out there. Do not underestimate your opponent.The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
This is a classic example. Whenever someone brings up the eye as proof against evolution, you can immediately infer that they have little or no understanding of the theory of evolution, regardless of what they claim. It's also abundantly clear that you copy/pasted that statement, most likely from a christian propaganda website. If I were to google the sentence, "The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously," would I get any hits? Back to the point though, the eye has been proven, countless times, to have evolved. There are current living species in every single stage of the eye's development. The mountains of proof for the development of the eye is only hidden from your view by the lack of will to learn about it. Evolution alone does fully explain the eye and the brain.
Your statement -- or who ever you copy/pasted it from -- that evolution does not explain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter is completely true. But it's like saying that calculus does not explain the pythagorean theorem. While still true, it makes the speaker look ill-imed on the topic they are trying to debate. So, please stop saying you've done "a lot" of study on evolution, with each passing post it becomes more and more apparent that you in fact have not.
I wasnt using the "eye" as proof, only as an example. Just to get the brain juices flowing. Dont take it so personal.
Evolution excists.
As someone said here already humans got 94% the same DNA as chimps. Also scientists have discovered corpse remains of .. "less developed" human-monkey-things. And the reason why only humans wear clothes is that human is the only intelligent enough creature on earth at the moment to be able to use the recourses given to produce something like clothing.
I really hope that whoever arguing here about evolution being false, is not serious.
Personally I find it harder to belive that a great wizard created humans. Rofl.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
"If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?"
Don't we allready see many different kinds of apes/monkeys? Yes we do.
And after all, I dont believe it's possible to find every "missing link" in evolution, and it will allways be many unanswered questions regarding evolution.
Do you want us to address the points presented? Or was this merely humor?
Do you want us to address the points presented? Or was this merely humor?
I don't give a shit what you do. In fact, for future reference, all my posts will be specifically not addressed to you, BOGWarrior89. I'm not saying that I don't want you to reply to my posts or that you shouldn't reply to them, I am just saying that I place absolutely no value on your opinion and thus do not care in the slightest what you say or do. Therefore, you may regard everything I post to be directed to everyone but yourself.
That video is freaking hilarious. Bookmarked.
Did he just use a stick of dynamite in a bowling ball as an analogy for the big bang?I think he did, but not before implying that it was a rock that exploded.
Did he just use a stick of dynamite in a bowling ball as an analogy for the big bang?I think he did, but not before implying that it was a rock that exploded.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
That is a horrible troll. I love it though.
My two cents: ToE never made the bolded claim that humans came from primates.
If people came from chimpanzees then how come there aren't any chimps out there birthing people? It's simply ill conceived.
If people came from chimpanzees then how come there aren't any chimps out there birthing people? It's simply ill conceived.
You sir are a boon to the internet. Thank you.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
That is a horrible troll. I love it though.
My two cents: ToE never made the bolded claim that humans came from primates.
I really don't care what your toe claimed, I'm talking about those darn atheists with their belief in an all powerful time god.
I don't care how long you wait, chimps don't turn into humans. I heard one even say that my little puppy Frishes came from wolves. If you ever met my min pin you'd know she could never take down a deer. What nerve.
If people came from chimpanzees then how come there aren't any chimps out there birthing people? It's simply ill conceived.
If people came from chimpanzees then how come there aren't any chimps out there birthing people? It's simply ill conceived.
and, and, and, if humans came from chimps, why are there sill chimps? Checkmate!
It's great because of how many times this is actually claimed in serious debates.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
That is a horrible troll. I love it though.
My two cents: ToE never made the bolded claim that humans came from primates.
I really don't care what your toe claimed, I'm talking about those darn atheists with their belief in an all powerful time god.
I don't care how long you wait, chimps don't turn into humans. I heard one even say that my little puppy Frishes came from wolves. If you ever met my min pin you'd know she could never take down a deer. What nerve.
Theory of Evolution NEVER makes the claim that chimps turn into humans. Nor does it claim that your puppy Frishes or whatever came from wolves.
Good to see a fellow creationist is here.
Good to see a fellow creationist is here.
I agree, Ragnorr Rocks.
I think the bible is missing a few pages. God used the mud he breathed on to scour the fur from a chimp/ape to create adam. Besides the hair/fur, god had to make a few other slight modifications to size, posture, brain size, and the ability to learn and teach, etc. One of these modifications involved rib removal - which would come in handy later. Frishes however DID come from wolves as the domesticated dog is only micro evolution/breeding which intelligent design allows. (I'm sounding more like a FE'er already)If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
That is a horrible troll. I love it though.
My two cents: ToE never made the bolded claim that humans came from primates.
I really don't care what your toe claimed, I'm talking about those darn atheists with their belief in an all powerful time god.
I don't care how long you wait, chimps don't turn into humans. I heard one even say that my little puppy Frishes came from wolves. If you ever met my min pin you'd know she could never take down a deer. What nerve.
Theory of Evolution NEVER makes the claim that chimps turn into humans. Nor does it claim that your puppy Frishes or whatever came from wolves.
Good to see a fellow creationist is here.
I think the bible is missing a few pages. God used the mud he breathed on to scour the fur from a chimp/ape to create adam. Besides the hair/fur, god had to make a few other slight modifications to size, posture, brain size, and the ability to learn and teach, etc. One of these modifications involved rib removal - which would come in handy later. Frishes however DID come from wolves as the domesticated dog is only micro evolution/breeding which intelligent design allows. (I'm sounding more like a FE'er already)If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
That is a horrible troll. I love it though.
My two cents: ToE never made the bolded claim that humans came from primates.
I really don't care what your toe claimed, I'm talking about those darn atheists with their belief in an all powerful time god.
I don't care how long you wait, chimps don't turn into humans. I heard one even say that my little puppy Frishes came from wolves. If you ever met my min pin you'd know she could never take down a deer. What nerve.
Theory of Evolution NEVER makes the claim that chimps turn into humans. Nor does it claim that your puppy Frishes or whatever came from wolves.
Good to see a fellow creationist is here.
The whole dust thing always confused me as i don't seem to be made out of sillicates. lots of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen, but no sillicates.
Yes, so mud is the new way to carry genetic information for evolution?
Also, frishes could never take down a moose, now you are being intentionally obtuse.
The whole dust thing always confused me as i don't seem to be made out of sillicates. lots of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen, but no sillicates.
Yes, so mud is the new way to carry genetic information for evolution?
Also, frishes could never take down a moose, now you are being intentionally obtuse.
hello chicken, i'm egg.The whole dust thing always confused me as i don't seem to be made out of sillicates. lots of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen, but no sillicates.
Yes, so mud is the new way to carry genetic information for evolution?
Also, frishes could never take down a moose, now you are being intentionally obtuse.
Most dust in your house is made of human skin. So I'd say that dust and people are made of a very similar composition.
You have a lot of sand in your house?Most dust in your house is made of human skin.Most dust on the ground is sillicates, like sand.
hello chicken, i'm egg.The whole dust thing always confused me as i don't seem to be made out of sillicates. lots of hydrogen and carbon and oxygen, but no sillicates.
Yes, so mud is the new way to carry genetic information for evolution?
Also, frishes could never take down a moose, now you are being intentionally obtuse.
Most dust in your house is made of human skin. So I'd say that dust and people are made of a very similar composition.
Most dust on the ground is sillicates, like sand.
There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So, the kidneys prove evolution wrong, we have two and only need one. Testicles can both do the work on their own, so more redundancy, The appendix does a little immune system work and a few redundant tasks, so it also disproves evolution. Two different parts of your brain handle the inputs from your eyes, one consciously the other subconsciously, if you don't believe that, some stroke victims go completely blind, but can still catch a ball that is thrown at them or interpret someone's facial expression.
So this redundancy proves that evolution is a lie, thank you.
There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So, the kidneys prove evolution wrong, we have two and only need one. Testicles can both do the work on their own, so more redundancy, The appendix does a little immune system work and a few redundant tasks, so it also disproves evolution. Two different parts of your brain handle the inputs from your eyes, one consciously the other subconsciously, if you don't believe that, some stroke victims go completely blind, but can still catch a ball that is thrown at them or interpret someone's facial expression.
So this redundancy proves that evolution is a lie, thank you.
Im confuzed, evolution didnt happen because we have organs that do useless things?
Their called vestigal organs. We have them because in the past we needed them, but evolved to the state where their useless. Since them being there or not doesnt affect us at all, we never evolved out of them.
funny you should mention 2 kidneys you dont need both of them...of all the organs you do not need both of them, even the lungs.There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So it's bad to have 2 kidneys?
funny you should mention 2 kidneys you dont need both of them...of all the organs you do not need both of them, even the lungs.There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So it's bad to have 2 kidneys?
funny you should mention 2 kidneys you dont need both of them...of all the organs you do not need both of them, even the lungs.There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So it's bad to have 2 kidneys?
So than why do we have them?
(and you really cant live with only one lung)
funny you should mention 2 kidneys you dont need both of them...of all the organs you do not need both of them, even the lungs.There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So it's bad to have 2 kidneys?
So than why do we have them?
(and you really cant live with only one lung)
Because it makes things easier, and you really can live with one lung.
funny you should mention 2 kidneys you dont need both of them...of all the organs you do not need both of them, even the lungs.There is no reason to having more than one organ doing the same thing, therefor, if evolution didn't happen there would be redundancy.
So it's bad to have 2 kidneys?
So than why do we have them?
(and you really cant live with only one lung)
Because it makes things easier, and you really can live with one lung.
Having two testicles makes no difference. They do not make things any easier at all.I do hope you aren't speaking from experience.
Having two testicles makes no difference. They do not make things any easier at all.I do hope you aren't speaking from experience.
Also, try doing anything with only one finger.
Raist, I've never seen someone argue that "Evolution didn't happen" and win a debate.
It's not that we deny the evidence for evolution, we just interpret it differently.
It's not that we deny the evidence for evolution, we just interpret it differently.
Can't argue with that. You should have Raist's mod position.
The proper way to troll is to horrify them, but make them want to help you.
All of evolution is basically unarguable. No one was there to observe it so it's simply not science. Also, here is some insight for you...
All that video proves is that micro-evolution is hypothesized to lead to macro-evolution. Spoiler: it dosen't. Usually Raist has come in by now to back me up, he's better at this than I.
Sorry I meant microevolution, but that it leads to macroevolution. sadly the video has been votebotted by creationists, it was 5 stars last time i checked.
Macroevolution when used in the context of this debate, meaning evolution at a scale large enough to cause speciation. It does not mean a single mutation of a large scale but multiple mutation leading up to a point that 2 groups that used to be a single species will no longer interbreed.
This has been observed in many situations. In fact, some London rats that had stowed away on the HMS Beagle found their way onto several islands. They have mutated to the point that they will no longer interbreed with London rats. Saying macroevolution is not proven is simply going along with creationist propaganda.
Your analogy is also very unfit. You are talking about rate of mutation interchangeably with number of mutations.
I may be mistaken, and I hope I am, you seemed to go both ways in this. To clear this up, evolution refers to species changing over time due to their genetics dealing with external forces, mutations are the change in the DNA due to mistakes during they copying process.
It's not that we deny the evidence for evolution, we just interpret it differently.
Fingers are not a redundancy, each performs a separate task.What does your right thumb do that your left thumb doesn't?
The eye, just like many organs, is irreducibly complex.Precisely. Belief in evolution requires just as much faith.
Things my right thumb can do that my left can't:
Stimulate a clitoris while my index and middle fingers are in the vaginal canal and left thumb is in the anus.
Fingers are not a redundancy, each performs a separate task.What does your right thumb do that your left thumb doesn't?
I was replying to try doing something with only one finger, not try doing anything with just one hand.Okay... lift something heavy with one finger.
I was replying to try doing something with only one finger, not try doing anything with just one hand.Okay... lift something heavy with one finger.
Also, a hand example is just effective as demonstrating my point. I cannot climb many trees with only one hand.
Therefore hands also have separate tasks. You are arguing this incorrectly.Separate is implied by redundancy. Perhaps you're thinking of 'significantly different'.
First you were arguing that your thumbs do the same task, now you are claiming that you need both arms to climb trees, but our arms aren't for climbing trees. In fact we are poorly suited for climbing anything.Therefore hands also have separate tasks. You are arguing this incorrectly.Separate is implied by redundancy. Perhaps you're thinking of 'significantly different'.
First you were arguing that your thumbs do the same task, now you are claiming that you need both arms to climb trees, but our arms aren't for climbing trees. In fact we are poorly suited for climbing anything.Actually, I was arguing that redundancy is necessary. Hands, thumbs, and arms do perform the same tasks and by having more than one, they allow us to accomplish our goals more easily or entirely.
Thank you for introducing complete nonsense into the debate. Humans are apes meant for living on savannas not jungles.
Also, try doing anything with only one finger.
First you were arguing that your thumbs do the same task, now you are claiming that you need both arms to climb trees, but our arms aren't for climbing trees. In fact we are poorly suited for climbing anything.Actually, I was arguing that redundancy is necessary. Hands, thumbs, and arms do perform the same tasks and by having more than one, they allow us to accomplish our goals more easily or entirely.
Thank you for introducing complete nonsense into the debate. Humans are apes meant for living on savannas not jungles.
Recall:Also, try doing anything with only one finger.
Also arms aren't hands.
Thank you for starting a complete nonsense thread in a debate section.
There isn't anything that I can see with my left eye that I couldn't see (all else being equal) with my right eye, yet there is a clear advantage to having two eyes. Raist is correct.Yet that was my point. I said multiple instances of the same organ/limb/other are beneficial. ::)
Having two testicles makes no difference. A lot of dual organs are unneeded. They do not make things any easier at all.
Cool story? I was originally addressing the pointless redundancy such as kidneys, and such. Or the pancreas that does partial jobs that other organs do much better. Just because there are examples where redundancy is helpful, does not mean that all redundancy is necessary.Can you name a redundancy that doesn't help us survive to ultimately procreate and pass on our genes?
Two kidneys, two sections of the brain controlling vision completely separately. Two testicles, one can produce the same amount of sperm as two. Two nipples.Source?
The vascular system, in regards to vessels and the like, is riddled with redundancy that is not necessary for survival.Redundancy the same way that RE spacecrafts carry redundant systems in case one should be damaged? I'll bet it increases the rate of repair to have additional vessels.
Fingers are not a redundancy, each performs a separate task.What does your right thumb do that your left thumb doesn't?
There isn't anything that I can see with my left eye that I couldn't see (all else being equal) with my right eye, yet there is a clear advantage to having two eyes. Raist is correct.Yet that was my point. I said multiple instances of the same organ/limb/other are beneficial. ::)
When I say redundant, I am using it to say 'multiple instances'. I don't mean to include a negative connotation of 'unnecessary' or 'in excess'.
To extend on the point of redundant organs maybe it would be good to add something else to the table. The eye, as being described as a "perfect" organ, is actually incredibly inefficient. Let me list the problems:
- The photocells are the last of many layers of cells which the light hits in your eye, this effect distorts and dampens the image (perhaps not much, but this would offend any conscious engineer.)
- The photocells are facing away from the direction the light comes in. This may sound bizarre but it's true.
- Due to the poor way in which the cells are wired to the brain from the eye there's a large blind spot. Anyone can test this for themselves, just google blind spot.
- The cells on the edges of our eyes are only sensitive to black and white, an object on the edge of our view won't have any colour. Again this can be tested, try and hold two different coloured cards to the edge of your vision and try and tell them apart.
- There are countless animals out there with better vision than we have, they can see clearer and more focused images and can see more colours. If these eyes were designed then why weren't they given to the Humans who can surely enjoy them more and put them to greater use?
What does a creationist say about those issues?
So you agree that everything we have is necessary and that we don't have hundreds of extra parts like evolution would inevitably supply?I can't technically agree as long as you don't share that view. You said some things were unnecessary.
To be honest I'm not really interested in the defence for creationism, what bothers me is how people argue against evolution by claiming our design is perfect. Next time you're praying and thanking god for making your body you might want to also point out how awful your thirst sense is and how horrifically inefficient the female period is, not to mention how dangerous the process of giving birth is. Thanks god.I know that I should be warned for this but wow, I just lold hard.
If the world were perfect, then there would be no challenges to overcome.
Then I'm not sure that we have an issue here. I think that every sane person on these boards can agree with us that life was designed by an intelligence
Then I'm not sure that we have an issue here. I think that every sane person on these boards can agree with us that life was designed by an intelligence
Or is it that you relentlessly subscribe to the "god of the gaps" arguement?
So let me ask you the age old question, where did this "intelligence" originate? What was the point in creating anything? Did god create creativity before being creative aka. a paradox, or, are there concepts in which even god cannot control?
Or is it that you relentlessly subscribe to the "god of the gaps" arguement?
Then I'm not sure that we have an issue here. I think that every sane person on these boards can agree with us that life was designed by an intelligence
Or is it that you relentlessly subscribe to the "god of the gaps" arguement?
So let me ask you the age old question, where did this "intelligence" originate? What was the point in creating anything? Did god create creativity before being creative aka. a paradox, or, are there concepts in which even god cannot control?
That is a ridiculous question, creativity is not a real thing, it is simply a term we use for inductive reasoning a form of logic. And who says god is in any way "creative?" The christian theology in no way claims an understanding of god or how he originates, it explicitly states that god is unknowable, a being of incredible power that we will never understand.
Your questions make a demand beyond anything that is reasonable. May I ask you where the singularity of the big bang originated? It is the same problem. We are obviously only a single universe within many. I am 100% sure even our most logical assumptions about the universe will one day be treated in the same way as you treat religion. Who is to say that there is not some being not from our universe that has intervened throughout history including the very making of our universe?
That is a ridiculous question, creativity is not a real thing, it is simply a term we use for inductive reasoning a form of logic. And who says god is in any way "creative?" The christian theology in no way claims an understanding of god or how he originates, it explicitly states that god is unknowable, a being of incredible power that we will never understand.
Your questions make a demand beyond anything that is reasonable. May I ask you where the singularity of the big bang originated? It is the same problem. We are obviously only a single universe within many.
Then I'm not sure that we have an issue here. I think that every sane person on these boards can agree with us that life was designed by an intelligence
Or is it that you relentlessly subscribe to the "god of the gaps" arguement?
So let me ask you the age old question, where did this "intelligence" originate? What was the point in creating anything? Did god create creativity before being creative aka. a paradox, or, are there concepts in which even god cannot control?
That is a ridiculous question, creativity is not a real thing, it is simply a term we use for inductive reasoning a form of logic. And who says god is in any way "creative?" The christian theology in no way claims an understanding of god or how he originates, it explicitly states that god is unknowable, a being of incredible power that we will never understand.
Your questions make a demand beyond anything that is reasonable. May I ask you where the singularity of the big bang originated? It is the same problem. We are obviously only a single universe within many. I am 100% sure even our most logical assumptions about the universe will one day be treated in the same way as you treat religion. Who is to say that there is not some being not from our universe that has intervened throughout history including the very making of our universe?
Indeed this possibility cannot be ruled out. But a consciousness from another universe who claims to have tampered with our physics slightly is very different to a consciousness who claims to have given us souls, original sin, a book to live by and will take us away for eternity when we die. I don't think anyone in their right mind could ever deny the possibility that there could be a consciousness that influenced our universe or started it, but stating this possibility and then claiming a personal god who hears prayers are two extremely different things.
I think I also slightly disagree with your point on Christianity. I don't see how it's possible for a person to admit ignorance over their deity and claim he isn't understandable by any human mind, but then also claim they know exactly how to please this god and know what he's going to do for them if they follow his rules. Doesn't this contradict the claim?
That is a ridiculous question, creativity is not a real thing, it is simply a term we use for inductive reasoning a form of logic. And who says god is in any way "creative?" The christian theology in no way claims an understanding of god or how he originates, it explicitly states that god is unknowable, a being of incredible power that we will never understand.
cre⋅a⋅tive [kree-ey-tiv] Show IPA
?adjective 1. having the quality or power of creating.
So yes Yahway is creative. Creativity is a 'thing', you either can create or you can't.QuoteYour questions make a demand beyond anything that is reasonable. May I ask you where the singularity of the big bang originated? It is the same problem. We are obviously only a single universe within many.
I don't know, I'm not a scientist that deals with physics.
Of course they were demanding, but, as usual it's the same old "god works in mysterious ways" bollocks. Along with the "god of the gaps". I hear those two "arguements" over and over again.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.thats Crap. God always has a plan and he may or may not make it known to us.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.thats Crap. God always has a plan and he may or may not make it known to us.
It is possible to know what God wants you to do. claiming so does not make you a blasphemer.I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.thats Crap. God always has a plan and he may or may not make it known to us.
When did I say otherwise?
Original sin, souls, and the bible are all products of the catholic church, no sane person will credit those ideas to God, or even that he suggested them.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.
Original sin, souls, and the bible are all products of the catholic church, no sane person will credit those ideas to God, or even that he suggested them.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.
If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules? Unless of course you mean rules of physics in which case calling the driving force of these rules god and giving it a gender is a leap of faith just like any other superstition.
Original sin, souls, and the bible are all products of the catholic church, no sane person will credit those ideas to God, or even that he suggested them.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.
If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules? Unless of course you mean rules of physics in which case calling the driving force of these rules god and giving it a gender is a leap of faith just like any other superstition.
Obviously a belief in the christian God requires you to believe he has spoken to people in the past.
As for the gender, He or Him is customary, mainly because women usually hold a lower place in society, if you want to try to argue that point look up male vs. female wages in any position.
Yes, he is talking about that one. I believe the "rules" that we must follow are the commandments.Original sin, souls, and the bible are all products of the catholic church, no sane person will credit those ideas to God, or even that he suggested them.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.
If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules? Unless of course you mean rules of physics in which case calling the driving force of these rules god and giving it a gender is a leap of faith just like any other superstition.
Obviously a belief in the christian God requires you to believe he has spoken to people in the past.
As for the gender, He or Him is customary, mainly because women usually hold a lower place in society, if you want to try to argue that point look up male vs. female wages in any position.
I'm sure if I got my girlfriend involved this debate would last months, but personally I'm more interested in what these rules are and how you found them out. Are you saying that you believe in a christian god?
Yes I am a christian, but this really doesn't belong in this thread. Just to put things to rest, i do not believe in a young earth, biology is one of my favorite subjects, and I do believe in a completely chemical biological origin to life, and that's pretty much it.Original sin, souls, and the bible are all products of the catholic church, no sane person will credit those ideas to God, or even that he suggested them.
I've never claimed I know exactly how to please him, I simply take the rules he HAS given us and try to follow them, anyone who claims they know what exactly God wants them to do is as much a blasphemer as Moses when he claimed he brought water from the rock.
If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules? Unless of course you mean rules of physics in which case calling the driving force of these rules god and giving it a gender is a leap of faith just like any other superstition.
Obviously a belief in the christian God requires you to believe he has spoken to people in the past.
As for the gender, He or Him is customary, mainly because women usually hold a lower place in society, if you want to try to argue that point look up male vs. female wages in any position.
I'm sure if I got my girlfriend involved this debate would last months, but personally I'm more interested in what these rules are and how you found them out. Are you saying that you believe in a christian god?
Yes I am a christian, but this really doesn't belong in this thread. Just to put things to rest, i do not believe in a young earth, biology is one of my favorite subjects, and I do believe in a completely chemical biological origin to life, and that's pretty much it.I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills. Of course, you could use bacteria in the argument for adaption. After all, they do adapt to new medicines all the time. But they are a different life form completely, and bare little resemblence, genetically, to Eukaryotes.
This thread was more about teaching people that do not understand evolution but "know" it's true exactly how ignorant they are on the subject overall.
There are some fish that if I through onto land could survive for awhile and probably make it to a body of water if it is withing 100 yards of one. look at the snake head. it is spreading itself to other body's of water that are not connect in any way.Yes I am a christian, but this really doesn't belong in this thread. Just to put things to rest, i do not believe in a young earth, biology is one of my favorite subjects, and I do believe in a completely chemical biological origin to life, and that's pretty much it.I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills. Of course, you could use bacteria in the argument for adaption. After all, they do adapt to new medicines all the time. But they are a different life form completely, and bare little resemblence, genetically, to Eukaryotes.
This thread was more about teaching people that do not understand evolution but "know" it's true exactly how ignorant they are on the subject overall.
While what you said is true evolution explains gradual adaptation to environment. Put an animal in a region full of lakes and ponds and the ones that swim better have an advantage.even gradually, how would a species of fish move out of the water and onto land? HOW? it doesn't matter how slowly it happens, how do you go from gills to lungs? So please, save me from my ignorance.
Also, no one claims any land animal has ever evolved gills, gills provide so little oxygen compared to lungs that most land animals could never meet their oxygen needs using them. Evolution describes a gradual change in an animal due to the ones better suited for an environment surviving while the unfit ones die. These gradual selections through out many generations can lead to legs and arms much better suited for swimming, or even a body that flattens out to allow some gliding capabilities.
You may say you are well studied in it, but your general understanding that you have shown here is lacking. Evolution is a process that takes place over generations, never within one animal. Your deer reference does show one thing though, unfit specimens from a species die out, deer are unsuited for the ocean.
Fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
While what you said is true evolution explains gradual adaptation to environment. Put an animal in a region full of lakes and ponds and the ones that swim better have an advantage.even gradually, how would a species of fish move out of the water and onto land? HOW? it doesn't matter how slowly it happens, how do you go from gills to lungs? So please, save me from my ignorance.
Also, no one claims any land animal has ever evolved gills, gills provide so little oxygen compared to lungs that most land animals could never meet their oxygen needs using them. Evolution describes a gradual change in an animal due to the ones better suited for an environment surviving while the unfit ones die. These gradual selections through out many generations can lead to legs and arms much better suited for swimming, or even a body that flattens out to allow some gliding capabilities.
You may say you are well studied in it, but your general understanding that you have shown here is lacking. Evolution is a process that takes place over generations, never within one animal. Your deer reference does show one thing though, unfit specimens from a species die out, deer are unsuited for the ocean.
While what you said is true evolution explains gradual adaptation to environment. Put an animal in a region full of lakes and ponds and the ones that swim better have an advantage.even gradually, how would a species of fish move out of the water and onto land? HOW? it doesn't matter how slowly it happens, how do you go from gills to lungs? So please, save me from my ignorance.
Also, no one claims any land animal has ever evolved gills, gills provide so little oxygen compared to lungs that most land animals could never meet their oxygen needs using them. Evolution describes a gradual change in an animal due to the ones better suited for an environment surviving while the unfit ones die. These gradual selections through out many generations can lead to legs and arms much better suited for swimming, or even a body that flattens out to allow some gliding capabilities.
You may say you are well studied in it, but your general understanding that you have shown here is lacking. Evolution is a process that takes place over generations, never within one animal. Your deer reference does show one thing though, unfit specimens from a species die out, deer are unsuited for the ocean.
A lung isn't something you either have or don't have. It's possible to have half a lung that functions just like it's possible to have 1/100th of a lung. It's possible that sea based creatures developed something similar to a lung packet in the chamber of their mouth so that even when living in muddy swamps they could crudely supply themselves with oxygen until more rain came to fill their habitat. It's all about using your imagination to picture a long line of small changes, each providing some form of advantage to the owner of the mutation.
If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules?
If someone does something and gets hit with a lightning bolt then it is against his rules.If you admit you know nothing of this god or what he wants from you then how have you deduced these rules?
Trial and error.
That sounds quite dangerous though, I figured I'd just carry a baby around. Any time I make a decision I check the baby, if the baby cries then my decision was wrong.
That sounds quite dangerous though, I figured I'd just carry a baby around. Any time I make a decision I check the baby, if the baby cries then my decision was wrong.It is not dangerous at all to you. you watch someone else test to see what is against the rules.
Actually that reminds me of this one summer holiday, we went down south to cornwall (I live in England) and one of the days we were there we went fishing in a place called boscastle. The day itself was really nice, boscastle was a beautiful little villiage, but we went home the next day and on the news boscastle had been completely destroyed by a flood almost as soon as we left. Does this means fishing is wrong?
I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills. Of course, you could use bacteria in the argument for adaption. After all, they do adapt to new medicines all the time. But they are a different life form completely, and bare little resemblence, genetically, to Eukaryotes.No you aren't.
I agree with you evolution was actually caused by species shedding their skin and becoming new creatures.
Yes but probably not the god you are thinking of it was most likely the great Planet Mars shining it's beautiful red light down unto us to cause evolution.I agree with you evolution was actually caused by species shedding their skin and becoming new creatures.
God obviously causing this skin shedding with lightning strikes or in some other Godly way.
You are a godless fool.Yes but probably not the god you are thinking of it was most likely the great Planet Mars shining it's beautiful red light down unto us to cause evolution.I agree with you evolution was actually caused by species shedding their skin and becoming new creatures.
God obviously causing this skin shedding with lightning strikes or in some other Godly way.
I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills.It's been a long time since I've seen an argument like this made. I want to sig it, but unfortunately it is too long. Is there any way you can summarize that into an equally stupid argument that doesn't exceed the 255 character signature limit?
I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills.It's been a long time since I've seen an argument like this made. I want to sig it, but unfortunately it is too long. Is there any way you can summarize that into an equally stupid argument that doesn't exceed the 255 character signature limit?
It's just not as funny without the part where he claims that he is educated on the theory of evolution.I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills.It's been a long time since I've seen an argument like this made. I want to sig it, but unfortunately it is too long. Is there any way you can summarize that into an equally stupid argument that doesn't exceed the 255 character signature limit?
Why not just sig the part in bold? I think it expresses the argument succinctly and stupidly enough on its own.
Screenshot it, and post a picture of it on imageshack, and sig the picture.I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills.It's been a long time since I've seen an argument like this made. I want to sig it, but unfortunately it is too long. Is there any way you can summarize that into an equally stupid argument that doesn't exceed the 255 character signature limit?
I wonder what percent of people that use this argument are trolls? I am hoping it is over 50%. although I am guessing it is under 20%I am educated on the theory of evolution, and while I admit that most of it is true, I don't buy it. I completely understand the idea that through random mutations, species can and do change. But the idea of animals adapting to their environment is just stupid. If you throw a fish out of water, it dies. If you throw another one, it also dies. If you throw a deer into the middle of the ocean, it either dies or somehow swims to land. It doesn't grow fins or gills.It's been a long time since I've seen an argument like this made. I want to sig it, but unfortunately it is too long. Is there any way you can summarize that into an equally stupid argument that doesn't exceed the 255 character signature limit?
That's why I said "main" not "only".
That's because for many Christians "researching" evolution involves asking their pastor about it.
Anyone who has even remotely talked medical should have heard of methicillin and penicillin resistant bacteria (you know; anti-biotic resistant bacteria). Just forty years ago, these strains of bacteria didn't even exist.
The reason these strains developed is currently being blamed on misuse of anti-biotic medication (doctor says: take for 5 days to kill off ALL the bacteria, patient only takes for 3 days, then quits because he/she feels fine) over years.
Eventually, certain fish will die and some lucky fish will live. If this happens slow enough and often enough, over a long enough period of time (say it becomes a state's Lawl tradition), only the fish that could survive out of the water for your specified period of time would be able to breed, and only the fish that managed to inherit their parent's air-survivable-gene could surive and thus breed moar fish (which would survive longer out of water).
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Yes you are correct, we have noticed speciation, or "macro evolution" as the pseudo scientists love to call it in order to make a pedantic distinction. The thing is it usually isn't with micro organisms because very few sexually reproduce.So you're not saying that evolution doesn't happen, you're saying that humans didn't originate from very very primitive life?
Yes you are correct, we have noticed speciation, or "macro evolution" as the pseudo scientists love to call it in order to make a pedantic distinction. The thing is it usually isn't with micro organisms because very few sexually reproduce.So you're not saying that evolution doesn't happen, you're saying that humans didn't originate from very very primitive life?
Speciation is evolution.
Clothes never used to exist, but were created by us to protect us from both weather and injuries. It'd be classed as a tool in this case.
Dolphins also use tools, they cover their mouth with some sort of 'sponge' found in the sea to protect their beaks? while they search for food in some places among the sea bed.
Clothes nowadays are just a stupid cultural item among different generations.
I don't know exactly where you two live, but over here it's largely a warmth thing, and over here dolphins don't have beaks, I'm pretty sure no mammal does (apart from the duck billed platypus, but that lays eggs and shit too, it's a freak) but I may be wrong there.
Does that exist?
Does that exist?
No......
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
everything you're saying "we would see" is actually what we do see....
we have many species of animals that share lots of dna and only have few differences.
we see redundant systems in animals all the time....are you seriously arguing this? take some animal biology classes before you even touch this one, hunny.
lol. there are many types of primates
and evolution only suggests life came from water, not "fish"
2/10. not even arguable.
ya'll got trolled.
Yeah... Sure.
Now go off and find your helmet, your mom says she's taking you to the store when we're done.
we have many species of animals that share lots of dna and only have few differences.
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
You are retarded. There are at least two species of fish that I know of that can breathe air. One is native to Thailand, and the other is native to the Amazon. They both surface regularly to literally breathe atmospheric air like you and I. If they are trapped under water for an extended period of time, they will drown. The species native to Thailand can also move around on land.
Yes, atmospheric air. It is not a redundancy. Because normal gilled fish do not breath air that you and I breathe. They extract oxygen. Not atmospheric air which is a cocktail of other gases, such as nitrogen. The Thailand species can breathe air and walk on land because it has ADAPTED to wet and dry seasons, so when the water goes away, the fish won't die. It has EVOLVED to overcome certain issues with its habitat.
I believe that's what I said. Atmospheric air is not a redundancy, it is simply differentiating between the air that you and I breathe and the "air" that gilled fish breathe. And I did say that gilled fish extract oxygen, not air. Assuming that God just created everything completely discourages any sort of logical argument. It is the equivalent of saying "because I said so" which is never a valid point in any argument. The Channidae uses its ability to migrate between bodies of water, by means of crawling and/or wriggling its way across land. It can survive for up to four days out of the water. Also, its diet limits it to living in aquatic environments. Why didn't whales (air breathing mammals) simply stay on land? Why did they evolve fins and go swimming? Because their diet composed mainly of fish, and what better way to get fish, than to go further and further into the ocean.
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
You are retarded. There are at least two species of fish that I know of that can breathe air. One is native to Thailand, and the other is native to the Amazon. They both surface regularly to literally breathe atmospheric air like you and I. If they are trapped under water for an extended period of time, they will drown. The species native to Thailand can also move around on land.
What? No. Now you're mixing my words. Your goldfish requires constant submersion in water in order to extract oxygen from the water. If it is left out of the water, it will die. The Snakehead has both gills and lungs, and can choose which to use, depending on what is required. The species native to the Amazon does not have gills, only lungs, and must surface occasionally. There was a discrepancy in my original post which stated that Snakeheads need to surface; they do not need to surface, but posses lungs in order to survive in potentially oxygen depleted environments, and because of their land walking abilities.
Ok first off, the word you are looking for is BREATHE. Not breath.
Second off, they evolved this ability to live in swampy, oxygen depleted environments. Goldfish live in oxygen rich environments. If they didn't, they would die. These fish have evolved this air breathing ability to live in these oxygen poor environments, which is where a majority of their food source lives.
Because, according to your logic, God didn't make them that way.
NopeBecause, according to your logic, God didn't make them that way.
So it is agreed, evolution does not explain animal life half as well as I do.
NopeBecause, according to your logic, God didn't make them that way.
So it is agreed, evolution does not explain animal life half as well as I do.
Because evolution doesn't have an ideal organism in mind as the populations change over time. Adaptation for survival is all evolution leads to, not idealistic end games.Ok first off, the word you are looking for is BREATHE. Not breath.
Second off, they evolved this ability to live in swampy, oxygen depleted environments. Goldfish live in oxygen rich environments. If they didn't, they would die. These fish have evolved this air breathing ability to live in these oxygen poor environments, which is where a majority of their food source lives.
Then why don't the live in the air where there is lots of oxygen? The could breath better there.
Because he has some weird fetishes I assume. Evolution does not make sense. Dolphins would have drowned when they moved into the water. Or a land dolphin would have been shitty at walking. Irreducibly complex I say.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Here it is:
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html)
Unfortunately its not free, so you can only read the abstract. But here's an article about it, Linkage (http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?805&sci)
Dolphins would have drowned when they moved into the water.Please demonstrate that this is the only possibility. Marshlands allows amphibians like frogs to be submerged in water while breathing air. They could have done as they do now and not breathe in water when they go under.
Or a land dolphin would have been shitty at walking. Irreducibly complex I say.What about wading in shallow water?
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
"Lucas's theory is that human dentition began to go haywire soon after our early Homo ancestors learned to chop and process food with simple tools and, later, to cook it. These processes greatly decrease the size and toughness of food. Lucas estimates, for example, that molars can be between 56% and 82% smaller when eating cooked potato rather than raw."
Lucas is an anthropologist from the George Washington University in Washington DC.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Here it is:
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html)
Unfortunately its not free, so you can only read the abstract. But here's an article about it, Linkage (http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?805&sci)
Neither of those articles even mentions cooked food, or it causing our jaws to change.
Again, stop making shit up.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Here it is:
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html)
Unfortunately its not free, so you can only read the abstract. But here's an article about it, Linkage (http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?805&sci)
Neither of those articles even mentions cooked food, or it causing our jaws to change.
Again, stop making shit up.
Your absolutely correct. I just saw that it was under discussion and thought I'd link an article which relates to the topic under discussion. ::)
Why are you assuming that I'm supporting the silly "cooked food" position? If anything, it links the mutation which leads to decreased jaw size to increased cranial capacity, and so individuals with the mutation and the increased cranial capacity were more successful.
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Here it is:
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html)
Unfortunately its not free, so you can only read the abstract. But here's an article about it, Linkage (http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?805&sci)
Neither of those articles even mentions cooked food, or it causing our jaws to change.
Again, stop making shit up.
Your absolutely correct. I just saw that it was under discussion and thought I'd link an article which relates to the topic under discussion. ::)
Why are you assuming that I'm supporting the silly "cooked food" position? If anything, it links the mutation which leads to decreased jaw size to increased cranial capacity, and so individuals with the mutation and the increased cranial capacity were more successful.
Because you quoted a post where I said "cooked food has nothing to do with our jaw size."
Sorry, but not even evolutionists believe our decreased jaw size is due to cooking our food. Please don't make crap up.
Here it is:
Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the human lineage (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html)
Unfortunately its not free, so you can only read the abstract. But here's an article about it, Linkage (http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?805&sci)
Neither of those articles even mentions cooked food, or it causing our jaws to change.
Again, stop making shit up.
Your absolutely correct. I just saw that it was under discussion and thought I'd link an article which relates to the topic under discussion. ::)
Why are you assuming that I'm supporting the silly "cooked food" position? If anything, it links the mutation which leads to decreased jaw size to increased cranial capacity, and so individuals with the mutation and the increased cranial capacity were more successful.
Because you quoted a post where I said "cooked food has nothing to do with our jaw size."
Thats true, I suppose I could have been more clear about what I was supporting. Oh well. :-*
If evolution was possible, wouldn't we be able to recreate it in a controlled environment?
If evolution was possible, wouldn't we be able to recreate it in a controlled environment?
So being in a controlled environment prevents mutations? I'd love to see a source for that. Then we can announce the cure for cancer.
If evolution was possible, wouldn't we be able to recreate it in a controlled environment?
So being in a controlled environment prevents mutations? I'd love to see a source for that. Then we can announce the cure for cancer.
I think you completely misread my post.
Yes, beached dolphins are great at walking their way back in.Okay I got lured in, but only for a second.
Yes, beached dolphins are great at walking their way back in.Okay I got lured in, but only for a second.
(http://nature.wallpaperme.com/1340-2/Walrus+Bull.jpg)
^^^
This guy is doing great.
Yes, beached dolphins are great at walking their way back in.Okay I got lured in, but only for a second.
(http://nature.wallpaperme.com/1340-2/Walrus+Bull.jpg)
^^^
This guy is doing great.
That's a walrus. Are you on LSD?
Yes, beached dolphins are great at walking their way back in.Okay I got lured in, but only for a second.
(http://nature.wallpaperme.com/1340-2/Walrus+Bull.jpg)
^^^
This guy is doing great.
That's a walrus. Are you on LSD?
It evolved from sea animals?
The point was he has "fin flaps" that work amazing well in both water and on land. He is in no danger of extinction due to the water and land balance he is forced to maintain.
(http://nature.wallpaperme.com/1340-2/Walrus+Bull.jpg)
What about similar bone structures in different species?
look at how a human evolves into a troll.What about similar bone structures in different species?
What about similar style in an artist's paintings?
Now people evolve into boats? Dogplatter will be thrilled, this means the dinosaurs didn't have to construct them.look at how a human evolves into a troll.What about similar bone structures in different species?
What about similar style in an artist's paintings?
I am impressed I thought you would go for that it happened in a single generation so it wasn't evolution, you took it on a completely different path then I expected.Now people evolve into boats? Dogplatter will be thrilled, this means the dinosaurs didn't have to construct them.look at how a human evolves into a troll.What about similar bone structures in different species?
What about similar style in an artist's paintings?
(what is plural for platypus)
(what is plural for platypus)
According to Wiktionary, "platypuses", "platypus", "platypi", "platypodes" and "platypoda" are all used as plural forms of "platypus", with varying degrees of popularity.
The platypus(what is plural for platypus) is proof evolution didnt happen.
The platypus(what is plural for platypus) is proof evolution didnt happen.
The platypus(what is plural for platypus) is proof evolution didnt happen.
I agree, since it is an odd animal unlike others that obviously doesn't hint at random mutations and a unique environment taking it in an odd direction. It proves God just makes retarded shit sometimes.
INORITE? I mean all the different mutations benefited it how exactly?? A bill??
Laying eggs as a mammal??
The platypus(what is plural for platypus) is proof evolution didnt happen.
If this were in a different thread I would rip it apart. However, being where it is, I find that I must agree. The Platypus has two features found only in one other mammal, the a fore mentioned egg laying and its ability to administer poison.
Death of mother does not mean death of young.
Glad to be of help.
If this were in a different thread I would rip it apart. However, being where it is, I find that I must agree. The Platypus has two features found only in one other mammal, the a fore mentioned egg laying and its ability to administer poison.
Not quite...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammals
Death of mother does not mean death of young.
Glad to be of help.
Actually, considering the mother nurses the young after they are born your statement (like your life more than likely) fails miserably. Thanks for playing though. :-\
Actually, considering the mother nurses the young after they are born your statement (like your life more than likely) fails miserably. Thanks for playing though. :-\
Actually, considering the mother nurses the young after they are born your statement (like your life more than likely) fails miserably. Thanks for playing though. :-\
If the mother dies the young could (in theory) be nursed by any other mother/female. Welcome to "nature in action".
But thanks for the personal attack! You're cool! Do you have MySpace?!
The platypus(what is plural for platypus) is proof evolution didnt happen.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
Also, there are survival benefits to not always having to carry little developing babies inside you all the time.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
The human female like other mammals has...*yawn*
I do, because I enjoy feeding trolls.Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
The human female like other mammals has...*yawn*
Sorry I don't reply to copy pasta.
Wardogg, your copypasta assumes that evolutionary changes occur within the life of the organism, that the environment directly changes an organism's genes to make it evolve. This is false, the primary factor that drives evolution is natural selection. A beneficial mutation occurs, and if this mutation enables the organism to survive better, the organism outcompetes others of its species and the gene is passed on to the next generation (because only the successful organisms reproduce). Most evolution happens between generations, not within an individual's life.
No. A mutation does not have to be beneficial to pass on warrdog. You know that. It just has to not kill the animal, and not inhibit its ability to mate. It is just as likely that the egg laying is just something passed on from its premamallian ancestry. It's likely that at a time mammal like creatures did lay eggs and the platypus branched off from these animals separate from most other mammals.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
Polydactylism is proof evolution is false.
Polydactylism is proof evolution is false. A mutation that hasnt killed us, has been going on for a long time, yet not passed to everyone.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This short time period between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary process. A harsh winter, or some other environmental condition does not affect the testes in any way that would alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Therefore, the male could not possibly contribute to evolutionary change caused by the environment. This fact applies to humans as well as all other mammals. There are no ways possible whereby environmental adaptation could occur through the male part of the chromosome. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary process for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species caused by environmental adaptation or any other reason is impossible.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
wtf?
I don't get it, are you just joking Wardogg?
I don't get it, are you just joking Wardogg?Nope. He's a YEC, although he's actually fairly intelligent on most things.
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.and you can prove this how?
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
I don't get it, are you just joking Wardogg?
I never joke when it comes to evolution. Quit with the ad hominem attacks. If you don't wish to debate please leave the thread.
So one noodle of lesser size floating around in the same small pot of water completely packed with another noodle randomly inserting itself into that other noodle is comparable to the complexity of your brain and how it works? No wonder you believe in evolution.its a similar concept. it is saying that if you look at something in to simple of terms it wont work anymore. it is similar to peoples arguments about how could the eye possibly evolve. which I have posted before.
Excuse me, but asking if you're joking is not an ad hominem attack. The reason I ask is that what you've been copying and pasting is so retarded that I thought you were joking. A few people have made jokes already so I was making sure that you weren't. I'm not sure it's even worth debating though because your level of understanding of evolution is clearly so low that the effort to educate you would be far greater than my patience will allow.
its a similar concept. it is saying that if you look at something in to simple of terms it wont work anymore. it is similar to peoples arguments about how could the eye possibly evolve. which I have posted before.
Quit with the ad hominem attacks.
Strawman.
If you boil those noodles and they become self aware and start doing math.....then you may have something.
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
So now I have to educate you in what a strawman is and evolution too? Sorry, do some reading, stop relying on other people to teach you basic fundamentals of science. Evolution is fact. Have a look at the evidence for it then try and dispute it using the scientific process (that's the important part right there). Until you can do that, you're a creationist retard.Wardogg is proud of being a Creationist retard. Any attempt to educate him is just going to be a waste of time and energy.
Sorry, noodles are not great at storing data, and also do not replicate well even using a catalyst. RNA, on the other hand stores information amazingly well AND can even work as a catalyst for reproducing itself.the point is that you should not go and say god did something because it does not make sense at first glance.
Sorry, noodles are not great at storing data, and also do not replicate well even using a catalyst. RNA, on the other hand stores information amazingly well AND can even work as a catalyst for reproducing itself.the point is that you should not go and say god did something because it does not make sense at first glance.
um yes? Are you saying that that saying god put the noddles into each other is a bad one?Sorry, noodles are not great at storing data, and also do not replicate well even using a catalyst. RNA, on the other hand stores information amazingly well AND can even work as a catalyst for reproducing itself.the point is that you should not go and say god did something because it does not make sense at first glance.
Your idea of noodlegenesis is baseless and unsound.
um yes? Are you saying that that saying god put the noddles into each other is a bad one?Sorry, noodles are not great at storing data, and also do not replicate well even using a catalyst. RNA, on the other hand stores information amazingly well AND can even work as a catalyst for reproducing itself.the point is that you should not go and say god did something because it does not make sense at first glance.
Your idea of noodlegenesis is baseless and unsound.
Have you read the article?um yes? Are you saying that that saying god put the noddles into each other is a bad one?Sorry, noodles are not great at storing data, and also do not replicate well even using a catalyst. RNA, on the other hand stores information amazingly well AND can even work as a catalyst for reproducing itself.the point is that you should not go and say god did something because it does not make sense at first glance.
Your idea of noodlegenesis is baseless and unsound.
I don't even understand you you godless pastafarian.
The Kreb cycle is a good proof for the argument against evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
This is much too complex to have accidentally happened on its own.
The Kreb cycle is a good proof for the argument against evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
This is much too complex to have accidentally happened on its own.
The Kreb cycle is a good proof for the argument against evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
This is much too complex to have accidentally happened on its own.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/10nyqu8.jpg)
You guys have literally no idea how long I've waited to post that pic.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/10nyqu8.jpg)
You guys have literally no idea how long I've waited to post that pic.
I have had that pic for SO long. You have no idea how few times the kreb cycle comes up in normal conversation.
It took six month but we got there in the end!
So now I have to educate you in what a strawman is and evolution too? Sorry, do some reading, stop relying on other people to teach you basic fundamentals of science. Evolution is fact. Have a look at the evidence for it then try and dispute it using the scientific process (that's the important part right there). Until you can do that, you're a creationist retard.Wardogg is proud of being a Creationist retard. Any attempt to educate him is just going to be a waste of time and energy.
I have had that pic for SO long. You have no idea how few times the kreb cycle comes up in normal conversation.
Depressingly, I'm going to bet that 95% of the people here are going to have to look that up on Google to know what it is.
The citric acid cycle ? also known as the kenneth crawford sucks dick cycle
Actually we came from africa. It was warm. We evolved little to no hair because we were plains animals.
Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This short time period between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary process. A harsh winter, or some other environmental condition does not affect the testes in any way that would alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Therefore, the male could not possibly contribute to evolutionary change caused by the environment. This fact applies to humans as well as all other mammals. There are no ways possible whereby environmental adaptation could occur through the male part of the chromosome. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary process for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species caused by environmental adaptation or any other reason is impossible.
I'm confused. Is he suggesting that evolution is the deliberate editing of the genome of a gamete in response to environmental conditions?.... ??? :'(
Wait....what?!?
I thought.....
Actually we came from africa. It was warm. We evolved little to no hair because we were plains animals.
Wait....what?!?
I thought.....Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong.
A statement is not an argument.
The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This short time period between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary process. A harsh winter, or some other environmental condition does not affect the testes in any way that would alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Therefore, the male could not possibly contribute to evolutionary change caused by the environment. This fact applies to humans as well as all other mammals. There are no ways possible whereby environmental adaptation could occur through the male part of the chromosome. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary process for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species caused by environmental adaptation or any other reason is impossible.
I'm confused. Is he suggesting that evolution is the deliberate editing of the genome of a gamete in response to environmental conditions?.... ??? :'(
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
Modern science and lots of people who have dedicated their lives to studying this disagree with you. Making arbitrary declarations is kinda cute though
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
Modern science and lots of people who have dedicated their lives to studying this disagree with you. Making arbitrary declarations is kinda cute though
@Wardogg: Evolution never claims that complex parts of the anatomy formed randomly or "by accident". Evolution isn't random. Also just because you cannot imagine how something as complex as the brain could have formed by evolutionary means does not conclude that it didn't. It appeals to ignorance.
Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random.
Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random.No. Mutation is random. Evolution includes natural selection, which is far from random.
Or else you should tell me why ion pumps expel 3 ions then pull in 2 ions.
Depressingly, I'm going to bet that 95% of the people here are going to have to look that up on Google to know what it is.
Yeah. It's a crying shame that the majority of the population doesn't know the basics of metabolic enzyme cycles...
Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random. Yes it is random.No. Mutation is random. Evolution includes natural selection, which is far from random.
Or else you should tell me why ion pumps expel 3 ions then pull in 2 ions.
Its interesting how the evolutionists here can't agree on how it all works. Or worked. Very interesting. Reminds me a lot of FET and its proponents. We can't seem to agree on how our theory works either.
Its interesting how the evolutionists here can't agree on how it all works. Or worked. Very interesting. Reminds me a lot of FET and its proponents. We can't seem to agree on how our theory works either.
Its interesting how the evolutionists here can't agree on how it all works. Or worked. Very interesting. Reminds me a lot of FET and its proponents. We can't seem to agree on how our theory works either.
Natural selection is also random. A random event moderated by a random event is still random. There are no guiding rules to evolution, natural selection, or mutations. If it works it works, if it doesn't it dies.
The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is seemingly random, but natural selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way. Genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction in a particular environment are much more likely to survive to pass on their genes than variants that don't. As a result, the advantageous lifeforms will become more common as time passes, that is not a random process.I believe what raist is saying is that something that has a advantageous is more likely to survive but even that is still randomness. if something is twice as likely to survive whether it survives is still random. sort of like if we had a 6 sided dice with two sides being 1. although what number you rolled is still random there is a higher chance of it being a one.
The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is seemingly random, but natural selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way. Genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction in a particular environment are much more likely to survive to pass on their genes than variants that don't. As a result, the advantageous lifeforms will become more common as time passes, that is not a random process.I believe what raist is saying is that something that has a advantageous is more likely to survive but even that is still randomness. if something is twice as likely to survive whether it survives is still random. sort of like if we had a 6 sided dice with two sides being 1. although what number you rolled is still random there is a higher chance of it being a one.
I believe what raist is saying is that something that has a advantageous is more likely to survive but even that is still randomness. if something is twice as likely to survive whether it survives is still random. sort of like if we had a 6 sided dice with two sides being 1. although what number you rolled is still random there is a higher chance of it being a one.
But it is the law of averages being allied to random events.I believe what raist is saying is that something that has a advantageous is more likely to survive but even that is still randomness. if something is twice as likely to survive whether it survives is still random. sort of like if we had a 6 sided dice with two sides being 1. although what number you rolled is still random there is a higher chance of it being a one.
That is not a good analogy to natural selection at all. Try a system that favored dice that were red, and eliminated dice that were black. Eventually all the dice would be red.
Chance may be true for an individual being's survival, but in the long run the more favored traits will always beat out the less favored ones, that is not random.
Its interesting how the evolutionists here can't agree on how it all works. Or worked. Very interesting. Reminds me a lot of FET and its proponents. We can't seem to agree on how our theory works either.Yeah. If only it wasn't already proven beyond reasonable doubt that Evolution does happen, you might actually have a point there. Hey, you can dream, right?
Natural selection is also random. A random event moderated by a random event is still random. There are no guiding rules to evolution, natural selection, or mutations. If it works it works, if it doesn't it dies.Randomness would defeat the purpose of Natural Selection. A creature that blends in with its environment outlasting a similar one that doesn't is not random. A fast animal being able to outrun predators better than a slower animal is not random. Creatures that are the most fit for their environment are the most likely to survive to reproduce. There is nothing random about that.
The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is seemingly random, but natural selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way. Genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction in a particular environment are much more likely to survive to pass on their genes than variants that don't. As a result, the advantageous lifeforms will become more common as time passes, that is not a random process.
So you can predict the course natural selection will take given enough knowledge?You could make an informed guess. Ultimately there might be too many variables to take into account for us to ever predict it accurately, but that doesn't make it random. Natural Selection, by definition, cannot be random.
again natural selection is uses randomness and the law of probability. it is More likely that a animal that has a special trait will survive. and if it does pass on its trait it will be more likely that some of its kids will service. but whether they survive or not is still random. it is like a if you see a bell curve. where any particular thing falls is random it is just more likely to fall in the middle of the bell curve rather then the edges.So you can predict the course natural selection will take given enough knowledge?You could make an informed guess. Ultimately there might be too many variables to take into account for us to ever predict it accurately, but that doesn't make it random. Natural Selection, by definition, cannot be random.
The passing of genes can be affected by (seemingly) random events, but such events would fall into the category of Genetic Drift, not Natural Selection.
again natural selection is uses randomness and the law of probability. it is More likely that a animal that has a special trait will survive. and if it does pass on its trait it will be more likely that some of its kids will service. but whether they survive or not is still random. it is like a if you see a bell curve. where any particular thing falls is random it is just more likely to fall in the middle of the bell curve rather then the edges.No. There is nothing fucking random about a creature surviving because it is more fit for its environment.
No that effects which is more likely. it does not make anything certain. take a stats class.again natural selection is uses randomness and the law of probability. it is More likely that a animal that has a special trait will survive. and if it does pass on its trait it will be more likely that some of its kids will service. but whether they survive or not is still random. it is like a if you see a bell curve. where any particular thing falls is random it is just more likely to fall in the middle of the bell curve rather then the edges.No. There is nothing fucking random about a creature surviving because it is more fit for its environment.
Seriously, what you are claiming is as ridiculous as claiming that the outcome of a football game is random. The outcome is a direct result of the fitness and skill of the players, and all of the decisions they make throughout the game. There is nothing random about it, no matter how you try to spin it.
In other news, Ignoring the statistics debate and meaning of the word random, I find this to be really funny. Darwin refuted!!! (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html) ::)am I the only one that winces any time someone post a link in an evolution argument?
In other news, Ignoring the statistics debate and meaning of the word random, I find this to be really funny. Darwin refuted!!! (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html) ::)am I the only one that winces any time someone post a link in an evolution argument?
my favorite part was this
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/53x.jpg)
stupidity doesn't scare me. it is the willingness of the stupidity.In other news, Ignoring the statistics debate and meaning of the word random, I find this to be really funny. Darwin refuted!!! (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html) ::)am I the only one that winces any time someone post a link in an evolution argument?
my favorite part was this
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/53x.jpg)
There's some freaky shit out there. I just learned about this $27 million museum in Kentucky. I'm actually really unsettled to think that stupidity on such a scale actually exists.
stupidity doesn't scare me. it is the willingness of the stupidity.In other news, Ignoring the statistics debate and meaning of the word random, I find this to be really funny. Darwin refuted!!! (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html) ::)am I the only one that winces any time someone post a link in an evolution argument?
my favorite part was this
(http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/53x.jpg)
There's some freaky shit out there. I just learned about this $27 million museum in Kentucky. I'm actually really unsettled to think that stupidity on such a scale actually exists.
Natural Selection is the opposite of random. Animals that survive pass on their traits, while animals that die do not. Therefore while mutations themselves are random, the actual process is not.But which animals survive is random. yes ones with beneficial traits are more likely to survive it still comes down to chance. it is like having 1000 coin tosses. chances are it will be around 50% heads but it is still chance.
*begs for the debate on the definition of "random" and whether natural selection is technically random or not to end, and hopes for more Creationists to try posting some angry and probably ignorant denunciation of accepted science for me to play with*
*begs for the debate on the definition of "random" and whether natural selection is technically random or not to end, and hopes for more Creationists to try posting some angry and probably ignorant denunciation of accepted science for me to play with*
In you so-called "theory" of evolution, how do you explain how the first organic matter overcame the hurdles of becoming self-replicating?
You come at me with a 50+ year old experiment and then in the very next sentence ask me for scientific papers? Also, if memory recalls, that experiment failed to produce anything that was self replicating (which was what I asked you to explain after you requested a debate). Also, you make the frequent and erroneous assumption that because I am denouncing evolution as the sham it is, that I am a creationist. I will not provide you with a single scientific paper promoting creationism and I will agree with you that creating the world in 6 days is impossible.
Your arguments are as weak as Darwin's were 150 years ago.
Okay then, let me try again.
If I evolved from a monkey, then why are there still monkeys?
Okay then, let me try again.
If I evolved from a monkey, then why are there still monkeys?
The reason other primates still exist is that they have been perfectly successful in their own environment. There isn't any factor currently driving them to become more human-like.
The concept of the first life form is not a flaw in the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory on how that first life form became all the living things we see today.
The concept of the first life form is not a flaw in the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory on how that first life form became all the living things we see today.
So......a best guess then?
Why are you still a monkey?He's not. :P
No, the point was Evolution has nothing to say about how life started. Criticizing evolution because it doesn't explain how life started is like criticizing gravity because it doesn't explain where matter came from.The concept of the first life form is not a flaw in the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory on how that first life form became all the living things we see today.
So......a best guess then?
The problem is that you are talking about predicting the outcome of Natural Selection, while we are talking about the process itself. The life of any creature, for the most part, is made up of a series of non-random events. These events were triggered by other non-random events, which were triggered by other non-random events. The outcome of a series of non-random events is not going to be random.Natural Selection is the opposite of random. Animals that survive pass on their traits, while animals that die do not. Therefore while mutations themselves are random, the actual process is not.But which animals service is random. yes ones with beneficial traits are more likely to survive it still comes down to chance. it is like having 1000 coin tosses. chances are it will be around 50% heads but it is still chance.
The concept of the first life form is not a flaw in the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory on how that first life form became all the living things we see today.
My guess is the same way they think mad cow disease replicated.The concept of the first life form is not a flaw in the theory of evolution. Evolution is only a theory on how that first life form became all the living things we see today.
I'm not asking how the first life form came into existence, I'm asking how it replicated. I'm pretty sure that replication is a cornerstone of evolution.
I'm not asking how the first life form came into existence, I'm asking how it replicated. I'm pretty sure that replication is a cornerstone of evolution.
Why are you still a monkey?He's not. :P
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
And Great apes are a type of monkey.No they aren't. This isn't even debatable. You are currently connected to the internet, so you have the resources to check for yourself.
*begs for the debate on the definition of "random" and whether natural selection is technically random or not to end, and hopes for more Creationists to try posting some angry and probably ignorant denunciation of accepted science for me to play with*
In you so-called "theory" of evolution, how do you explain how the first organic matter overcame the hurdles of becoming self-replicating?
Abiogenesis, Miller-Urey experiment. Not perfect, but its more plausible then God creating everything in 6 days. Now how do you deal with the fact that we can observe bacterium evolving in a test tube, have transitional fossils and virtually every qualified expert in the field of Biology and Chemistry who are more educated and qualified to make determinations in these matters says its true, and the fact that I have yet to see a single scientific paper lending credence to Creationism?
And Great apes are a type of monkey.No they aren't. This isn't even debatable. You are currently connected to the internet, so you have the resources to check for yourself.
babsinva:
A quick guide for you...
1. Define evolutionist (lol)
2. Speak to/read from/listen to actual evolutionary biologists and not just random noobs like us on a forum.
3. Educate yourself beyond the level of retarded pseudo-intelect.
4. Recognise that just because you, personally, can't think of an explanation for something doesn't mean you can just stick "god" there. And just because biologists may have unanswered questions or disagreements about certain processes does not mean they disagree that evolution is A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Only then can you enter a thread like this and expect anyone to take you seriously. Same applies to the rest of you ignorant morons who know not the faintest thing about science, evolution, or logic and reason. Honestly, I am not afraid to admit that this seriously riles me, perhaps a lot more than it should do considering we're on a frickin' FE troll site.
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
According to evolution we share a common ancestor with alligators, birds, snakes, kangaroos, fish, bacteria, trees, and venus flytraps. What exactly is your point?
Evolutionsists (although with your many differences in opinion) can explain living creations evolving but you cannot explain "cycles for life" using evolution. Meaning #1) water (hydrologic cycle), #2) carbon and oxygen cycles and #3) nitrogen cycles. I do not need you to explain the cycles for that is NOT my question. Let's use the #1 water cycle for example. It involves 3 stages being: A) Solar power lifts water into the atmosphere by evaporation. B) Condensation of this purified water produces clouds. C) Clouds, in turn, form rain, hail, sleet or snow, which fall to the ground, closing the loop. What I AM asking you, is how do you think this is done without a Creator? I know the definition, I know the processes, and I understand how they work cohesively - so do not regurgiate what I've already said.I can't even believe I'm responding to this.
I also understand that cycles of various chemical elements may combine or overlap. Oxygen, for example, is present in carbon dioxide, carbohydrates, and water. Hence, it shares in both the carbon and water cycles. However the carbohydrates do not cause the cycle to occur, nor does the stork bring the solar power, nor do primates cause clouds - so we know the process of the water cycle, but you cannot explain HOW it happens using evolution. Therefore there must be a creator.
And you still did not answer the question - perhaps because you can't.
I don't need to educate myself on evolutionSo you have no interest in educating yourself at all, got it.
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
According to evolution we share a common ancestor with alligators, birds, snakes, kangaroos, fish, bacteria, trees, and venus flytraps. What exactly is your point?
And Great apes are a type of monkey.No they aren't. This isn't even debatable. You are currently connected to the internet, so you have the resources to check for yourself.
He is, and so are you.We are a member of the Great Ape family, but we are not monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.
According to evolution we share a common ancestor with alligators, birds, snakes, kangaroos, fish, bacteria, trees, and venus flytraps. What exactly is your point?
He was correcting someone who had said that Evolution taught we evolved FROM apes, when in reality we diverged from a common ancestor.
LOL, all you creationists can't even decide how the world and man was created, some believe:Pastafarianism has only one version of the origin story, therefore it must be the truth!
God did it in 6 days
Some say 6 days was a metaphor
Some think God orchestrated evolution
Some think God created Adam out of mud
Some think God didn't use mud
Because there are disputes in how creationism works THEN IT ALL MUST BE COMPLETELY FALSE!!!
Pongo: 1
Creationism: 0
Pastafarianism has only one version of the origin story, therefore it must be the truth!
No no, it was created in 4 days by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after he got drunk from the Beer Volcano of Heaven.Pastafarianism has only one version of the origin story, therefore it must be the truth!
I heard the earth was created in 8-10 minutes on medium boil.
I'm not asking how the first life form came into existence, I'm asking how it replicated. I'm pretty sure that replication is a cornerstone of evolution.
The first life form would, by definition, had the capacity to replicate. That is what life is.
To be fair, your question is bound to the first life question, since replication is a requisite of life. (Among other things)
Evolutionsists (although with your many differences in opinion) can explain living creations evolving but you cannot explain "cycles for life" using evolution.
Meaning #1) water (hydrologic cycle), #2) carbon and oxygen cycles and #3) nitrogen cycles.
I do not need you to explain the cycles for that is NOT my question.
Let's use the #1 water cycle for example. It involves 3 stages being: A) Solar power lifts water into the atmosphere by evaporation. B) Condensation of this purified water produces clouds. C) Clouds, in turn, form rain, hail, sleet or snow, which fall to the ground, closing the loop.
What I AM asking you, is how do you think this is done without a Creator? I know the definition, I know the processes, and I understand how they work cohesively - so do not regurgiate what I've already said.
I also understand that cycles of various chemical elements may combine or overlap.
Oxygen, for example, is present in carbon dioxide, carbohydrates, and water. Hence, it shares in both the carbon and water cycles.
However the carbohydrates do not cause the cycle to occur, nor does the stork bring the solar power, nor do primates cause clouds - so we know the process of the water cycle, but you cannot explain HOW it happens using evolution.
Therefore there must be a creator.
I know I responded to this earlier but I thought I would add more. The idea that we descended from monkeys is a relatively new idea that hasn't gathered wide acceptance yet, though there is a great deal of evidence that supports it.Neither of us can really claim victory here. I am right in that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not, as of yet, consider Great Apes to be monkeys. And you are (in my opinion, with my extremely limited understanding of the subject) right about the current classification system being a bit biased and outdated, and that Great Apes probably should be considered monkeys.
Can one come up with a definition that fits all species of monkey but does not also include apes? If not, then apes would have to be monkeys. Hint: There are some monkeys that do not have tails, but are also not apes.
The video I posted earlier makes a strong argument that apes are monkeys, I recommend watching it. Also, this guy here puts those arguments into perspective: http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/are_we_descended_monkeys
Also, Aegyptopithecus, a primitive anthropoid(monkey), is considered to be a common ancestor between apes and modern monkeys, and itself is a monkey. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514174240.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514174240.htm)
Mindless dribble...No. You are fucking stupid. Go away.
My cousin is about to graduate with a P.H.D. in Anthropology. I shot her an email a little while ago to see what her thoughts were on the subject of the primate clade. She may have some insight, so far other than Aron's video there really is not much on the internet regarding this rather new idea.I know I responded to this earlier but I thought I would add more. The idea that we descended from monkeys is a relatively new idea that hasn't gathered wide acceptance yet, though there is a great deal of evidence that supports it.Neither of us can really claim victory here. I am right in that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not, as of yet, consider Great Apes to be monkeys. And you are (in my opinion, with my extremely limited understanding of the subject) right about the current classification system being a bit biased and outdated, and that Great Apes probably should be considered monkeys.
Can one come up with a definition that fits all species of monkey but does not also include apes? If not, then apes would have to be monkeys. Hint: There are some monkeys that do not have tails, but are also not apes.
The video I posted earlier makes a strong argument that apes are monkeys, I recommend watching it. Also, this guy here puts those arguments into perspective: http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/are_we_descended_monkeys
Also, Aegyptopithecus, a primitive anthropoid(monkey), is considered to be a common ancestor between apes and modern monkeys, and itself is a monkey. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514174240.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070514174240.htm)
And I am no stranger to AronRa. I've seen all of his videos, including the one you had linked. I'm not sure why I didn't remember it though.
Evolutionsists (although with your many differences in opinion) can explain living creations evolving but you cannot explain "cycles for life" using evolution
Because Evolution isn't trying to explain EVERYTHING. This makes me think your a tad clueless.Let's use the #1 water cycle for example. It involves 3 stages being: A) Solar power lifts water into the atmosphere by evaporation. B) Condensation of this purified water produces clouds. C) Clouds, in turn, form rain, hail, sleet or snow, which fall to the ground, closing the loop.
You idiot, that isn't evolution, its physics, basic meteorology, and I learned it from the Magic School Bus when I was 6.What I AM asking you, is how do you think this is done without a Creator? I know the definition, I know the processes, and I understand how they work cohesively - so do not regurgiate what I've already said.
Its done according to the basic physical laws of thermodynamics and phase change. Please refer to a physics textbook.Mindless dribble...No. You are fucking stupid. Go away.
And MasterChief you misquoted me - I did not not say this topic or anyone's response was mindless dribble - you inserted that.LOL, all you creationists can't even decide how the world and man was created, some believe:
God did it in 6 days
Some say 6 days was a metaphor
Some think God orchestrated evolution
Some think God created Adam out of mud
Some think God didn't use mud
Because there are disputes in how creationism works THEN IT ALL MUST BE COMPLETELY FALSE!!!
Pongo: 1
Creationism: 0
To Pongo- you are the only one that made me laugh - Laughed my -ss off.
YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT... I NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS WERE EVOLUTION, BUT MY POINT WAS THAT BECAUSE SO MANY EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE IN NO GOD - HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE IF THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS STILL INTELIGENT DESIGN. GOD IS THE MASTER OF PHYSICS AND THE LIKE AND EVERYTHING HUMANS HAVE COME TO KNOW WAS ALREADY KNOWN BY HIM. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR THEORY OF EVOLUTION, AND I AM NOT EXPECTING YOU TO INCLUDE THE CYCLES FOR LIFE IN THAT THEORY - I AM JUST SAYING THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS & THERE IS SOMETHING BEHIND IT. YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE BOAT. THERE IS CREATION EVERYWHERE BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT THERE IS A CREATOR WHO DID IT - AND THAT WAS MY POINT.
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE IF THERE IS NO GOD.
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE IF THERE IS NO GOD.
Well I've yet to see an equation for PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS that includes the variable "GOD".
Maybe you know something we don't.
And MasterChief you misquoted me - I did not not say this topic or anyone's response was mindless dribble - you inserted that.I was simply summarizing your massive wall of text in two words. I hate large quotes that take up 90% of a post.
YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT... I NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS WERE EVOLUTION, BUT MY POINT WAS THAT BECAUSE SO MANY EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE IN NO GOD - HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE IF THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS STILL INTELIGENT DESIGN. GOD IS THE MASTER OF PHYSICS AND THE LIKE AND EVERYTHING HUMANS HAVE COME TO KNOW WAS ALREADY KNOWN BY HIM. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR THEORY OF EVOLUTION, AND I AM NOT EXPECTING YOU TO INCLUDE THE CYCLES FOR LIFE IN THAT THEORY - I AM JUST SAYING THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS & THERE IS SOMETHING BEHIND IT. YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE BOAT. THERE IS CREATION EVERYWHERE BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT THERE IS A CREATOR WHO DID IT - AND THAT WAS MY POINT.Who are you trying to convince? You search for gaps in our knowledge and then forcefully insert your God into every single crack. You are so desperate for a "reason" to believe that you are willing to accept literally anything as "proof" of his existence. What about physics makes you think there is a God in the background pulling the strings? The fact that you don't understand how physics work? Or is it that you desperately want to believe God is there? You see creation everywhere because you wear God-tinted sunglasses. Let go of your bias and you will see that there is nothing to suggest that a higher power is necessary to keep the world turning.
there is nothing to suggest that a higher power is necessary to keep the world turning.
No, but there are things that suggest the a higher power was necessary to start the world (and all things on it) turning.What things suggest that?
imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
there is nothing to suggest that a higher power is necessary to keep the world turning.
No, but there are things that suggest the a higher power was necessary to start the world (and all things on it) turning.
You mentioned boiling NOT me. The Carbon and Oxygen cycles involve 2 key processes - photosynthesis and respiration. Photosynthesis uses sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water to produce carbohydrates AND oxygen. Respiration, which occurs in animals and humans, combines carbohydrates and oxygen to produce energy, carrying carbon dioxide, and water. Thus the ouput of one cycle is the input of another. And like I said earlier from my quote - (the one you butchered) oxygen is present in carbon dioxide, carbohydrates and water. And it is.I also understand that cycles of various chemical elements may combine or overlap.
What cycles? And by the way, the only "cycle" you've mentioned so far is that of water, and water isn't an element.Oxygen, for example, is present in carbon dioxide, carbohydrates, and water. Hence, it shares in both the carbon and water cycles.
noooo.... you are so very very wrong, the chemical properties of the oxygen atom changes when it is in a bond.
YOU DID NOT QUOTE ME FULLY- I DID NOT SAY IT THE WAY YOU QUOTED ITI was not arguing with you that the chemical properties of oxygen changed or didn't; I was simply stating a fact. - this was my full quote "I also understand that cycles of various chemical elements may combine or overlap." (There is a period there) Then I went on to say... "Oxygen, for example, is present in carbon dioxide, carbohydrates, and water. Hence, it shares in both the carbon and water cycles." What part of the words "combine", "is present" and "share" do you not understand?However the carbohydrates do not cause the cycle to occur, nor does the stork bring the solar power, nor do primates cause clouds - so we know the process of the water cycle, but you cannot explain HOW it happens using evolution.
No, you imbecile, oxygen and water in organic compounds don't boil away like you suggest should happen because:
1. the energy input to a molecule is divided into the ENTIRE molecule, so the energy required to boil it is substantially greater
2. Chemical properties are changed when a bond is formed. Ever heard of ferric oxide? Its also known as rust. Oddly enough, you can see a substance containing oxygen. By your argument, nothing would ever rust, since it isn't cold enough for oxygen to be a solid.
Thanks General D and Wardogg !General Douchebag is trolling you, and Wardogg is just an idiot. If either of them are on your side, it is a sure sign that what you are saying makes no sense.
YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT... I NEVER SAID THOSE THINGS WERE EVOLUTION, BUT MY POINT WAS THAT BECAUSE SO MANY EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE IN NO GOD - HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN PHYSICS, METEOROLOGY, or THERMODYNAMICS OR ANYTHING ELSE IF THERE IS NO GOD. THERE IS STILL INTELIGENT DESIGN. GOD IS THE MASTER OF PHYSICS AND THE LIKE AND EVERYTHING HUMANS HAVE COME TO KNOW WAS ALREADY KNOWN BY HIM. I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR THEORY OF EVOLUTION, AND I AM NOT EXPECTING YOU TO INCLUDE THE CYCLES FOR LIFE IN THAT THEORY - I AM JUST SAYING THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS & THERE IS SOMETHING BEHIND IT. YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE BOAT. THERE IS CREATION EVERYWHERE BUT YOU DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT THERE IS A CREATOR WHO DID IT - AND THAT WAS MY POINT.Why would you just repeat the same nonsense you said before? Were you under the impression that it did a great job getting your point across?
Babsniva, I have a quick question. Where did you learn your style of posting? Surely there is no English class out there that teaches you to use different colors of text, long unbroken paragraphs, and all caps.
Thanks General D and Wardogg !General Douchebag is trolling you, and Wardogg is just an idiot. If either of them are on your side, it is a sure sign that what you are saying makes no sense.
Babsniva, I have a quick question. Where did you learn your style of posting? Surely there is no English class out there that teaches you to use different colors of text, long unbroken paragraphs, and all caps.
As usual you add nothing to the debate but criticism.Thanks General D and Wardogg !General Douchebag is trolling you, and Wardogg is just an idiot. If either of them are on your side, it is a sure sign that what you are saying makes no sense.
I know that Wardogg is on my side- he does believe in God and has come to His defense many times in other evolution threads.
Seriously, that has no place here. I'll let you remove it if you want.
Seriously, that has no place here. I'll let you remove it if you want.
And most of the comments posted by you on gay bashing, hating blacks and so on - have no place here either and no one seems to make you remove it. You say you love parody but can't handle it when you aren't the one making the joke. It's the truth- They have told me to STFU and have called me an idiot and called me stupid and called me a moron. I didn't see you removing any of their posts. What's inappropriate of reminding them of the same words they have used on me? Nothing. And if you do I'll ask Daniel about it. Take a f-ckin' joke -Raist!
Seriously, that has no place here. I'll let you remove it if you want.
And most of the comments posted by you on gay bashing, hating blacks and so on - have no place here either and no one seems to make you remove it. You say you love parody but can't handle it when you aren't the one making the joke. It's the truth- They have told me to STFU and have called me an idiot and called me stupid and called me a moron. I didn't see you removing any of their posts. What's inappropriate of reminding them of the same words they have used on me? Nothing. And if you do I'll ask Daniel about it. Take a f-ckin' joke -Raist!
What? I just meant it's a huge fucking text with little to no relevance to the current conversation. The rest.... you really have issues with letting things go.
Seriously, that has no place here. I'll let you remove it if you want.
And most of the comments posted by you on gay bashing, hating blacks and so on - have no place here either and no one seems to make you remove it. You say you love parody but can't handle it when you aren't the one making the joke. It's the truth- They have told me to STFU and have called me an idiot and called me stupid and called me a moron. I didn't see you removing any of their posts. What's inappropriate of reminding them of the same words they have used on me? Nothing. And if you do I'll ask Daniel about it. Take a f-ckin' joke -Raist!
What? I just meant it's a huge fucking text with little to no relevance to the current conversation. The rest.... you really have issues with letting things go.
IT's funny as sh-t! A lot of people will laugh their -ss off. And yes, I can let things go, and I am NOT hurt. I don't feel persecuted- it won't make me uncivil to others. But reading towards the bottom - you will find they still did not answer my questions - and that is what really is funny here.
No I'm not complaining - I think it's funny. And to answer part B - I don't expect them to explain things to me - because I know they can't. I asked questions, they call me a moron, yet they can't answer them - NOW who's the moron?Seriously, that has no place here. I'll let you remove it if you want.
And most of the comments posted by you on gay bashing, hating blacks and so on - have no place here either and no one seems to make you remove it. You say you love parody but can't handle it when you aren't the one making the joke. It's the truth- They have told me to STFU and have called me an idiot and called me stupid and called me a moron. I didn't see you removing any of their posts. What's inappropriate of reminding them of the same words they have used on me? Nothing. And if you do I'll ask Daniel about it. Take a f-ckin' joke -Raist!
What? I just meant it's a huge fucking text with little to no relevance to the current conversation. The rest.... you really have issues with letting things go.
IT's funny as sh-t! A lot of people will laugh their -ss off. And yes, I can let things go, and I am NOT hurt. I don't feel persecuted- it won't make me uncivil to others. But reading towards the bottom - you will find they still did not answer my questions - and that is what really is funny here.
So your main complaint is people think you are dumb and won't explain things to you?
Can't and won't are two very different things. If they attempted to and failed that'd be one thing, but when they don't even respond it's a good hint that they don't care. If these are evolution related questions I'd gladly answer them for you, if they are FE related I'll do my best not being the most versed scholar on the subject.
Thanks General D and Wardogg !General Douchebag is trolling you, and Wardogg is just an idiot. If either of them are on your side, it is a sure sign that what you are saying makes no sense.
Can't and won't are two very different things. If they attempted to and failed that'd be one thing, but when they don't even respond it's a good hint that they don't care. If these are evolution related questions I'd gladly answer them for you, if they are FE related I'll do my best not being the most versed scholar on the subject.
First of all- it's not about FE - if you see the previous posts to the PARODY I did - then you will see it is indeed about the subject of evolution. (vs creation)
It's not that they did NOT respond- they responded with quotes I never said (by one guy), quotes that were only partial by another guy (so it was taken out of context), and angry ranting and name calling by others. Those are all responses. CAN'T respond - NOT won't respond. And when they do respond properly- they respond only to those who do not challenge them. Only when they can show-off, when they can be an authority on the subject, when they are in control. When they can't spew their infinite words of wisdom of the galactically stupid- then they insult, name call, act rude AND that's how I know they CAN NOT ANSWER. Those tactics are avoiding, evading, and deflection. Psych courses teach that.
Can't and won't are two very different things. If they attempted to and failed that'd be one thing, but when they don't even respond it's a good hint that they don't care. If these are evolution related questions I'd gladly answer them for you, if they are FE related I'll do my best not being the most versed scholar on the subject.
First of all- it's not about FE - if you see the previous posts to the PARODY I did - then you will see it is indeed about the subject of evolution. (vs creation)
It's not that they did NOT respond- they responded with quotes I never said (by one guy), quotes that were only partial by another guy (so it was taken out of context), and angry ranting and name calling by others. Those are all responses. CAN'T respond - NOT won't respond. And when they do respond properly- they respond only to those who do not challenge them. Only when they can show-off, when they can be an authority on the subject, when they are in control. When they can't spew their infinite words of wisdom of the galactically stupid- then they insult, name call, act rude AND that's how I know they CAN NOT ANSWER. Those tactics are avoiding, evading, and deflection. Psych courses teach that.
Cool. Now can you stop deflecting and give me a question to answer?
B-T-W Mykael liked the parodyNo, I didn't.
So my final question is: Who made, (not discovered and not proved) but
WHO MADE SCIENCE ? Who made the axis? Who made the rotation? Who
made the length of the rotation? Who made the amount of tilt? WHO MADE
EVERYTHING, if there is only science and NO God? HOW was it made then?
Babsinva, have you ever heard of the term "Infinite Regress"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress
If you want to see what im talking about, see one of the most mind bending images of our universe from this link.
http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/hubble-space-telescope-crab-nebula-2.jpg (http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/hubble-space-telescope-crab-nebula-2.jpg)
I can agree with you somewhat on this statement, because the title of the topic is "Evolution didn't happen" 2nd thing I just wanted to see why people can't explain everything happening so perfectly (no I'm not talking about crime and evil) but the earth itself built and all happening in harmony without being able to credit the One who did it.So my final question is: Who made, (not discovered and not proved) but
WHO MADE SCIENCE ? Who made the axis? Who made the rotation? Who
made the length of the rotation? Who made the amount of tilt? WHO MADE
EVERYTHING, if there is only science and NO God? HOW was it made then?
I would first like to note that this question has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Which is good, cause this is the thread in which I bash evolution for the lie it is. In not particular order I shall answer your questions.
Who made the length of the rotation. No one made it, posing a question like that makes it unanswerable. It's like asking who built that tree. No one did. The length of the rotation of the earth is due to mass and angular momentum.
Who made the rotation? Again, no one did. Rotation is independent of orbit and was likely started by celestial impacts.
Who made the amount of tilt? Again, no one did. Tilt is explained nicely, if not briefly, by your inept evolutionist.
Who made the axis? Again, no one did. The axis of the earth is the line at which the planet turns.
No, but there are things that suggest the a higher power was necessary to start the world (and all things on it) turning.What things suggest that?
"There is no publication in the scientific literature, in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books, that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."
There's quite a lot of active and successful research into evolutionary development.
A great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent trying to learn how evolution brought about the existence of these first living organisms (single cells).
Can't and won't are two very different things. If they attempted to and failed that'd be one thing, but when they don't even respond it's a good hint that they don't care. If these are evolution related questions I'd gladly answer them for you, if they are FE related I'll do my best not being the most versed scholar on the subject.
First of all- it's not about FE - if you see the previous posts to the PARODY I did - then you will see it is indeed about the subject of evolution. (vs creation)
It's not that they did NOT respond- they responded with quotes I never said (by one guy), quotes that were only partial by another guy (so it was taken out of context), and angry ranting and name calling by others. Those are all responses. CAN'T respond - NOT won't respond. And when they do respond properly- they respond only to those who do not challenge them. Only when they can show-off, when they can be an authority on the subject, when they are in control. When they can't spew their infinite words of wisdom of the galactically stupid- then they insult, name call, act rude AND that's how I know they CAN NOT ANSWER. Those tactics are avoiding, evading, and deflection. Psych courses teach that.
Cool. Now can you stop deflecting and give me a question to answer?
B-T-W Mykael liked the parody
But to answer your question - It will probably take many postings back and forth over days and many people involved and so I do not think it is a quick answer. One that I doubt these people can answer.
Here is the questions again from the bottom of my Parody I did.....
“I am not arguing there is no need for scientists, and yes I know they use
formulas, and processes, and tests to help in their fact finding. They also study
it, examine and observe things, analyze data, track changes, and document
findings but they DO NOT MAKE SCIENCE. They make headlines, and they
make discoveries, and they make inventions, but they do not, can not and will
not be able to make science. So just because one has a discovery does not
mean that it is truly NEW for it may have been there all along – but only
recently discovered. “
“So my final question is …. Who made – (not discovered and not proved) but
WHO MADE SCIENCE ? Who made the axis? Who made the rotation? Who
made the length of the rotation? Who made the amount of tilt? WHO MADE
EVERYTHING, if there is only science and NO God? HOW was it made then?
There's quite a lot of active and successful research into evolutionary development.
I know, I said as much.
No, but there are things that suggest the a higher power was necessary to start the world (and all things on it) turning.What things suggest that?
A great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent trying to learn how evolution brought about the existence of these first living organisms (single cells). Although some scientists can make their beliefs sound very logical, the only scientific proof that anyone has provided is merely a statement of theory, something like billions of years of random atomic collisions created life. That is, scientists have never demonstrated how this first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism.
People who believe in abiogenesis recognized this problem long ago. To explain this difficulty, scientists proposed that proteins and nucleic acids evolved first, and they later evolved into life. (That theory makes sense, since these two molecule groups are the primary building blocks of cellular and multicellular life.) However, as of this date, nobody has discovered any proof that proteins or nucleic acids could evolve from non life either. A review of the scientific literature makes this clear. Michael Behe sums it up well in his book Darwin's Black Box.
"There is no publication in the scientific literature, in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books, that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations."
"Scientists do not yet understand how life first started. Therefore, God."People who believe in abiogenesis...No, but there are things that suggest the a higher power was necessary to start the world (and all things on it) turning.What things suggest that?
My response to Babsinva's argument is simple: Who, then, created God?
It could have been, yes. I don't read your posts.My response to Babsinva's argument is simple: Who, then, created God?
Isnt that exactly what i brought out? (see my last post) If something had to "create" the universe, something that complex must also have a creator even more complex, which must also have a creator/builder...ad nauseum.
Who made (not discovered and not proved) but WHO MADE SCIENCE? Who made the axis? Who made the rotation? WhoThis uses a blatant intuitionist assumption that it needed to be made. This uses the preconceived notion of a creator as its own premise to justify search.
made the length of the rotation? Who made the amount of tilt? WHO MADE
EVERYTHING, if there is only science and NO God? HOW was it made then?
Reponse to all:Did you seriously just quote a bunch of articles that are 30 - 50 years old?
I will quote some but not all- for it would be too long of a post, so if you are interested you may check out the article(s) in your local library.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada's director reiterated the introduction in Darwin’s centennial edition. “ The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, but only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.. The divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit ant certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.” (Done by then director W.R. Thompson)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p 199
#1) I wanted to use YOUR publications - scientific references not something from church doctrine, and not an anti-evolution critic - that's why I chose these on purpose.You're still doing it wrong. Every scientists in the world could claim that Evolution is false, and it wouldn't do anything to counter the overwhelming evidence in Evolution's favor.
#2) I also chose these because based on the rule of quoting as it relates to plagerism- these items are public domain and I can quote as much as I like as long as I cite the reference.Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
#3) Also I chose these references because it really does not matter that they are old - the fact is after over a century - there is still no clear cut answer and there is growing dissent among scientists - so actually the older stuff does not hinder the credibility or validity of the references.Growing dissent among scientists? Are you fucking kidding? The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts that Evolution happens. That's roughly 99% of them. The few scientists who don't agree are in fields that are not relevant to Evolution.
But I am sure someone out there with ADD/ADHD will pick it apart because they won't read all of it and have the attention span of a knat.That's a very nice Ad Hominem.
Reponse to all:
Reponse to all:
I will quote some but not all- for it would be too long of a post, so if you are interested you may check out the article(s) in your local library.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada's director reiterated the introduction in Darwin’s centennial edition. “ The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, but only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.. The divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit ant certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.” (Done by then director W.R. Thompson)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p 199
I am sure you will still have some complaint about the use and selection of my references because you will say they are old - they are from the 50-80's. That's right and that was done on purpose for 3 reasons:
#1) I wanted to use YOUR publications - scientific references not something from church doctrine, and not an anti-evolution critic - that's why I chose these on purpose.
#2) I also chose these because based on the rule of quoting as it relates to plagerism- these items are public domain and I can quote as much as I like as long as I cite the reference.
#3) Also I chose these references because it really does not matter that they are old - the fact is after over a century - there is still no clear cut answer and there is growing dissent among scientists - so actually the older stuff does not hinder the credibility or validity of the references.
But I am sure someone out there with ADD/ADHD will pick it apart because they won't read all of it and have the attention span of a knat.
Reponse to all:
I will quote some but not all- for it would be too long of a post, so if you are interested you may check out the article(s) in your local library.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada's director reiterated the introduction in Darwin’s centennial edition. “ The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, but only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.. The divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit ant certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.” (Done by then director W.R. Thompson)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p 199
I am sure you will still have some complaint about the use and selection of my references because you will say they are old - they are from the 50-80's. That's right and that was done on purpose for 3 reasons:
#1) I wanted to use YOUR publications - scientific references not something from church doctrine, and not an anti-evolution critic - that's why I chose these on purpose.
#2) I also chose these because based on the rule of quoting as it relates to plagerism- these items are public domain and I can quote as much as I like as long as I cite the reference.
#3) Also I chose these references because it really does not matter that they are old
- the fact is after over a century - there is still no clear cut answer and there is growing dissent among scientists.
- so actually the older stuff does not hinder the credibility or validity of the references.
But I am sure someone out there with ADD/ADHD will pick it apart because they won't read all of it and have the attention span of a knat.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
Should I remind you Raist what you said about evolution not happening and now you agree with the people in the forum - sounds like a complete flip-flop to me. See your quote below.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
And your mention of fish not being able to crawl out of water and breathe air, except maybe a lungfish? Incorrect. Here is a list of many fish that do just that - they are called walking fish, aka ambulatory fish (and no I do not mean tetrapods), and no I do not mean walk the ocean floor; I mean on land. And NO they are NOT amphibians -they are fish - hence the word perciforms.
Amphibian Fish:
1) Mudskipper
2) Labyrinth fish (Anabantoidei) -some species can
3) Climbing Gourami (member of family above in #2)
4) Snakehead fish (Channidae)
5) Rockskippers (blennies)
None of the ones I've mentioned are extinct, and all come from the same
Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Actinopterygii
Order - Perciforms
The one fish you mentioned as a maybe - is a lungfish, which most are extinct. There are some that are not extinct, but they are more like salamanders with feet since their ancestor is a tetrapod, and the class is not the same as mine listed above -but instead is sarcopterygii.
Oh and by the way some of the ones I've mentioned can live out of water for 24 hrs, Raist. And the ones I mentioned do travel by springing, snaking along, and imploring tripod like walking. Some have been reported as thought to also climb.
So before you flip flop or try and tell me what you think you know - maybe you should check your references a litttle better next time Raist.Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
And not copy and pasta from anyone - I typed it. I have a whole library in my home -I do not need to copy and paste anything from the internet. This is an assumption by you. I am an ex-Catholic, but I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I am NOT baptised under any religion now. Another assumption.Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
In reference to plagerism, you may quote a small piece with credit given (cited) but not whole paragraphs unless it is public domain.
Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
And not copy and pasta from anyone - I typed it. I have a whole library in my home -I do not need to copy and paste anything from the internet. This is an assumption by you. I am an ex-Catholic, but I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I am NOT baptised under any religion now. Another assumption.
Reponse to all:
I will quote some but not all- for it would be too long of a post, so if you are interested you may check out the article(s) in your local library.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.??? (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada's director reiterated the introduction in Darwin’s centennial edition. “ The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin???s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, but only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.. The divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit ant certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.” (Done by then director W.R. Thompson)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p 199
I am sure you will still have some complaint about the use and selection of my references because you will say they are old - they are from the 50-80's. That's right and that was done on purpose for 3 reasons:
#1) I wanted to use YOUR publications - scientific references not something from church doctrine, and not an anti-evolution critic - that's why I chose these on purpose.
#2) I also chose these because based on the rule of quoting as it relates to plagerism- these items are public domain and I can quote as much as I like as long as I cite the reference.
#3) Also I chose these references because it really does not matter that they are old - the fact is after over a century - there is still no clear cut answer and there is growing dissent among scientists - so actually the older stuff does not hinder the credibility or validity of the references.
But I am sure someone out there with ADD/ADHD will pick it apart because they won't read all of it and have the attention span of a knat.
Haha, This entire line of questioning from babs reminds me of something i heard a few years back that has stuck with me.... This, actually.
"Why do moths suicide dive into candle flames?"
The question itself is at fault. While on a base level, the question seems pertinant. The question is flawed with our own understanding as to the situation. The real answer is that moths instinctively fly at a constant (roughly) 30 deg angle to light objects normaly found at "optical infinity". So when moths fly at an illumination that actualy has a measurable distance, they will perform a logarithmic circle into the flame. So the correct question is, "what function does flying towards light sources serve for moths?" Without going too in depth, navigation is the answer. The whole suicide is a miss-fire of the activity. As we learn more and more about science, we learn how some of our previously stated questions where flawed and learn even more by asking the correct questions!
On this subject/question, "who created science?" The question itself is flawed (and baited at that). An example of a proper question would be "What would have to of occured to create current conditions?" Evolution explains bio-diversity on the large scale. Sure, there are some good debates/research on specific areas of evolution such as (as a major example) macro vs micro evolution. But the debate that evolution in the broad sense exists is over. At this point its like trying to debate germ theory, (yes, that germs cause disease is still a "theory") while some of the specific particulars are still under solid debate. The overall premise isnt.
Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
In reference to plagerism, you may quote a small piece with credit given (cited) but not whole paragraphs unless it is public domain.
Should I remind you Raist what you said about evolution not happening and now you agree with the people in the forum - sounds like a complete flip-flop to me. See your quote below.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
And your mention of fish not being able to crawl out of water and breathe air, except maybe a lungfish? Incorrect. Here is a list of many fish that do just that - they are called walking fish, aka ambulatory fish (and no I do not mean tetrapods), and no I do not mean walk the ocean floor; I mean on land. And NO they are NOT amphibians -they are fish - hence the word perciforms.
Amphibian Fish:
1) Mudskipper
2) Labyrinth fish (Anabantoidei) -some species can
3) Climbing Gourami (member of family above in #2)
4) Snakehead fish (Channidae)
5) Rockskippers (blennies)
None of the ones I've mentioned are extinct, and all come from the same
Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Actinopterygii
Order - Perciforms
The one fish you mentioned as a maybe - is a lungfish, which most are extinct. There are some that are not extinct, but they are more like salamanders with feet since their ancestor is a tetrapod, and the class is not the same as mine listed above -but instead is sarcopterygii.
Oh and by the way some of the ones I've mentioned can live out of water for 24 hrs, Raist. And the ones I mentioned do travel by springing, snaking along, and imploring tripod like walking. Some have been reported as thought to also climb.
So before you flip flop or try and tell me what you think you know - maybe you should check your references a litttle better next time Raist.Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
And not copy and pasta from anyone - I typed it. I have a whole library in my home -I do not need to copy and paste anything from the internet. This is an assumption by you. I am an ex-Catholic, but I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I am NOT baptised under any religion now. Another assumption.Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
In reference to plagerism, you may quote a small piece with credit given (cited) but not whole paragraphs unless it is public domain.
You mean I said that if evolution happened there would be an intermediate fish and then I hinted at said intermediate fish? Like maybe that I was intentionally leading people in the direction that evolution does happen?
No Raist - your so-called intermediate fish is not even in the order of perciforms. (fish) And you said maybe a lungfish -like you didn't know if that would classify or not. And they do not - their ancestor is a tetrapod. (4 legs) And most - are extinct. So bringing up things that maybe could be suggested but from another whole class - which are mostly extinct... is not only NON-qualifying, but irrevelant.Devil's Advocate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/devil's_advocate)
NO Raist, I mean exactly what I said..... you said there may be one fish that can be on land and breathe air...and I reminded you that - No you are wrong - and I showed 5 specific examples. So your knowledge of the subject is lacking and your posting is inaccurate. In fact rockskippers have at least 833 species in 130 genera. And mudskippers are the most mobile of them all - using pectoral fins to walk on land.
2nd of all.... you do flip flop - you do it all the time in your posts - you agree one time and another time not agree, even on the same subject - just depending on what the general consensus of the forum is at the time. Either you just go with the popular vote at the time - because you can't think for yourself, or are afraid of being criticized for being yourself. Maybe you are just trolling. I've seen other people call you out on this too besides me - and say.... don't even pretend to be atheist Raist- because we know you are not.
So no I meant what I said, - yes Raist you flip flop and yes you are inaccurate. Now you are turning the tables too - you are good at that.
Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Bump.
Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Bump.
What does it explain? Who maybe, but not anything even remotely related to how.Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Well..... It is.... just a religious one as opposed to a scientific one.
What does it explain? Who maybe, but not anything even remotely related to how.Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Well..... It is.... just a religious one as opposed to a scientific one.
Any time I think of how god created the universe I remember how Dr. Manhattan was able to do everything. He understood the universe at such a level that he was able to control it. he truly comprehended it.What does it explain? Who maybe, but not anything even remotely related to how.Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Well..... It is.... just a religious one as opposed to a scientific one.
The "How" is god-magic or something I suppose. I agree its insane.
Should I remind you Raist what you said about evolution not happening and now you agree with the people in the forum - sounds like a complete flip-flop to me. See your quote below.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
And your mention of fish not being able to crawl out of water and breathe air, except maybe a lungfish? Incorrect. Here is a list of many fish that do just that - they are called walking fish, aka ambulatory fish (and no I do not mean tetrapods), and no I do not mean walk the ocean floor; I mean on land. And NO they are NOT amphibians -they are fish - hence the word perciforms.
Amphibian Fish:
1) Mudskipper
2) Labyrinth fish (Anabantoidei) -some species can
3) Climbing Gourami (member of family above in #2)
4) Snakehead fish (Channidae)
5) Rockskippers (blennies)
None of the ones I've mentioned are extinct, and all come from the same
Kingdom - Animalia
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Actinopterygii
Order - Perciforms
The one fish you mentioned as a maybe - is a lungfish, which most are extinct. There are some that are not extinct, but they are more like salamanders with feet since their ancestor is a tetrapod, and the class is not the same as mine listed above -but instead is sarcopterygii.
Oh and by the way some of the ones I've mentioned can live out of water for 24 hrs, Raist. And the ones I mentioned do travel by springing, snaking along, and imploring tripod like walking. Some have been reported as thought to also climb.
So before you flip flop or try and tell me what you think you know - maybe you should check your references a litttle better next time Raist.Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
And not copy and pasta from anyone - I typed it. I have a whole library in my home -I do not need to copy and paste anything from the internet. This is an assumption by you. I am an ex-Catholic, but I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I am NOT baptised under any religion now. Another assumption.Plagiarism is claiming someone else's work as your own. Just give credit to the author.
In reference to plagerism, you may quote a small piece with credit given (cited) but not whole paragraphs unless it is public domain.
You mean I said that if evolution happened there would be an intermediate fish and then I hinted at said intermediate fish? Like maybe that I was intentionally leading people in the direction that evolution does happen?
No Raist - your so-called intermediate fish is not even in the order of perciforms. (fish) And you said maybe a lungfish -like you didn't know if that would classify or not. And they do not - their ancestor is a tetrapod. (4 legs) And most - are extinct. So bringing up things that maybe could be suggested but from another whole class - which are mostly extinct... is not only NON-qualifying, but irrevelant.
NO Raist, I mean exactly what I said..... you said there may be one fish that can be on land and breathe air...and I reminded you that - No you are wrong - and I showed 5 specific examples. So your knowledge of the subject is lacking and your posting is inaccurate. In fact rockskippers have at least 833 species in 130 genera. And mudskippers are the most mobile of them all - using pectoral fins to walk on land.
2nd of all.... you do flip flop - you do it all the time in your posts - you agree one time and another time not agree, even on the same subject - just depending on what the general consensus of the forum is at the time. Either you just go with the popular vote at the time - because you can't think for yourself, or are afraid of being criticized for being yourself. Maybe you are just trolling. I've seen other people call you out on this too besides me - and say.... don't even pretend to be atheist Raist- because we know you are not.
So no I meant what I said, - yes Raist you flip flop and yes you are inaccurate. Now you are turning the tables too - you are good at that.
The Final Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)Any time I think of how god created the universe I remember how Dr. Manhattan was able to do everything. He understood the universe at such a level that he was able to control it. he truly comprehended it.What does it explain? Who maybe, but not anything even remotely related to how.Also, the notion of God is not in any way an explanation for existence.Well..... It is.... just a religious one as opposed to a scientific one.
The "How" is god-magic or something I suppose. I agree its insane.
Also reminds me of the story of the analogue computer. they asked it how to reverse entropy and it said not enough information. then as time when on it got more complex so the humans asked it again and it said not enough information. this went on for eons until at the end of the universe the all the people were either dead or part of the computer. then as the universe ended the computer figured out how to reverse entropy. but with no one left to do anything it fell on the computers shoulders to do it. Its next words were heard throughout the universe. "Let there be light"
I post this because it seems that there is at least a possibility that something with intelligence created this universe. however I think that there is some possibility of us becoming "gods" and creating our own universes. would that make us God. what rights would we have to thoses who inhabit that universe. What does it mean to be god.
Reponse to all:
I will quote some but not all- for it would be too long of a post, so if you are interested you may check out the article(s) in your local library.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada's director reiterated the introduction in Darwin’s centennial edition. “ The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: ‘As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, but only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process.. The divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit ant certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.” (Done by then director W.R. Thompson)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p 199
I am sure you will still have some complaint about the use and selection of my references because you will say they are old - they are from the 50-80's. That's right and that was done on purpose for 3 reasons:
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.I think it was taken out of context. Saying that Darwin was wrong about things doesn't make one a creationist. Further indication of copypasta.
The "How" is god-magic or something I suppose. I agree its insane.Yes, but I'm saying that a response of magic offers no revelation or advancement of understanding... so how can it be an explanation?
Copypasta from Jehovah's Witness literature does not warrant response.
And not copy and pasta from anyone - I typed it. I have a whole library in my home -I do not need to copy and paste anything from the internet. This is an assumption by you. I am an ex-Catholic, but I am not a Jehovah's Witness, and I am NOT baptised under any religion now. Another assumption.
I'm calling bullshit on this. You can tell what's copypasta on FES because the forum mangles some of the punctuation marks, see below:
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
Physics Bulletin: What exactly is this source? There are hundreds of "Physics Bulletins". Is that the name of a magazine? Or is it just a random Bulletin from Christian Tech. Or, is it nothing.
No incorrect - when you are NOT logged in - it appears like this ....Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.†(Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
There is NO way I could have copied and pasted this from the source on the internet, because it's too old- you would have to already have this in your home library or go to the library. Mostly found at your larger libraries or either a university library- because your small local libraries would not have this.
To Marcus & others: No it is not A physics bulletin; it is the Physics Bulletin. It was issued by the Institute of Physics and the Physics Society of London, and self-published by the Institute of Physics from 1968-1988 until it changed names and partnered up with America. Midway through 1988 it became "Physics World" published in association with the American Institute of Physics, issued by IOP Pub Ltmd. Just because many of you have not heard of it, does not mean it does not exist.
Are you guys being seriously about this copy/paste stuff? Babsivna have been an avid copy/paster since day one.
Yeeah I was just going to post a similar rebuttal because I just found a page with all of those quotes in it as well.
@babsinva: I'm still waiting for that peer reviewed paper that refutes evolution. I'd really like to know what this experimental evidence in support of creation is that is being referred to in that quote. So where is this evidence? Either show it, or admit that you have none.
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
That's not because the 60-year old less "memory space". The 6 year-old's mind is very impressionable and not yet set into a strict mental pattern.The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
I would love a source on this. Especially since humans have a certain point in their lives when learning actually starts to become tougher, as though we've started to deplete our mental resources. It's pretty easy to test this. Take a 6-year-old and a 60-year-old from Europe and have the both of them learn Japanese.
The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans ? all without knowing they are doing so.
The human brain is too complex to happen by accident, or mutation.
I would love a source on this. Especially since humans have a certain point in their lives when learning actually starts to become tougher, as though we've started to deplete our mental resources. It's pretty easy to test this. Take a 6-year-old and a 60-year-old from Europe and have the both of them learn Japanese.
We use much more than 10% of our brain, I've heard on MRI's there is usually 10% active at any one time, but if 90% of the brain was useless brain damage would be no biggie considering the likelihood of it actually being usable brain.I believe ten percent is directly related to moving the body.
Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.I still like how they came up with it. Who's idea was it to poke a persons brain while they were alive?
Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.I still like how they came up with it. Who's idea was it to poke a persons brain while they were alive?
still better then how they came up with sweet an low or whatever it is called. A lab assistant tasted one of the experiments.Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.I still like how they came up with it. Who's idea was it to poke a persons brain while they were alive?
The same people that decided to vivisect things to see how they work.
Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.
Last Thursday.Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.
Yeah, when was the last time you heard of a neurosurgeon dropping an instrument into someone's exposed brain and saying, "Oh it's fine. That's part of the unused 90%."
Last Thursday.Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.
Yeah, when was the last time you heard of a neurosurgeon dropping an instrument into someone's exposed brain and saying, "Oh it's fine. That's part of the unused 90%."
Actually I believe Wardogg is right, only 10 percent of our brain cells are neurons. Though, that does not in any way show how the brain could not have evolved to it's current state from simpler states over millions of years.
It's kind of a long story.Last Thursday.Whatever the cause for the belief, it's obviously wrong.
Yeah, when was the last time you heard of a neurosurgeon dropping an instrument into someone's exposed brain and saying, "Oh it's fine. That's part of the unused 90%."
You have a very extravagant life involving very misinformed surgeons. Are you no MASH?
lolActually I believe Wardogg is right, only 10 percent of our brain cells are neurons. Though, that does not in any way show how the brain could not have evolved to it's current state from simpler states over millions of years.
Do you know what a neuron is? There are helper cells to provide neurons with what they need, but they are minuscule compared to neurons, and definitely would not count as part of your brain not being used.
Actually I believe Wardogg is right, only 10 percent of our brain cells are neurons. Though, that does not in any way show how the brain could not have evolved to it's current state from simpler states over millions of years.
Do you know what a neuron is? There are helper cells to provide neurons with what they need, but they are minuscule compared to neurons, and definitely would not count as part of your brain not being used.
Actually I believe Wardogg is right, only 10 percent of our brain cells are neurons. Though, that does not in any way show how the brain could not have evolved to it's current state from simpler states over millions of years.
Do you know what a neuron is? There are helper cells to provide neurons with what they need, but they are minuscule compared to neurons, and definitely would not count as part of your brain not being used.
I did not say the other cells are not being used. I said that 10 percent of brain cells are neurons. Glial cells are not neurons, they do provide support for the neurons, as well as regulate the internal environment and even assist in transferring nerve impulses. The brain would not function without them.
Evolution doesn't make sense.I like how you never bother to explain, justify, or rationalize your statements.
The whole timeframe is warped.
We have no idea what happened 4 billion years ago.
Evolution doesn't make sense.
The whole timeframe is warped.
We have no idea what happened 4 billion years ago.
Evolution doesn't make sense.
The whole timeframe is warped.
We have no idea what happened 4 billion years ago.
The only real evidences for creationism are [insert holy text here].Just curious, but what on Earth do you think the definition of scientific evidence is?
The same argument can be said about all illnesses, and yet they no longer attempting to refute that as the clinical proof is so extensive as to be easy to show cause/effect.The causes of illness is demonstrable. The legitimacy of old dusty fables can never be tested, will always be questioned, and should always be questioned. Illness was right to be questioned before evidence was compiled. We should still question it now. We act on the likelihood that it is right until new evidence comes to light. The bible has nothing logical supporting it, at least that has been presented to me.
I confess that the idea for this post came from another post that I was commenting on, and I realized after it was frozen that there was an argument here that demands further scrutiny and an answer.1. There are numerous theories as to how life could have come about with supernatural intervention:
The evolutionists and atheistic biologists group have consistently written off life and DNA as an accident of nature that could have happened anywhere with similar conditions as the earth, and given enough time WOULD happen.
I used to feel that the argument had some merit and was possible. I now have reconsidered my position and believe that there is enough evidence to say that all life, and DNA specifically, is evidence of, not an accident, but of deliberate design.
Why do I feel that there is design at work in the presence of life on this planet?
1. The order of complexity of DNA is such that to compare the most complicated non-living thing that nature has ever produced to DNA is like comparing the stone axe of primitive man to the space shuttle. If life is an accident of nature, then where are the intermediate steps to life. If the formation of life happened by chemical processes then there must be some intermediate steps that lie just outside of life itself, which with a little nudge, could produce a living organism.
Those who don't accept evolution as the process by which man developed, point to "the missing link", a state in which the creature that became man was just outside of being human, as evidence that man didn't come by way of that process. By the same token, there should be some extremely complex chemical compounds that are "almost', but not quite, a living, reproducing, organism. If we had found such 'chemicals' we could easily synthesize them and "push" them over the boundary between the living and the nonliving. We have not.
That gap in nature, from the nonliving to the living, suggests to me that life did not come by way of nature but was 'created' by an intelligence that we don't yet understand. For man, life is still a complete mystery that we are not even close to understanding. Yet some of us claim to think we understand how it came to exist.
2. Man has been able to overcome unimaginably complicated tasks and obstacles, and even catalog the genome of his own species, yet cannot produce the DNA of even the simplest living organism. We still don't have a complete understanding of how it works!!!
We can put footprints on the moon and send robots to Mars to explore the universe, yet we still cannot produce the simplest strand of DNA that is known to us. How could such intelligence fail to make the simplest version of something that has been described as an "accident" of nature.
3. The most complicated creation of man so far has been 'artificial' intelligence, which is a computer program, and the device that interprets it and runs it. This 'imitation' of intelligence is just a shadow of 'real' intelligence that exists in many higher order animals. We can't make a device that can hunt and track other animals, like a hunting dog, yet that dog is supposed to be an accident of nature, and our crude imitations that we call robots, are deliberate designs.
4. We have never established that there is other life anywhere else in the universe. We have searched our solar system for evidence and found only rocky planets that are devoid of life and other planets that are composed of poisonous gasses. We have had the "Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence" SETI, ongoing for some years now, and have not had even the slightest hint of radio waves, TV signals, or any other evidence that there is other life among the stars.
Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something. We send megawatts of signals every day into space in all directions, that other intelligence could pick up and detect that we are here. If the same thing happened elsewhere, why do we not detect similar signals. Given that the distances between stars is almost incomprehensible, most such signals would have had to start out long before we even existed. Yet the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there has been time for intelligence to develop many times over if it came by way of nature, on other planets. There should be at least one that has reached us by now. Yet we still do not see the signals we are looking for.
I confess that the idea for this post came from another post that I was commenting on, and I realized after it was frozen that there was an argument here that demands further scrutiny and an answer.
The evolutionists and atheistic biologists group have consistently written off life and DNA as an accident of nature that could have happened anywhere with similar conditions as the earth, and given enough time WOULD happen.
I used to feel that the argument had some merit and was possible. I now have reconsidered my position and believe that there is enough evidence to say that all life, and DNA specifically, is evidence of, not an accident, but of deliberate design.
Why do I feel that there is design at work in the presence of life on this planet?
1. The order of complexity of DNA is such that to compare the most complicated non-living thing that nature has ever produced to DNA is like comparing the stone axe of primitive man to the space shuttle. If life is an accident of nature, then where are the intermediate steps to life. If the formation of life happened by chemical processes then there must be some intermediate steps that lie just outside of life itself, which with a little nudge, could produce a living organism.
Those who don't accept evolution as the process by which man developed, point to "the missing link", a state in which the creature that became man was just outside of being human, as evidence that man didn't come by way of that process. By the same token, there should be some extremely complex chemical compounds that are "almost', but not quite, a living, reproducing, organism. If we had found such 'chemicals' we could easily synthesize them and "push" them over the boundary between the living and the nonliving. We have not.
That gap in nature, from the nonliving to the living, suggests to me that life did not come by way of nature but was 'created' by an intelligence that we don't yet understand. For man, life is still a complete mystery that we are not even close to understanding. Yet some of us claim to think we understand how it came to exist.
2. Man has been able to overcome unimaginably complicated tasks and obstacles, and even catalog the genome of his own species, yet cannot produce the DNA of even the simplest living organism. We still don't have a complete understanding of how it works!!!
We can put footprints on the moon and send robots to Mars to explore the universe, yet we still cannot produce the simplest strand of DNA that is known to us. How could such intelligence fail to make the simplest version of something that has been described as an "accident" of nature.
3. The most complicated creation of man so far has been 'artificial' intelligence, which is a computer program, and the device that interprets it and runs it. This 'imitation' of intelligence is just a shadow of 'real' intelligence that exists in many higher order animals. We can't make a device that can hunt and track other animals, like a hunting dog, yet that dog is supposed to be an accident of nature, and our crude imitations that we call robots, are deliberate designs.
4. We have never established that there is other life anywhere else in the universe. We have searched our solar system for evidence and found only rocky planets that are devoid of life and other planets that are composed of poisonous gasses. We have had the "Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence" SETI, ongoing for some years now, and have not had even the slightest hint of radio waves, TV signals, or any other evidence that there is other life among the stars.
Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something. We send megawatts of signals every day into space in all directions, that other intelligence could pick up and detect that we are here. If the same thing happened elsewhere, why do we not detect similar signals. Given that the distances between stars is almost incomprehensible, most such signals would have had to start out long before we even existed. Yet the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there has been time for intelligence to develop many times over if it came by way of nature, on other planets. There should be at least one that has reached us by now. Yet we still do not see the signals we are looking for.
Why do I feel that there is design at work in the presence of life on this planet?What is nonliving? Are single cells living? Is RNA living? Are amino acids living? Are certain carbon chains living? Are atoms living? Subatomic particles?
1. The order of complexity of DNA is such that to compare the most complicated non-living thing that nature has ever produced to DNA is like comparing the stone axe of primitive man to the space shuttle.
Those who don't accept evolution as the process by which man developed, point to "the missing link", a state in which the creature that became man was just outside of being human, as evidence that man didn't come by way of that process.Please name the missing link you are looking for. Which two species to you consider extraordinarily dissimilar in which you know of nothing between?
By the same token, there should be some extremely complex chemical compounds that are "almost', but not quite, a living, reproducing, organism."Almost organic compounds that do not reproduce"... why would we expect to find them? They can easily break down, and they wouldn't cover large areas.
That gap in nature, from the nonliving to the living, suggests to me that life did not come by way of nature but was 'created' by an intelligence that we don't yet understand.Living is set of human imposed rules to define what we (the living things) value. You have to assume there is something special about the rules to consider life special or important.
2. Man has been able to overcome unimaginably complicated tasks and obstacles, and even catalog the genome of his own species, yet cannot produce the DNA of even the simplest living organism. We still don't have a complete understanding of how it works!!!We already have completed a functional one as Mykael noted, but it is not the easy task you suggest. I can break down a door but I can't push in a single pin on a wall of many. Our operational size is not a measure of our achievements, and our artificial achievements are not a measure of natural products. DNA is made of atoms. Delicately assembling atoms by artificially creating molecular bonds is a harder task than you give it credit. When we mix chemicals, they are doing all the work. DNA is building an exact replica of a ship (down to the wood grain) in a bottle smaller than the edge of your thumbnail.
We can put footprints on the moon and send robots to Mars to explore the universe, yet we still cannot produce the simplest strand of DNA that is known to us. How could such intelligence fail to make the simplest version of something that has been described as an "accident" of nature.
4. We have never established that there is other life anywhere else in the universe. We have searched our solar system for evidence and found only rocky planets that are devoid of life and other planets that are composed of poisonous gasses. We have had the "Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence" SETI, ongoing for some years now, and have not had even the slightest hint of radio waves, TV signals, or any other evidence that there is other life among the stars.For good reason. Integrity of radio waves decay over distances. Space may be much closer to a vacuum than air, but we're talking some fucking distance.
Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something. We send megawatts of signals every day into space in all directions, that other intelligence could pick up and detect that we are here. If the same thing happened elsewhere, why do we not detect similar signals. Given that the distances between stars is almost incomprehensible, most such signals would have had to start out long before we even existed. Yet the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there has been time for intelligence to develop many times over if it came by way of nature, on other planets. There should be at least one that has reached us by now. Yet we still do not see the signals we are looking for.Why do you think that there has been enough time for intelligence species many times over?
It makes no sense that we're able to consistently predict events that happened billions of years ago.Or that in the timeframe no other intelligent specie managed to rise up. The whole idea of an ecosystem that could be wiped out by a major disaster time and time again in order to be reborn into something more advanced kind of sounds too nice to be true.
The idea that Evolution is an all positive process that only leads to more developed and better adapted species sounds a bit too simple to work in a complex universe.
Too me Evolution also involved making an imaginary timeline with no actual knowledge behind half of what we were finding.
The idea that Evolution is an all positive process that only leads to more developed and better adapted species sounds a bit too simple to work in a complex universe.
Too me Evolution also involved making an imaginary timeline with no actual knowledge behind half of what we were finding.
It makes no sense that we're able to consistently predict events that happened billions of years ago.Or that in the timeframe no other intelligent specie managed to rise up. The whole idea of an ecosystem that could be wiped out by a major disaster time and time again in order to be reborn into something more advanced kind of sounds too nice to be true.
The idea that Evolution is an all positive process that only leads to more developed and better adapted species sounds a bit too simple to work in a complex universe.
Too me Evolution also involved making an imaginary timeline with no actual knowledge behind half of what we were finding.
It makes no sense that we're able to consistently predict events that happened billions of years ago.
Or that in the timeframe no other intelligent specie managed to rise up.
The whole idea of an ecosystem that could be wiped out by a major disaster time and time again in order to be reborn into something more advanced kind of sounds too nice to be true.
The idea that Evolution is an all positive process that only leads to more developed and better adapted species sounds a bit too simple to work in a complex universe.
Too me Evolution also involved making an imaginary timeline with no actual knowledge behind half of what we were finding.
Technically I'd view the ecological/b] as a living thing which gets crippled ever 65 million years to the point where it is practically dead.
At some point you'd expect to start seeing some serious genetic deterioration or at least you'd get to the point where certain ecological niches wouldn't be able to be filled anymore.
The whole idea that life would start anew every-time it has a close call with mass extinction;with no permanent damage.Sounds like so much willful thinking for me.
And I am not entirely sold on the fossil record either.Some of these so called fossils appeared to be quite alive.
what?
what?
what
Quotewhat?
I am just thinking of how you can supposedly destroy the ecosystem at will and yet have it recover at will within a few million years. Wouldn't that kind of thing eventually lead to some kind of permanent genetic scarring?
Only way for evolution to be possible,the way it is presented,is for there to be an ecosystem and for that system to eventually reach stagnation and then be wiped out by an event-asteroid,ice age or Global warming if you will.
It would be like us exterminating practically 90% of the ecosystem and then expecting it to eventually rebound.At some point life would become so permanently damaged that it wouldn't be able to recover anymore.There wouldn't be the energy or the ability to evolve into new niches simply because the whole ecosystem would be too damaged for it to happen.
To me it is the whole cycle of death and rebirth that seems to be so linked with evolution that raises doubts on the whole theory.
The misfortunes of some can be the fortunes of others, when the dinosaurs were the dominant animal on the planet, mammals were small nocturnal creatures, when all of the large non-avian dinosaurs became extinct, it enabled mammals to flourish since the competition had been eliminated. Mammals were not destroyed then reborn, they survived and moved forward.
I saw a report that Tyrannosaurs was a vegetarian.....
Quote from: :
what?
I am just thinking of how you can supposedly destroy the ecosystem at will and yet have it recover at will within a few million years. Wouldn't that kind of thing eventually lead to some kind of permanent genetic scarring?
Yeah but the current theory doesn't state that were wiped out within a few million years.
It states there was an event that wiped out them out within a few years although there are different theories.However that extinction came about it was supposed to be incredibly fast.
I just don't see how something that sudden wouldn't permanently damage the balance for a while.
I still don't understand what this "balance" is.... or how the deoxyribonucleic acid that forms genetic code can be "scarred"1. He completely misunderstands the natural equilibrium of nature (primarily, that it is self-correcting), and
I still don't understand what this "balance" is.... or how the deoxyribonucleic acid that forms genetic code can be "scarred"it shouldn't have kept picking at the scab.
I still don't understand what this "balance" is.... or how the deoxyribonucleic acid that forms genetic code can be "scarred"1. He completely misunderstands the natural equilibrium of nature (primarily, that it is self-correcting), and
2. It can't be.
How would humanity fit in with that whole equilibrium of nature?
If it was as absolute as you pointed out,something would be wiping us out at this point.Instead we are much more likely to wipe out the rest of the biosphere.
To Marcus & others: No it is not A physics bulletin; it is the Physics Bulletin. It was issued by the Institute of Physics and the Physics Society of London, and self-published by the Institute of Physics from 1968-1988 until it changed names and partnered up with America. Midway through 1988 it became "Physics World" published in association with the American Institute of Physics, issued by IOP Pub Ltmd. Just because many of you have not heard of it, does not mean it does not exist.
And was it at that time a peer-reviewed research journal? I browsed the site and an article (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40588) and it does definitely NOT look scientific. That article I linked didn't even cite the source article!
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
To Pete and others:To Marcus & others: No it is not A physics bulletin; it is the Physics Bulletin. It was issued by the Institute of Physics and the Physics Society of London, and self-published by the Institute of Physics from 1968-1988 until it changed names and partnered up with America. Midway through 1988 it became "Physics World" published in association with the American Institute of Physics, issued by IOP Pub Ltmd. Just because many of you have not heard of it, does not mean it does not exist.
And was it at that time a peer-reviewed research journal? I browsed the site and an article (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40588) and it does definitely NOT look scientific. That article I linked didn't even cite the source article!
Obviously if it was in print since 1968 and was for over 20 plus years, then of course it is real, it stands the test of time. It's not some magazine, trade publication, etc. that maybe lasted 4 yrs or so and fell off the face of the earth, or closed it's doors. It had sustainability; it had longevity. If there were no readers AND no interest - it wouldn't have lasted so long. So obviously it was a peered viewed.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
Whose peers? Yours? I did not know that in order for something to be considered a valid article or an article deemed worthy -that one would then need YOUR approval. What you and your peers read is not the consensus of the entire scientific community. Presumptuous & Pompous.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
Whose peers? Yours? I did not know that in order for something to be considered a valid article or an article deemed worthy -that one would then need YOUR approval. What you and your peers read is not the consensus of the entire scientific community. Presumptuous & Pompous.
Please look up the definition of "Peer-review"
Your straw man was funny though, please keep going.
New Scientist June 25, 1981, p828 says “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists … argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all…Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
Whose peers? Yours? I did not know that in order for something to be considered a valid article or an article deemed worthy -that one would then need YOUR approval. What you and your peers read is not the consensus of the entire scientific community. Presumptuous & Pompous.
Please look up the definition of "Peer-review"
Your straw man was funny though, please keep going.
This. Peer reviewed means it was fact checked by the scientific or academic community for accuracy in the particular field of study. It is a method in which a journal's claims based on the evidence can be factually verified to be true by experts in the subject matter.
New Scientist: A non peer reviewed magazine. Also, who are these scientists and "evolutionists"? Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper by an a scientist that refutes evolution in favor of creationism. Evolution meets all the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
Whose peers? Yours? I did not know that in order for something to be considered a valid article or an article deemed worthy -that one would then need YOUR approval. What you and your peers read is not the consensus of the entire scientific community. Presumptuous & Pompous.
Please look up the definition of "Peer-review"
Your straw man was funny though, please keep going.
This. Peer reviewed means it was fact checked by the scientific or academic community for accuracy in the particular field of study. It is a method in which a journal's claims based on the evidence can be factually verified to be true by experts in the subject matter.
To Marcus & others: No it is not A physics bulletin; it is the Physics Bulletin. It was issued by the Institute of Physics and the Physics Society of London, and self-published by the Institute of Physics from 1968-1988 until it changed names and partnered up with America. Midway through 1988 it became "Physics World" published in association with the American Institute of Physics, issued by IOP Pub Ltmd. Just because many of you have not heard of it, does not mean it does not exist.
And was it at that time a peer-reviewed research journal? I browsed the site and an article (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40588) and it does definitely NOT look scientific. That article I linked didn't even cite the source article!
The one on the "Physics Bulletin" is by the Physics Institute and Physics Society so they are speaking about their knowledge of the subject from their standpoint of the field of science which they are in. This was not some court reporter writing for the Physics Bulletin, or some Rabbi or Priest writing for the Physics Bulletin - it was Physicists. A whole group dedicated - 2 groups actually. See the quote below again to refresh yourself.
I can't help it - that what you looked up on the internet did not cite the source
, but I already gave you the source [/color] and did not take it from the internet anyhow
- books are usually a better source.
I am not saying the internet is not a marvelous idea, but not everything on there is correct. Now I am going for cigs.
Physics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.??? (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
I think this point has been thoroughly refuted. This journal wasn't peer reviewed, or that article is an opinion piece.
I think this point has been thoroughly refuted. This journal wasn't peer reviewed, or that article is an opinion piece.
I want to send you 2 pics - but don't see an attachment button and No way to get you the pic that I have taken with my camera of the book from the shelf. If you would like to tell me how then I will get the info to you tonight. Fair enough?
I think this point has been thoroughly refuted. This journal wasn't peer reviewed, or that article is an opinion piece.
I want to send you 2 pics - but don't see an attachment button and No way to get you the pic that I have taken with my camera of the book from the shelf. If you would like to tell me how then I will get the info to you tonight. Fair enough?
How about you do the reasonable thing, and give me the proper citation of
Article name, authors, sponsoring institution, Journal name, volume, issue, date, pages, DOI/URL. ???
There is no way, if this journal exists today, and is or was peer-reviewed, that there would not be some form of citation in a database. DOI number, MEDLINE, NCBI, Elsevier, SpringerLink, Wiley InterScience, JSTOR, Science Direct, Scopus, IgentaConnect, PubMed to name a few.
QuotePhysics Bulletin, 1980 Vol. 31, p138 says “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.??? (Said by Physicist H.S. Lipson)
First of all, did you add the 3 question marks at the end or was that the article? Can't say I've ever seen a professional editor let that one by. Second, in the quote you provided Lipson states there is experimental evidence for creation, what is it? Is he even talking about creationism, or is he referring to the creation of the universe? He doesn't say, remember creationism is the belief that fully adult animals are willed into being by some sky wizard instead of just being born normally, what evidence is there that this happens. He might just be referring to big bang or some other form of creation, which has nothing to do with what evolution explains.
I gave you the proper info, and could get you more by way of pics, but then again - you can't stand to be wrong now --- can you Pete? You might loose this battle -so why not be uncooperative with babsinva- it sure would help Pete NOT to have egg on his face wouldn't it?
Yes you named a few - YOU DID NOT NAME ALL and I know you think you are the only one left in the whole world that is smart and the rest of us got those dumb genes didn't we?
The database it is on is Ulrich's - but I guess you hadn't heard of that one had you. I know you haven't because you cannot get in without an ID and password....
which means :
A) You must have your own subscription to it, which you do not, or you would have know about Ulrich and already checked it.
B) You may have academic clearance by way of professor, librarian & the like- which you also do not have because again you would have known about it and checked it.
The ISSN number for the reference Physics Bulletin is....0953-8585
I told you that you would not find this on your own. I have all the info to send you - but of course we know you need to win.
Same thing with you Marcus- I gave you the title, year, the volume, and the page, & the author -see again in quote below.
First of all, did you add the 3 question marks at the end or was that the article? Can't say I've ever seen a professional editor let that one by.
I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site.
My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either. Either be helpful or admit defeat.
I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site. My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either. Either be helpful or admit defeat.
I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site. My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either. Either be helpful or admit defeat.
Why the fuck would I admit defeat? You have provided no evidence whatsoever of your claims. The burden of proof is on you. I will ask you again: What is the evidence that he speaks of that points to a being that creates fully adult animals and wills them into being out of nothing, or dust, or a rib, or whatever, When has evidence of that ever been observed?
You can upload the photo on photobucket.com then link it here. It is not my fault that you can't figure it out and there is no reason why I should concede the point because you cannot show the peer reviewed evidence.
You have yet to show me one peer reviewed article in favor of creationism. You obviously are ignoring what is needed here to convince us, it's very simple: EVIDENCE!
I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site. My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either.Find a free image hosting site, (like http://tinypic.com/) and upload the photos. When they are done uploading, it will give you the address to the picture.
Thank you singularity- you and truthinroundiestness were the only ones willing to help. So thank you. It looks like photobucket uses the img as part of the URL- so when I click on FE website IMG button and am supposed to place the link in between- - the pB website wants to also place the words "img" again after FE has the "img", so I guess I will delete the one from PB with the backspace and leave the rest of the URL. ?? Don't know will have to play with it.I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site. My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either.Find a free image hosting site, (like http://tinypic.com/) and upload the photos. When they are done uploading, it will give you the address to the picture.
Post the address inside tags like this mock up: [img]www.ImageURL.com/evidence.jpg[/img]
Thank you singularity- you and truthinroundiestness were the only ones willing to help.I will send you everything everything let me say that again - everything- if YOU cooperate- tell me how to send an attachment - on this site. My pics are saved in my hard drive that I took with my digital camera, and I already tried copy and paste and it will not send the pic that way either.Find a free image hosting site, (like http://tinypic.com/) and upload the photos. When they are done uploading, it will give you the address to the picture.
Post the address inside tags like this mock up: [img]www.ImageURL.com/evidence.jpg[/img]
So thank you. It looks like photobucket uses the img as part of the URL- so when I click on FE website IMG button and am supposed to place the link in between- - the pB website wants to also place the words "img" again after FE has the "img", so I guess I will delete the one from PB with the backspace and leave the rest of the URL. ?? Don't know will have to play with it.
Yes you named a few - YOU DID NOT NAME ALL and I know you think you are the only one left in the whole world that is smart and the rest of us got those dumb genes didn't we?
No, but I named a large number of the major ones. Shesh calm down.The database it is on is Ulrich's - but I guess you hadn't heard of that one had you.
Will you please shut up. Ulrich's is hardly the largest and most prestigious periodical database, why on earth would I have heard of it.
I think this point has been thoroughly refuted. This journal wasn't peer reviewed, or that article is an opinion piece.C ) You speak or write without thinking, & you jump to conclusions.
The ISSN number for the reference Physics Bulletin is....0953-8585
Same thing with you Marcus- I gave you the title, year, the volume, and the page, & the author
Yes. Of course since that periodical has been discontinued and you didn't provide an article name or any ISSN or DOI or article title that time, it makes it absurdly difficult.Incorrect:
A ) )[/color] Ulrich's Periodicals Directory has been a global source for periodicals information since 1932 !
B ) You may NOT have heard of it - but you were willing to discount the source immediately before having known of the database, or of having knowledge of the reference material "Physics Bulletin". You also blatantly said....
I think this point has been thoroughly refuted. This journal wasn't peer reviewed, or that article is an opinion piece.C ) You speak or write without thinking, & you jump to conclusions.
Ulrich has this to say .......under Document Type: Journal; Academic/Scholarly and under Refereed: Yes.
Yes. Of course since that periodical has been discontinued and you didn't provide an article name or any ISSN or DOI or article title that time, it makes it absurdly difficult.Incorrect:
C) Although you cannot research archives of Physics Bulletin in Physics World's website, you can see archives of Physics Bulletin on databases - that actually to your shagrin do exist.
D) You never asked for the ISSN number at first, I pro-offered because you said you could not find it. -YOU only disputed that the reference material either did not exist or that it wasn't peer viewed and jumped immediately to that conclusion, but at that time did not ask for additional info.
And for the love of God! When I search the ISSN on Ulrich, it won't even show me a frickin abstract, not even the list of hits! No wonder I've never heard of Ulrich, if its this restrictive. These database businesses make their money off of being NICE to people trying to use them... not forcing them to pay before even showing them the results of their search. ::)
I said on databases.C) Although you cannot research archives of Physics Bulletin in Physics World's website, you can see archives of Physics Bulletin on databases - that actually to your shagrin do exist.
Really? On their website they only seem to have "news" "blog" and "multimedia". Their archive of News only goes back to 1997.
Seriously doesn't matter. The person quoted in that article states that the evidence for creation is apparent. First of all, was he talking about evolution vs creationism, or the creation of the universe (big bang), they are two different things and considering it is a physics magazine and not biology, he very well may have been referring to the latter, you provided no context to that quote. Second, what evidence is he referring to for creation?Fair enough Marcus, so I’ve provided some additional quotes by the same physicist Lipson who wrote the article.
That quote tells us nothing.
In the article Lipson also talks about thermodynamics, entropy, crystallisation, and even Darwin’s own doubts in Darwin’s chapter “Difficulties on Theory” where he talks about the eye.
Are you guys being seriously about this copy/paste stuff? Babsivna have been an avid copy/paster since day one.
TO: Pete, Marcus, Mykael, Crustinator, Pongo, & ProlegCondemn it
Regardless of what I post here you will still:
Refute it
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method.
(http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy172/babsinva66/PhyBull1980Vol31.jpg)
AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT:
C) DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS PEER VIEWED – see proof of peer-viewed – pic from database.
More than 1 format for this also.
TO: Pete, Marcus, Mykael, Crustinator, Pongo, & ProlegCondemn it
Regardless of what I post here you will still:
Refute it
Be arguementative
Complaining
Pessimistic
Nasty
AND not open to anything
For you have already made up your minds.
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
I can understand someone not agreeing with the subject matter
I can understand someone not wanting to refute their beliefs from evolution to go with creation
I might even- I say might be able to understand someone saying it's an old piece.
BUT HECK Darwins piece is much older.
AND you still cannot argue that it was not peer-viewed
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
I can understand someone not agreeing with the subject matter
I can understand someone not wanting to refute their beliefs from evolution to go with creation
I might even- I say might be able to understand someone saying it's an old piece.
BUT HECK Darwins piece is much older.
Christ. Don't you get it. Evolutionary theory has evolved and adapted to modern science. the opinion piece you offer hasn't. And it was never anything more then an opinion to begin with.AND you still cannot argue that it was not peer-viewed
WE AREN'T. We are telling you that it is a thirty year old OPINION ARTICLE, and it isn't even the appropriate field for critiquing evolution.
Shesh, would you please get some REAL research, take a chill pill or concede?
Evolution from a physics standpoint? Considering the physics involved are chemical reactions, it would be more appropriate for a chemist to look at it. As for evolution itself I would prefer someone majoring in mathematics to properly model it, not someone from the physics field.
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
I can understand someone not agreeing with the subject matter
I can understand someone not wanting to refute their beliefs from evolution to go with creation
I might even- I say might be able to understand someone saying it's an old piece.
BUT HECK Darwins piece is much older.
AND you still cannot argue that it was not peer-viewed
It is! I check my facts thoroughly Raist unlike your 'Lungfish" remark some 4 pages back.
If you are adamant about something like these people have been for the last 4 days - then you better bring your "A" game with me.
TO respond to the part I highlighted in blue... You did argue with me before and say opinion articles are not peer-viewed. Now you are agreeing that they can be peer viewed.
Oh really? Do you actually know what Charles Darwin's occupation was? Because I do.
half of that is NOT relevant AND no Raist he wasn't a chemist either.
What does that got to do with anything?
I've never said Darwin's explanation for the diversity of species was not peer reviewed. I would never say that.
TO respond to the part I highlighted in blue... You did argue with me before and say opinion articles are not peer-viewed. Now you are agreeing that they can be peer viewed.
God. The journal itself is peer-reviewed. The opinion pieces are not. Please try and grasp that simple concept.
The occupation of a man 150 years dead is totally irrelevent.
We were not even talking about Darwin's piece itself being peer reviewed- we were talking about the other members of the forum saying the article I spoke of written by Lipson was not peer reviewed.
The article written as part of the journal, which is part of the whole volume for that year, and overseen by 2 societies is peer reviewed.
B.S. Who's grabbing at straws now.
and boring !
Go home.
He was:
an evolutionist
a zoologist (which I've been discredited many times for using people like this)
a botanist
a geologist
a naturalist (mostly)
a geographer (part of the Royal Geographical Society with Inst of British Geographers)
So far the quotes he has given points to an opinion of one man. He does make one very strong claim, that the evidence points to creationism. I have asked several times now for that evidence. All I have gotten was a mention of thermodynamics with no explanation of how that supports creationism (the idea that a creator magically wills new biological species, in fully adult form into being, as opposed to them naturally evolving.).
Provide the evidence for that claim or admit that you do not have any. If there is no evidence than the claim should be retracted.
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.It doesn't even matter what the article says. It is not a credible source.
In the May 1980 issue of Physics Bulletin, H.S. Lipson, an eminent British physicist and evolutionist, authored a thought-provoking article titled "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," which sparked quite a controversy.Dr. Lipson commented on his longstanding interest in the origin of life, yet made it clear that he has had no association with any type of creation theory or creationists in general.He then noted, however: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ?bend' their observations to fit with it."Lipson then "wondered aloud" in his article about how successfully evolution has withstood scientific testing.He concluded:
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings.I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory.I do not think that they do.To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all (31:138).After reviewing many of the problems of getting that which is living from that which is nonliving (especially the thermodynamic problems), Dr. Lipson asked: "If living matter is not, then, caused by an interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?"
After dismissing any kind of "directed evolution," Dr. Lipson concluded: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation" (emp. in orig.). Does this make Dr. Lipson happy?Hardly!Like other evolutionists, he is quite unhappy with his own conclusion.He remarked: "I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (31:138, emp. added).
...
Lipson, H.S. (1980), "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31:138, May.
He was:
an evolutionist
a zoologist (which I've been discredited many times for using people like this)
a botanist
a geologist
a naturalist (mostly)
a geographer (part of the Royal Geographical Society with Inst of British Geographers)
*groan* His professional title was "Naturalist". As if it mattered AT ALL.
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.
He was:
an evolutionist
a zoologist (which I've been discredited many times for using people like this)
a botanist
a geologist
a naturalist (mostly)
a geographer (part of the Royal Geographical Society with Inst of British Geographers)
*groan* His professional title was "Naturalist". As if it mattered AT ALL.
What, so nature, animals, plants and evolution are irrelevant to evolution? I could argue that the other two are as well, but it would take much too long to explain to you, especially with the amount of times I'll have to dumb the relatively complex idea down for you.
Evolution from a physics standpoint? Considering the physics involved are chemical reactions, it would be more appropriate for a chemist to look at it. As for evolution itself I would prefer someone majoring in mathematics to properly model it, not someone from the physics field.
AND no Raist he wasn't a chemist either.
What does that got to do with anything?
The occupation of a man 150 years dead is totally irrelevent.
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
I can understand someone not agreeing with the subject matter
I can understand someone not wanting to refute their beliefs from evolution to go with creation
I might even- I say might be able to understand someone saying it's an old piece.
BUT HECK Darwins piece is much older.
Christ. Don't you get it. Evolutionary theory has evolved and adapted to modern science. the opinion piece you offer hasn't. And it was never anything more then an opinion to begin with.AND you still cannot argue that it was not peer-viewed
WE AREN'T. We are telling you that it is a thirty year old OPINION ARTICLE, and it isn't even the appropriate field for critiquing evolution.
Shesh, would you please get some REAL research, take a chill pill or concede?
TO respond to the part I highlighted in blue... You did argue with me before and say opinion articles are not peer-viewed. Now you are agreeing that they can be peer viewed.
AND in response to Raist...Evolution from a physics standpoint? Considering the physics involved are chemical reactions, it would be more appropriate for a chemist to look at it. As for evolution itself I would prefer someone majoring in mathematics to properly model it, not someone from the physics field.
Oh really? Do you actually know what Charles Darwin's occupation was? Because I do.
He was:
an evolutionist
a zoologist (which I've been discredited many times for using people like this)
a botanist
a geologist
a naturalist (mostly)
a geographer (part of the Royal Geographical Society with Inst of British Geographers)
half of that is NOT relevant AND no Raist he wasn't a chemist either.
What does that got to do with anything?
Retarted fish-squirrel-frogs are proof evolution never happened.
And lol @ me not being a chemist, after a year of working on a chemcial engineering degree I am now on my way to a degree in biology.
Retarted fish-squirrel-frogs are proof evolution never happened.
lol yeah, that is kind of the intellectual extent of the creationist argument. Anyways. I'm kind of bored with Bab. I think this is the point where we make him figure out on his own that an opinion piece isn't scientific proof
And lol @ me not being a chemist, after a year of working on a chemcial engineering degree I am now on my way to a degree in biology.
LOL - Raist you need to put the crack pipe down. You know you took that out of context or either you are just not following the topic well. No one made fun of you for not being a chemist - and you know that. You posted the info in reference to my author Lipson who wrote a piece against evolution, and you said you would like to see a piece like that written by a chemist. (which Lipson was not, but instead a physicist). So now you want to play the blame game. Get off the candy Raist.
Retarted fish-squirrel-frogs are proof evolution never happened.Retarted fish-squirrel-frogs don't exist. ...So proof evolution never happened doesn't exist.
And lol @ me not being a chemist, after a year of working on a chemcial engineering degree I am now on my way to a degree in biology.
LOL - Raist you need to put the crack pipe down. You know you took that out of context or either you are just not following the topic well. No one made fun of you for not being a chemist - and you know that. You posted the info in reference to my author Lipson who wrote a piece against evolution, and you said you would like to see a piece like that written by a chemist. (which Lipson was not, but instead a physicist). So now you want to play the blame game. Get off the candy Raist.
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.
Full article posted, along with the volume it was in, the cover of the magazine, the proof of peer-reviewed all on the post 10/12/09 8:03:20pm -pages back. Those were the things you guys asked for and they were given. I did not say you needed to agree with what he wrote- but I did provide the proof you wanted- and that was the point. The 2nd point was that NOT everyone agrees with Darwin - even people in the science field. Both those points were proven. Zoom in on the article so you can read every word if that's what you must do - then do it. And now that you know it exists, you can get it at the library if you truly have to read the entire article. The article was posted in full - it is one page long. See pics as I said.
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.
Full article posted, along with the volume it was in, the cover of the magazine, the proof of peer-reviewed all on the post 10/12/09 8:03:20pm -pages back. Those were the things you guys asked for and they were given. I did not say you needed to agree with what he wrote- but I did provide the proof you wanted- and that was the point. The 2nd point was that NOT everyone agrees with Darwin - even people in the science field. Both those points were proven. Zoom in on the article so you can read every word if that's what you must do - then do it. And now that you know it exists, you can get it at the library if you truly have to read the entire article. The article was posted in full - it is one page long. See pics as I said.
You ignored me completely. Read the previous post, what he is arguing has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. His entire argument is a strawman.
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.
Full article posted, along with the volume it was in, the cover of the magazine, the proof of peer-reviewed all on the post 10/12/09 8:03:20pm -pages back. Those were the things you guys asked for and they were given. I did not say you needed to agree with what he wrote- but I did provide the proof you wanted- and that was the point. The 2nd point was that NOT everyone agrees with Darwin - even people in the science field. Both those points were proven. Zoom in on the article so you can read every word if that's what you must do - then do it. And now that you know it exists, you can get it at the library if you truly have to read the entire article. The article was posted in full - it is one page long. See pics as I said.
You ignored me completely. Read the previous post, what he is arguing has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. His entire argument is a strawman.
Lol.... did you really just notice this habit of his?
I posted the pics on photobucket with links here (for each of the 4 pics) in 2 or 3 different formats to make sure you get it. I have tested it and it opens, just not sure which method
Sorry babs but until you post the full article we can't be expected to believe what you claim it says.
Full article posted, along with the volume it was in, the cover of the magazine, the proof of peer-reviewed all on the post 10/12/09 8:03:20pm -pages back. Those were the things you guys asked for and they were given. I did not say you needed to agree with what he wrote- but I did provide the proof you wanted- and that was the point. The 2nd point was that NOT everyone agrees with Darwin - even people in the science field. Both those points were proven. Zoom in on the article so you can read every word if that's what you must do - then do it. And now that you know it exists, you can get it at the library if you truly have to read the entire article. The article was posted in full - it is one page long. See pics as I said.
You ignored me completely. Read the previous post, what he is arguing has NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. His entire argument is a strawman.
Lol.... did you really just notice this habit of his?
Of course not, I'm calling him out on it.
LOL at Behe, the greatest argument the I.D. people ever had was Irreducible Complexity, and even that was proven wrong by the scientific community and in a court of law, where a conservative christian judge was presiding of all people.
Behe himself lied multiple times under oath in order to support his claim. It's usually a really tell tale sign that your claim is false if you have to resort to logical fallacies and down right lies to convince people of it.
LOL at Behe, the greatest argument the I.D. people ever had was Irreducible Complexity, and even that was proven wrong by the scientific community and in a court of law, where a conservative christian judge was presiding of all people.
Behe himself lied multiple times under oath in order to support his claim. It's usually a really tell tale sign that your claim is false if you have to resort to logical fallacies and down right lies to convince people of it.
Unless of course said argument is also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible, in which case we are perfectly justified in assuming that reality itself is lying to test our faith, and those depraved atheist scientists are all in a conspiracy to destroy traditional American values and kill the Church.
LOL at Behe, the greatest argument the I.D. people ever had was Irreducible Complexity, and even that was proven wrong by the scientific community and in a court of law, where a conservative christian judge was presiding of all people.
Behe himself lied multiple times under oath in order to support his claim. It's usually a really tell tale sign that your claim is false if you have to resort to logical fallacies and down right lies to convince people of it.
Unless of course said argument is also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible, in which case we are perfectly justified in assuming that reality itself is lying to test our faith, and those depraved atheist scientists are all in a conspiracy to destroy traditional American values and kill the Church.
LOL at Behe, the greatest argument the I.D. people ever had was Irreducible Complexity, and even that was proven wrong by the scientific community and in a court of law, where a conservative christian judge was presiding of all people.
Behe himself lied multiple times under oath in order to support his claim. It's usually a really tell tale sign that your claim is false if you have to resort to logical fallacies and down right lies to convince people of it.
Unless of course said argument is also supported by a literal interpretation of the Bible, in which case we are perfectly justified in assuming that reality itself is lying to test our faith, and those depraved atheist scientists are all in a conspiracy to destroy traditional American values and kill the Church.
I really wish they would just come out and say that this is why they don't like evolution.
If evolution never happened then evolution is imposable at every level, and an idea is instance, the wheel never evolved to the car, a tall building from a mud hut, a plain from a bird. Evolution is just a lazy way to keep meat fresh. ;DIf this is your first post, then you`re going to be in for a bumpy ride.
If evolution never happened then evolution is imposable at every level, and an idea is instance, the wheel never evolved to the car, a tall building from a mud hut, a plain from a bird. Evolution is just a lazy way to keep meat fresh. ;D
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.Evolution is an open system. It does have energy going into it.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned).Wrong.
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned).
For example, kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.
Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolonged periods at altitudes over 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or ?altitude sickness?. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.
Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS.
Similarly, population genetics is being credited as one reason incidence of sickle-cell genes in African-Americans is apparently decreasing over time.
For another example we?ve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
There?s also a family in Germany who were already unusually strong. But in one case, one of their children was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a Herculean kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the muscle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.
And then there?s a family in Connecticut who've been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones. A team of doctors at Yale traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. This clued them that a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density. According to their investigators, members of this family have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the Bruce Willis movie, 'Unbreakable'.
All of these are examples of specifically identified mutations which are definitely beneficial, and which have spread through the subsequent gene pool according to natural selection. This is one of many indesputable proofs of evolution in humans. But we?ve identified beneficial mutations in other many other species too.
--AronRa, The 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
If evolution never happened then evolution is imposable at every level, and an idea is instance, the wheel never evolved to the car, a tall building from a mud hut, a plain from a bird. Evolution is just a lazy way to keep meat fresh. ;DIf this is your first post, then you`re going to be in for a bumpy ride.
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
Increasing entropy only applies when there is not an energy source. AKA the sun.
The 2nd Law merely states that closed systems will tend to achieve equilibrium. This is why if you unplug your refrigerator, it will slowly heat up and eventually be in equilibrium with the ambient temperature of your home.
But Earth is not a closed system. We, like a refrigerator, constantly receive energy, in our case from the sun and geothermal sources. This energy allows the formation of complexity.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these.
They also never bother citing any scientific evidence for their position.Hmm. "Bother" makes it sound like they could if they wanted to.
Who needs citation when there's Copy & Paste, amirite?
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
We are telling you that it is a thirty year old OPINION ARTICLE, and it isn't even the appropriate field for critiquing evolution.
Evolution from a physics standpoint? Considering the physics involved are chemical reactions, it would be more appropriate for a chemist to look at it. As for evolution itself I would prefer someone majoring in mathematics to properly model it, not someone from the physics field.
We understand it is a 30 year old opinion article written about a subject outside of the journal's scope. In fact it wouldn't even be peer reviewed by anyone relevant to the field because most searches for relevant articles are done within one's own field. The physics and opinions may be correct but they could be completely irrelevant to the real world.
We are telling you that it is a thirty year old OPINION ARTICLE, and it isn't even the appropriate field for critiquing evolution.Evolution from a physics standpoint? Considering the physics involved are chemical reactions, it would be more appropriate for a chemist to look at it. As for evolution itself I would prefer someone majoring in mathematics to properly model it, not someone from the physics field.
Another time on Oct 13 6:20pm Raist says... biology would be better- when speaking of a piece against evolution.
Well Raist I have 2 of your 3. You have said chemists, biologists or mathematicians, and I have references from the last 2 fields that you asked for.
Raist, Pete, Marcus, Crustinator, Proleg, Mykael, etc and any others I have missed.
Most of you disputed the article I submitted against evolution (by Lipson) based on:
A1) You said the piece was too old
B1) You said it was an opinion piece - within a peer reviewed journal.
C1) Some of you said it should have been by chemist or mathematician, or biologist.
Here are new articles that meet those guidelines:
A2) The references listed below are more recent
B2) All are peer reviewed and some are peer edited both.
C2) From different perspectives – some being in:
Mathematics,
Molecular biology,
Geophysics
Astronomy etc etc.
Many different fields – so you can’t argue what line of science because they all come from different areas of science, and still are all peer reviewed and still all refute Darwinism.
They are from magazines, journals, books, anthologies, conference proceedings, and trade presses. There is a mixture but I will name only 4. First their credentials then the source.
1) Credentials: Dr. Stephen C. Meyer – although more recently a teacher, a consultant on a science film, and a scientific philosopher, his past employment was as Geophysicist, and holds a double major in Physics/ Earth Science with ONLY a minor in Philosophy. The article by Meyer, S. C. is "DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education" (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285
2) Credentials: William A. Dembski – although is a philosopher, he is ALSO a Mathematician, and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. He has written 10 books in favor of Creationism or I.D. (Intelligent Design). One such book was “published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind.” Of the 10 he has written the last one mentioned above written by W.A. Dembski, "The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
3) Credentials: Gonzalez, an assistant research professor of astronomy and physics at Iowa State University (ISU). He received his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Washington and did his post-doctoral research at the University of Texas, Austin, and the University of Washington. He has received fellowships, grants, and awards from NASA, the University of Washington, Sigma XI, and the National Science Foundation. He is the author of 68 peer-reviewed scientific articles, and his work has been cited over 1500 times in the scientific literature. In one such book he, Gonzalez along with Richards develop a novel case for the theory of intelligent design based on developments in astronomy and planetary science. In this last book mentioned, it is written jointly by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery" (Regnery Publishing, 2004).
4) Credentials: Michael Denton, a senior research fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, now a famous Australian Molecular Biologist . He has also done research in London and Canada, and currently has his doctorate. Although Dr. Denton shows a very limited understanding of the creation model and clearly is neither a creationist nor a Christian, his focus is on documenting the shortcomings of the evolutionary theory. This agnostic scientist. Michael Denton wrote "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (Adler & Adler, 1985).
True I copy and pasted much of the content seen here from websites.
The Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
Going to do a bit of copypasta of my own.QuoteThe Discovery Institute is a conservative non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions", and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
Every single argument put forth by the discovery institute was thoroughly disproved in court. So well in fact that the conservative Christian judge could not rule in favor of the ID/Creationists. You can read excerpts of his descision here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision)
Their star witness, Michael Behe, conceded that: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[20] His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[21] but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
The trial was Kitzmiller v Dover, the transcript and decision are available online.
Is that your best attempt Marcus? LOL
You are nit-picking AND it is not-relevant.
# 1) The case you mentioned Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School district did not ban books on evolution from being published, NOR did it ban books on that subject from being sold, distributed, or being allowed on local library shelves. They did not prove creationism did not occur.
What they were arguing was that it could not be taught at the school, where ninth graders were required by the school board to read aloud about creationism, where evolution was being taught in those science classes. It violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. That’s all – plain and simple.
# 2) It was eleven parents of Dover who went after the Dover Area School Board – and those 11 parents are supposed to be the AUTHORITY on evolution OR creationism? Huh. LOL
# 3) The constitution also violates the rights of children to have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. So your point is weak.
# 4) The works of M. Behe is not agreed upon by all other proponents of Intelligent Design ( I.D). The other proponents agree on I.D., but do not arrive at their conclusions the same way Behe does. – another poor example.
# 5) Lastly- there have been other articles written since that case.
# 6) I gave 4 NEW references in my last post and yet this is the best argument you have? Yawn
No court case would ever ban books from being sold. We do not ban information that is wrong. The first amendment makes your first point moot.
babsinva, the Discovery Institute has proven time and time again that not only do they not know the first thing about Evolution, but they are more than happy to lie and spread misinformation about it in order to push their agenda by any means necessary.
And I honestly don't see what you are getting at here. Are you just trying to prove that there are a few scientists who agree with you? Do you think that gives your position more credibility? Even if popular opinion meant anything (which it doesn't), for every credible scientist you could find who believes in Intelligent Design, I could find at least a hundred thousand who accept Evolution. So simply pointing out people who agree with you will get you nowhere.
More important than who disagrees with Evolution is why they disagree with it. You are doing things backwards. Stop just naming people who disagree with Evolution. Nobody cares about them. Instead, give us their arguments against it. And please, for the love of your God, before you copy and paste an argument from some crappy ID website, do a Google search to make sure that the argument hasn't been refuted a million times already.
They did not prove creationism did not occur.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof
They did not prove creationism did not occur.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof
They did not prove creationism did not occur.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof
Sort of odd that this good point is coming from a guy who doesn't believe in Australia. But good point anyway.
Um. He just showed that the courts made set a precedent of considering ID materially identical to Creationism. How is this not relevant?
# 1) The case you mentioned Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School district did not ban books on evolution from being published, NOR did it ban books on that subject from being sold, distributed, or being allowed on local library shelves. They did not prove creationism did not occur.
No, it certainly didn't ban them. Thank you for the straw man. What the trial DID do is pull Intelligent Design from that school though, as it was found to be based on crap science.
What they were arguing was that it could not be taught at the school, where ninth graders were required by the school board to read aloud about creationism, where evolution was being taught in those science classes. It violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. That’s all – plain and simple.
# 3) The constitution also violates the rights of children to have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. So your point is weak.
wtf? red herring.Not a red herring- Since the case you mentioned says it was unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment, - then I throw it right back at ya, by saying so does the pledge of allegiance. If they or you or whomever wants creationism or intelligent design removed from the school course because ONE thinks it violates their rights under the constitution then you would have to remove other things from school as it pertains to constitution violations - so we are fair across the board here. In fact I thought you evolutionists would jump on the bandwagon on that one- because in the pledge it mentions God, which you do NOT believe in - so what is your fuss?
# 6) I gave 4 NEW references in my last post and yet this is the best argument you have? Yawn
No, you didn't. In that post you cited 1 opinion piece and 3 books. ::)
Point 6: All written by members of the Discovery Institute, a social political organization, with the goal of effecting public policy, science is the search for truth, no matter what that truth ends up being. The Discovery Institute is not a scientific organization.
You bringing up a court case with 11 parents, who know nothing about evolution or creation, but simply for them to just have it go down on record that the school cannot teach that material anymore in class proves nothing. I hardly think 11 parents are qualified to determine what is crap. Nor can a judge necessarily determine if it is crap, if HIS/ HER mind is closed like yours. And no I didn't ignore your statement of Behe- but you ignored mine - breaking it up in tiny tidbits. What I was saying was most proponents of I.D. (intelligent design) don't agree with Behe anyhow, so you are singling out one person who makes the whole subject look bad and smell bad, because of one rotten apple. Now go ahead and break it into tiny morsels that you can just savor later, as you admire your work of your put-down dissection-like writing late tonight at 3a.m. when you have nothing else to do.
Not a red herring- Since the case you mentioned says it was unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment, - then I throw it right back at ya, by saying so does the pledge of allegiance. If they or you or whomever wants creationism or intelligent design removed from the school course because ONE thinks it violates their rights under the constitution then you would have to remove other things from school as it pertains to constitution violations - so we are fair across the board here. In fact I thought you evolutionists would jump on the bandwagon on that one- because in the pledge it mentions God, which you do NOT believe in - so what is your fuss?
All were peer-reviewed and in some case peer edited too. I already checked that.
Again whose peers?
If I tell you it has been peer-reviewed - you say NOT IT HASN'T - when in fact it has.
Basically Pete and Marcus you want to discredit anything that is peer reviewed, because YOU say so, because your peers don't read it, because you think they have a sh-tty peer review committee.
In other news, for those of you who've heard of Lenski's E. coli experiment, he stated that his next goal with that experiment specifically was to identify the mutations that lead to the development of a Cit+ phenotype. I'm rather looking forward to reading it, since it will clearly prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution occurred and it wasn't just some "adaptation".
His own website shows the paper on the list of publication as coming soon this year. So apparently it has already passed peer-review and is slated for publication.
;D
From his website:
"Barrick, J. E., D. S. Yu, S. H. Yoon, H. Jeong, T. K. Oh, D. Schneider, R. E. Lenski, and J. F. Kim. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature, in press. Coming soon!"
Since the release of his rather famous paper "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation",
he has published an unrelated paper that has to deal with the evolution of cannibalism in a culture of bacteria,
another paper on the evolution of a penicillin binding protein in E. coli during his long-term experiment,
He published three paper sequencing the genome of two strains of E. coli and examining the differences
He submitted and got a paper published that explained the growing genetic diversity in his experiment at a Biology symposium
And then there is that paper that is forthcoming. I'm looking forward to it.
In other news, for those of you who've heard of Lenski's E. coli experiment, he stated that his next goal with that experiment specifically was to identify the mutations that lead to the development of a Cit+ phenotype. I'm rather looking forward to reading it, since it will clearly prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution occurred and it wasn't just some "adaptation".
His own website shows the paper on the list of publication as coming soon this year. So apparently it has already passed peer-review and is slated for publication.
;D
From his website:
"Barrick, J. E., D. S. Yu, S. H. Yoon, H. Jeong, T. K. Oh, D. Schneider, R. E. Lenski, and J. F. Kim. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature, in press. Coming soon!"
Since the release of his rather famous paper "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation",
he has published an unrelated paper that has to deal with the evolution of cannibalism in a culture of bacteria,
another paper on the evolution of a penicillin binding protein in E. coli during his long-term experiment,
He published three paper sequencing the genome of two strains of E. coli and examining the differences
He submitted and got a paper published that explained the growing genetic diversity in his experiment at a Biology symposium
And then there is that paper that is forthcoming. I'm looking forward to it.
Micro-evolution is fun...isn't it kiddies?
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Except creationists divide it into those two categories so that they can throw out evolution that we observe today as microevolution.
Srsly guise, they might have "adapted", but they are still the same "kind" of animal!
Srsly guise, they might have "adapted", but they are still the same "kind" of animal!
Except for the animals that evolve so far they can't interbreed and become a new species, but that doesn't count.
Christianity should be focusing more on it's actual relevance to society, rather than presenting itself as simply a bastion of ignorance.Of what relevance to society do you speak?
Christianity should be focusing more on it's actual relevance to society, rather than presenting itself as simply a bastion of ignorance.Of what relevance to society do you speak?
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.There is plenty of evidence of evolution, not to mention many animals that live both in water and on land/air.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Well, they have some charities. Before the the invention of the printing press, Monastic orders were the main producers of books. There are some monasteries in Europe that supposedly make great beer. There are those "Chant" CDs. There are some good charities.Like charities much? I don't see how these things are implicitly religious, let alone Christian.
Well, they have some charities. Before the the invention of the printing press, Monastic orders were the main producers of books. There are some monasteries in Europe that supposedly make great beer. There are those "Chant" CDs. There are some good charities.Like charities much? I don't see how these things are implicitly religious, let alone Christian.
If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.There is plenty of evidence of evolution, not to mention many animals that live both in water and on land/air.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
The basis of Western culture and morality.Assuming culture and morality are the direct products of Christianity. I find it far more likely that it was the other way around: the already existing morals and culture of men were fitted onto Christianity.
The basis of Western culture and morality.Assuming culture and morality are the direct products of Christianity. I find it far more likely that it was the other way around: the already existing morals and culture of men were fitted onto Christianity.
The basis of Western culture and morality.
From the Treaty of Tripoli (1797):
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Good. I am glad that somebody brought up the fact that there are in fact many species with only subtle differences between them. I thought that your line about monkeys and apes was funny though. There are only a handfull of great ape species, but several hundred monkey species in Africa and South America. That and the line about fish crawling out of water. You have a very parochial view of evolution Raist, lol.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.There is plenty of evidence of evolution, not to mention many animals that live both in water and on land/air.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Read the last two pages buddy. I know you couldn't stand waiting to hit that post button with your new outlandish ideas. Trust me, they've already been brought up.
Good. I am glad that somebody brought up the fact that there are in fact many species with only subtle differences between them. I thought that your line about monkeys and apes was funny though. There are only a handfull of great ape species, but several hundred monkey species in Africa and South America. That and the line about fish crawling out of water. You have a very parochial view of evolution Raist, lol.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.There is plenty of evidence of evolution, not to mention many animals that live both in water and on land/air.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Read the last two pages buddy. I know you couldn't stand waiting to hit that post button with your new outlandish ideas. Trust me, they've already been brought up.
Good. I am glad that somebody brought up the fact that there are in fact many species with only subtle differences between them. I thought that your line about monkeys and apes was funny though. There are only a handfull of great ape species, but several hundred monkey species in Africa and South America. That and the line about fish crawling out of water. You have a very parochial view of evolution Raist, lol.If evolution happened we would see much more redundancy in the animal kingdom. We would see many animals that shared most of their DNA and only had a few differences. On top of this we would see redundant systems in animals, perhaps several organs performing the same function. Humans have no such organs, even the appendix does the job of fighting off bacteria.There is plenty of evidence of evolution, not to mention many animals that live both in water and on land/air.
If humans evolved from primates wouldn't we see many different kind of monkeys instead of just apes?
Finally, fish do not crawl out of water, there is obviously no fish that can breath air, maybe a "lung fish."
Read the last two pages buddy. I know you couldn't stand waiting to hit that post button with your new outlandish ideas. Trust me, they've already been brought up.
Not really, I just kind of did my best parody of most young earth creationists.
I am not talking about my original 4 pics on the Lipson article posted a week ago- I am talking about the post Oct 16 5:20:43 with all new guys:
Meyer - Geophysicist
Dembski- Mathematician
Gonzalez- Astronomer
Denton Molecular Biologist
All were peer-reviewed and in some case peer edited too. I already checked that. Again whose peers? If I tell you it has been peer-reviewed - you say NOT IT HASN'T - when in fact it has. Basically Pete and Marcus you want to discredit anything that is peer reviewed, because YOU say so, because your peers don't read it, because you think they have a sh-tty peer review committee. Hello hello, llo, lo ? Anybody out there? You focused on Discovery Institute with one guy Meyer who is a member of, but Dembski - his editotal review board was the National Academy of Sciences and on that board was a Nobel prize winner. Gonzalez has received grants AND awards from the National Sciences Foundation and NASA. I guess they are ALL just in on this whole conspiracy thing. Yeah right.
I'm still waiting for my favorite claim, which is that radiometric dating doesn't work :D
I'm still waiting for my favorite claim, which is that radiometric dating doesn't work :D
How about radiometric dating is erroneous and unreliable? Does that get you off?
I'm still waiting for my favorite claim, which is that radiometric dating doesn't work :D
How about radiometric dating is erroneous and unreliable? Does that get you off?
I hope you're kidding.
I cant wait till someone posts about that Young Earth Creationist who tried to debunk radiometric dating. Except that he was using the wrong method on the wrong sample and of course came up with a wildly inaccurate date for it.Ray Comfort. He was using Carbon Dating to date a dinosaur fossil. ::)
I cant wait till someone posts about that Young Earth Creationist who tried to debunk radiometric dating. Except that he was using the wrong method on the wrong sample and of course came up with a wildly inaccurate date for it.Ray Comfort. He was using Carbon Dating to date a dinosaur fossil. ::)
Normally a fossil that old wouldn't have any carbon left in it. But the one he gave to the lab guys was from a museum exhibit, so it was painted with a preservative that had high traces of carbon in it. This was pointed out to him by the lab specialists before the test was even done, but Ray told them to do it anyway. He knew his target audience wouldn't bother looking into it. They would just take his rigged experiment as proof that radiometric dating doesn't work.
But this thread has enough nonsense in it already. We don't need to add to it a discussion about Mr. Comfort.
I agree. I doubt Ray Comfort could even explain the process used in Radiometric dating. He's a fricking pastor. Like most Young Earth Creationists. His videos are absolutely hysterical though. In a pathetic way.You have to give him some credit though. He did prove that God exists using a banana. It was the most convincing argument for the existence of God that I have ever seen. The man is a genius.
I agree. I doubt Ray Comfort could even explain the process used in Radiometric dating. He's a fricking pastor. Like most Young Earth Creationists. His videos are absolutely hysterical though. In a pathetic way.You have to give him some credit though. He did prove that God exists using a banana. It was the most convincing argument for the existence of God that I have ever seen. The man is a genius.
Dembski- Mathematician (which has what relevance to evolution?) Joined the Discovery Institute in 1999 and is currently a senior member of it's "Center for Science and Culture"
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer - PHD in History and Philosophy of Science (not even a science degree), is the founder of the Discovery Institute.
Guillermo Gonzalez - PHD in Astronomy (which has nothing to do with evolution) is also a senior member of the Discovery Institutes "Center for Science and Culture".
Michael Denton - A Biochemist, wow somebody who actually has some expertise in a related field! Also a former member of the Discovery Institute's "Center for Science and Culture". His book you mention: Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is not accepted by the scientific community and has been shown to contain many errors about evolution, that right there shows that it was not peer reviewed because if it had been then those errors would have been corrected before the book was publish. In any case, books are not peer reviewed as somebody else pointed out. Also it turns out he has published a newer book where he goes back on his previous views. As a result he is no longer part of the Discover Institute.
Babs, what is meant by peer review is not that it is accepted by our peers, please stop asserting that. What peer review does is fact check the material before it is published by a committee of experts in the pertinent field. The experts are never friends or buddies with the author(s), their job is to simply critique the claims made by the author and correct him/her when something is incorrect, or challenge him/her if one believes that there is a flawed conclusion or lack of supporting evidence.
I know what it means- the reason I keep asserting who's peers - is because when I do find something that is peer reviewed and even peer edited you say ...well that's just not true, they were not peer reviewed just because you want to discount it and have NO basis for doing so - so you go into attack mode - ....... not true, we're just not going to accept that, (even when databases have said they were peer reviewed.) So as long as you keep attacking that erroneously - I will say who's peers - yours?It doesn't matter whether they were peer reviewed. Stop just citing articles that dispute Evolution, as it is getting you nowhere. Make an actual argument, or at the very least, summarize the articles you are citing, so we actually have something to debate.
So it's not that I do not understand the meaning or concept but I am mocking you. Ah, did that go over your head? Maybe you should check with your peers.
You must really like being wrong. Dr. Stephen C Meyer - who you say has NO degree in a science field-INCORRECT.
You don't read, you distort, you conveniently leave things out, and change credentials at will. The History and Philosophy of Science degree came MUCH LATER. That was not his first degree and not his 1st job. You are almost always a distorter of the truth- we have all come to know that about you.
I know what it means- the reason I keep asserting who's peers
- is because when I do find something that is peer reviewed and even peer edited you say ...well that's just not true, they were not peer reviewed just because you want to discount it and have NO basis for doing so - so you go into attack mode -
....... not true, we're just not going to accept that, (even when databases have said they were peer reviewed.) So as long as you keep attacking that erroneously - I will say who's peers - yours?
So it's not that I do not understand the meaning or concept but I am mocking you. Ah, did that go over your head? Maybe you should check with your peers.
I know what it means- the reason I keep asserting who's peers - is because when I do find something that is peer reviewed and even peer edited you say ...well that's just not true, they were not peer reviewed just because you want to discount it and have NO basis for doing so - so you go into attack mode - ....... not true, we're just not going to accept that, (even when databases have said they were peer reviewed.) So as long as you keep attacking that erroneously - I will say who's peers - yours?It doesn't matter whether they were peer reviewed. Stop just citing articles that dispute Evolution, as it is getting you nowhere. Make an actual argument, or at the very least, summarize the articles you are citing, so we actually have something to debate.
So it's not that I do not understand the meaning or concept but I am mocking you. Ah, did that go over your head? Maybe you should check with your peers.
Do you even understand what a debate is?
Masterchief, in case you haven't noticed, the best he has come up with so far is a 30 year old opinion piece. He thinks opinion pieces are peer-reviewed and are considered authoritative. ::)Yes, I have noticed. He's made 25 posts in this topic without coming close to making a single argument against Evolution, which is why I've had 2 rants against him deleted in this topic.
Masterchief, in case you haven't noticed, the best he has come up with so far is a 30 year old opinion piece. He thinks opinion pieces are peer-reviewed and are considered authoritative. ::)Yes, I have noticed. He's made 25 posts in this topic without coming close to making a single argument against Evolution, which is why I've had 2 rants against him deleted in this topic.
He needs to make an actual point, or find a different topic to troll.
You must really like being wrong. Dr. Stephen C Meyer - who you say has NO degree in a science field-INCORRECT. You don't read, you distort, you conveniently leave things out, and change credentials at will. The History and Philosophy of Science degree came MUCH LATER. That was not his first degree and not his 1st job. You are almost always a distorter of the truth- we have all come to know that about you.
S. C Meyer's credentials are: Graduating from Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington, in 1981 with a degree in physics and earth science, he later became a geophysicist with Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas, Texas. From 1981 to 1985, he worked for ARCO in digital signal processing and seismic survey interpretation.
I know what it means- the reason I keep asserting who's peers - is because when I do find something that is peer reviewed and even peer edited you say ...well that's just not true, they were not peer reviewed just because you want to discount it and have NO basis for doing so - so you go into attack mode - ....... not true, we're just not going to accept that, (even when databases have said they were peer reviewed.) So as long as you keep attacking that erroneously - I will say who's peers - yours?
So it's not that I do not understand the meaning or concept but I am mocking you. Ah, did that go over your head? Maybe you should check with your peers.
I will assume unless you reply that this a a concession Babs. It's been several days now, though I will give you time to research your response if that is why you are taking so much time.
I will assume unless you reply that this a a concession Babs. It's been several days now, though I will give you time to research your response if that is why you are taking so much time.
A group of scientists proved in 1836 that spontaneous generation does not occur. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is an "ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduced by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances." i.e. that living matter came from non-living matter. Since this cannot happen, it is impossible for an elementary life form to appear on a lifeless earth. Thus, evolution of the species cannot even get started.
Proof evolution never happened.
If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another.Wrong. Mutations can and do add new information to the genome.
If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors,
If evolution really happened, why is my aunt a monkey?Inbreeding.
If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another.You are forgetting that in any species, only a small percentage of the genes in its DNA are actually expressed, and there is more than enough room for variation. In addition to this, not all species have the same number of chromosomes either. A butterfly has 380, and even an amoeba has 50, while humans only have 46. So, there again, there is quite enough room in the genetics of organisms for nearly infinite variation.
It hasn't been that many days- I last posted here on the 21st- and actually this whole thread hasn't gotten much attention at all. In fact the whole site in every thread has the regulars missing in action Pongo & James not at all, Chris is posting less- in fact there were only 96 people on the site today.
And besides no matter what I say you will refute without listening, and you will complain and you will be pessimistic, and negative and I just don't give a sh-t. I don't need to waste my time on noobs like you. I'm not taking time off for research- I'm not even following this topic until I clicked on it just now. Same nasty people - same conclusion jumping- same verbal warfare. I just don't have time for negative things.
Besides I'm an avid reader- I have a whole library in my home and do not need to waste my time with the posts on this site which is SOooo enlightening - not. Not counting this site, or other sites, or web surfing, or things for my job, or e:mail from friends or any of the other regular reading that people do throughout one's day- I still read other stuff. On a bad week 5 hours and on a good week with extra time sometimes 40 hrs a week. I want something that stimulates my mind- and this site does not do that very often. When and if I decide to come back to this particular thread it will not be because of intimidation, bullying or asking me to concede or tricking me to come back, because if I want to come back - I don't need an invitation from you. Bored with it. Why do you think I read so much- because it holds my attention and you can't.
I hath taken much joy of this thread, and it saddens me that it dies so quietly. There should at least be an official concession, surely? :-\A concession that Evolution didn't actually happen?
Hardly. I would love to see you post something substantive Mykael.I hath taken much joy of this thread, and it saddens me that it dies so quietly. There should at least be an official concession, surely? :-\A concession that Evolution didn't actually happen?
I post actual content every now and then: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28465.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28465.0)Hardly. I would love to see you post something substantive Mykael.I hath taken much joy of this thread, and it saddens me that it dies so quietly. There should at least be an official concession, surely? :-\A concession that Evolution didn't actually happen?
We have yet to see a single scientific study that does not support Evolutionary Theory. The closest anyone has come was Babs with his 30 year old opinion pieces.
We have yet to see a single scientific study that does not support Evolutionary Theory. The closest anyone has come was Babs with his 30 year old opinion pieces.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
Hardly a repository of anything scientific, this site is a wonderful collection of creationist schtick, mostly poorly written dreck created by those that wouldnt know a double-blind test if it hit them in the face.We have yet to see a single scientific study that does not support Evolutionary Theory. The closest anyone has come was Babs with his 30 year old opinion pieces.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
And here is a quote from that site:Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.
Warrdog, are you going to take back what you said about dna length? Or were you lying on purpose?Why do you even ask? If anything he'll just give a copy paste of some Creationist propaganda, on a subject that neither he or the author understands.
Warrdog, are you going to take back what you said about dna length? Or were you lying on purpose?Why do you even ask? If anything he'll just give a copy paste of some Creationist propaganda, on a subject that neither he or the author understands.
We have yet to see a single scientific study that does not support Evolutionary Theory. The closest anyone has come was Babs with his 30 year old opinion pieces.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
Warrdog, are you going to take back what you said about dna length? Or were you lying on purpose?
Warrdog, are you going to take back what you said about dna length? Or were you lying on purpose?Why do you even ask? If anything he'll just give a copy paste of some Creationist propaganda, on a subject that neither he or the author understands.
Me and you are not friends anymore.:'(
We have yet to see a single scientific study that does not support Evolutionary Theory. The closest anyone has come was Babs with his 30 year old opinion pieces.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
Warrdog, are you going to take back what you said about dna length? Or were you lying on purpose?
It's one 'R' two 'Gs'
Why would I take back what I said about DNA...that shit is pretty complex, don't you think?
Well that proves it, life didn't happen.
See, i told you that shit was complex.Well....if it is too complex for you to get, then how can you make any assertions as to the complexity of the human genome, as you did earlier. I also have noticed that you didnt comment on the fact they human genetic material contains far less information then other species.
See, i told you that shit was complex.
Well that proves it, life didn't happen.
The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
And besides no matter what I say you will refute without listening, and you will complain and you will be pessimistic, and negative and I just don't give a sh-t. I don't need to waste my time on noobs like you. I'm not taking time off for research- I'm not even following this topic until I clicked on it just now. Same nasty people - same conclusion jumping- same verbal warfare. I just don't have time for negative things.
The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
Did you read the post you are replying to?The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
Why is Wardogg allowed to be an idiot and post retarded copypasta while my thread on feminism is moved to Complete Nonsense?
Get used to disappointment.Why is Wardogg allowed to be an idiot and post retarded copypasta while my thread on feminism is moved to Complete Nonsense?
Because we expect more from you.
Blah blah blah a bunch of links that prove nothing of what was said.......The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
extended bouts of sleeplessness can cause an array of physical symptoms and might eventually kill you
It's possible that given enough time, sleep deprivation can kill you
While no human being is known to have died from staying awake,
Why is Wardogg allowed to be an idiot and post retarded copypasta while my thread on feminism is moved to Complete Nonsense?
My beliefs, although different than yours...do not make me an idiot.Failure to actually read a post you are replying to is certainly indicative though. Nowhere did Raist claim anyone died of sleep deprivation.
Blah blah blah a bunch of links that prove nothing of what was said.......The fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
quotes from your links.Quoteextended bouts of sleeplessness can cause an array of physical symptoms and might eventually kill youQuoteIt's possible that given enough time, sleep deprivation can kill youQuoteWhile no human being is known to have died from staying awake,
Thanks for helping me to slam dunk my point Raist.Why is Wardogg allowed to be an idiot and post retarded copypasta while my thread on feminism is moved to Complete Nonsense?
My beliefs, although different than yours...do not make me an idiot. Sometimes my stuff is copypasta other times not. Do not generalize all my posts, good sir.
My beliefs, although different than yours...do not make me an idiot.Failure to actually read a post you are replying to is certainly indicative though. Nowhere did Raist claim anyone died of sleep deprivation.
No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
The nazis would disagree, they had the same thoughts at first until they kept jews awake for extended periods of time, say a month.
Slows the heart and respiration allowing the repairing of muscles that are used 24 hours a day nonstop. That is why when people do not sleep they die of respiratory failure or cardiac arrest. Also allows the mind to recoup in some way that we do not yet understand. Probably a buildup of a process or chemical.
My beliefs, although different than yours...do not make me an idiot.Failure to actually read a post you are replying to is certainly indicative though. Nowhere did Raist claim anyone died of sleep deprivation.
You sure?No human has ever died due to lack of sleep.
The nazis would disagree, they had the same thoughts at first until they kept jews awake for extended periods of time, say a month.
here is an article on the topic. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/48140/title/The_Why_of_SleepThe fact that we sleep is proof evolution never happened.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?The real question here, do you still think that sleep doesn't serve a beneficial function?
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?The real question here, do you still think that sleep doesn't serve a beneficial function?
Yes it is. How does natural selection explain sleep? What benefit does sleeping give you, whats its purpose?The real question here, do you still think that sleep doesn't serve a beneficial function?
Not one that any scientist can prove.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/08/why-we-sleep-is-a-mystery.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/why-do-we-sleep.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/why-do-we-sleep.html
Your article actually underlines the importance and beneficiality of sleep, even if it doesn't include the irrelevant "how" aspects that other sources have. As long as it is beneficial, it doesn't contradict evolutionary progression.
"Five decades later, few researchers would dispute that sleep serves some critical -- if unknown -- biological purpose."
So it has some magical properties then?Wat?
Unknown....Unproven....who the fuck knows why it does what it does or what it does it for. In other words, pure fucking magic. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. Unknown doesn't mean magical.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/why-do-we-sleep.html
Unknown....Unproven....who the fuck knows why it does what it does or what it does it for. In other words, pure fucking magic. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. Unknown doesn't mean magical.
Let's wrongfully assume for the sake of argument, that there has been no progress in understanding how sleep benefits the body by repairing cellular tissue.
How do we go from, "We don't know yet" to "Zomg magic!"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/why-do-we-sleep.html
A New York Times article from 2003 does not trump peer-reviewed research published in 2005.
I didn't see a reason for the substitution but that's cool. This is just as juicy:Unknown....Unproven....who the fuck knows why it does what it does or what it does it for. In other words, pure fucking magic. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. Unknown doesn't mean magical.
Let's wrongfully assume for the sake of argument, that there has been no progress in understanding how sleep benefits the body by repairing cellular tissue.
How do we go from, "We don't know yet" to "Zomg magic!"?
Hmmm. I say God created the earth and all the skeptics claim magic...
I didn't see a reason for the substitution but that's cool. This is just as juicy:Unknown....Unproven....who the fuck knows why it does what it does or what it does it for. In other words, pure fucking magic. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. Unknown doesn't mean magical.
Let's wrongfully assume for the sake of argument, that there has been no progress in understanding how sleep benefits the body by repairing cellular tissue.
How do we go from, "We don't know yet" to "Zomg magic!"?
Hmmm. I say God created the earth and all the skeptics claim magic...
By definition, god is magical and anything he does is magic.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amagic&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-s1g6
How do I claim magic by being skeptical of this god figure?
I wonder the same thing.[...]and all the skeptics claim magic...How do I claim magic by being skeptical?
It's a common thought process for Creationists.Unknown....Unproven....who the fuck knows why it does what it does or what it does it for. In other words, pure fucking magic. Do you disagree?Yes, I disagree. Unknown doesn't mean magical.
Let's wrongfully assume for the sake of argument, that there has been no progress in understanding how sleep benefits the body by repairing cellular tissue.
How do we go from, "We don't know yet" to "Zomg magic!"?
Wardogg is using a classic "God of the Gaps" argument, albeit with a slight tweak. Just because science doesn't yet know does not give the slightest bit of credibility to a supernatural explanation, or in this case, a proof against evolution.
If you were multitasking and/or misread something, I don't mind if you change your answer. I'm just trying to figure out your real train of thought, not to try to prove you wrong any way I can. Feel free to change your answer or explain your current one. :)I wonder the same thing.
???
...Then why do you say that?
How is it we can go from God = Magic but cannot go from Science doesn't know = Magic? Equality....thats all i'm asking for.
How is it we can go from God = Magic but cannot go from Science doesn't know = Magic? Equality....thats all i'm asking for.
Because that is an Argument from Ignorance... God-of-the-Gaps.... Logical fallacy... ::)
Keep religion and science separate. Religion doesn't adhere to formal logic, so we can do God=Magic, science unfortunately is more constrained so we can't make non-falsifiable postulates, and suppose a supernatural explanation for every gap in scientific knowledge.
How is it we can go from God = Magic but cannot go from Science doesn't know = Magic? Equality....thats all i'm asking for.
Because that is an Argument from Ignorance... God-of-the-Gaps.... Logical fallacy... ::)
Keep religion and science separate. Religion doesn't adhere to formal logic, so we can do God=Magic, science unfortunately is more constrained so we can't make non-falsifiable postulates, and suppose a supernatural explanation for every gap in scientific knowledge.
Ahhh...do as I say...not as I do. Got it. Thanx.
How is it we can go from God = Magic but cannot go from Science doesn't know = Magic? Equality....thats all i'm asking for.
Because that is an Argument from Ignorance... God-of-the-Gaps.... Logical fallacy... ::)
Keep religion and science separate. Religion doesn't adhere to formal logic, so we can do God=Magic, science unfortunately is more constrained so we can't make non-falsifiable postulates, and suppose a supernatural explanation for every gap in scientific knowledge.
Ahhh...do as I say...not as I do. Got it. Thanx.
I wonder if anything said to be scientific has to be true...
Because if this is the case, this rule sounds to me that one should have faith in science as it was the case for anything said to be from God? Am I wrong?
I wonder if anything said to be scientific has to be true...Nice strawman fallacy.
Because if this is the case, this rule sounds to me that one should have faith in science as it was the case for anything said to be from God? Am I wrong?
To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.
It happens that the theory of 'evolution' was able to pass my logical filter but surely not because some scientists have talked about it. In real life, many can pretend to be scientists and many real ones may have good reasons not to tell the truth.
The how is not always known to us though. And may not ever be....doesn't mean its magic, in the demeaning way they mean it.
I wonder if anything said to be scientific has to be true...
of course not, science is changing all the time. But theories with as much evidence as Evolution seem as likely to be disproven as Gravity, no?Because if this is the case, this rule sounds to me that one should have faith in science as it was the case for anything said to be from God? Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. If you want to see the proof for science, you can go online, or go to the library, and look up one of the innumerable studies, complete with method, raw data, results, and analysis that PROVES a hypothesis or theory.
If you are so inclined, you are free to repeat it for yourself.
I wish I were like you are.
Just because one is allowed to go online ... allowed to go to libraries... allowed to look up the innumerable studies and analysis PROVING a newly released theory, it has to be true for him.
In my case, all the previous privileges are just an introductory to think about what some persons have decided to let me know and believe, not only I but all the other millions (trillions if you like) who are eager to learn anything new said to be scientific (including the medical news and what could be related to some political necessities).
You may say... "But, what do you mean... to think?"
The easist and natural way to see the truth of the root behind any news (religious, scientific or else) is to watch/analyse carefully its future fruits. But who cares to think, each one has his trusted sources posting the whole truth anytime he needs to learn about something... I guess you know now, why I wish I were like you.
I wish I were like you are.
Just because one is allowed to go online ... allowed to go to libraries... allowed to look up the innumerable studies and analysis PROVING a newly released theory, it has to be true for him.
Um. Yeah. Its called empirical evidence. Evolution has it.In my case, all the previous privileges are just an introductory to think about what some persons have decided to let me know and believe, not only I but all the other millions (trillions if you like) who are eager to learn anything new said to be scientific (including the medical news and what could be related to some political necessities).
Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is depressing.You may say... "But, what do you mean... to think?"
The easist and natural way to see the truth of the root behind any news (religious, scientific or else) is to watch/analyse carefully its future fruits. But who cares to think, each one has his trusted sources posting the whole truth anytime he needs to learn about something... I guess you know now, why I wish I were like you.
Wrong. The way to see the truth behind science is some pseudo-philosophical "watch carefully its future fruits", the way to determine the truth is to read a study that lays out a hypothesis, methods, experiment, data, results and a discussion and has gone through peer review. Then, if you still doubt them, you can repeat the experiment exactly as described for yourself and determine through doing whether or not it is true.
Do you mean I have to build a high building as of the WTC and hit it horizontally by a plane at a specific floor to test how it has to be scrolled down vertically a few minutes later following a new theory discovered in physics by some scientists just after the horrible attack of 9-11? I guess now, the companies in charge in eliminating some old but strong high towers can just follow this proven new method to save time and money.
PLEASE prove me I am wrong, because I can't forget the horrible scenes I saw on TV and how thousands of innocent people had to face a cruel fate just because who built the towers didn't know a law in physics that the attackers took advantage of it ... not once but twice! Should I be surprised if many call this ... evolution in science.
"You seem to be attempting to insinuate some insult"
So let us keep things as they are... your science and my science...
Should I thank you for being nice with me and be content to 'just' insinuate I am a beast?
You know... Jesus was condemned to death and crucified for telling the truth and by who? By the Elites of his time so it wasn't a mistake. And the world keeps evolving.
To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.There are plenty of religious hypotheses/conjectures, but I'm not aware of any religious theories.
Theories need evidence, therefore there are no religious theories.To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.There are plenty of religious hypotheses/conjectures, but I'm not aware of any religious theories.
Theories need evidence, therefore there are no religious theories.To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.There are plenty of religious hypotheses/conjectures, but I'm not aware of any religious theories.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.
Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.
One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.
Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.
Really? No evidence? Just because you choose to ignore the evidence...doesn't mean it's not there.
et ceteraTheories need evidence, therefore there are no religious theories.To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.There are plenty of religious hypotheses/conjectures, but I'm not aware of any religious theories.
Really? No evidence? Just because you choose to ignore the evidence...doesn't mean it's not there.
.....Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
.... This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
.... Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.
... Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.Ever heard of the burgess shale? In it we can see inundation of many of the precursors of life as we see it today. Hell I just learned this morning about a type of vertebrate worm that was found to have been the genetic precursor to all vertebrate animals. This is the first such example of vertebrate animals we have ever found.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.Dogs are a perfect example of an easily shown refute of this entire statement. Besides, probability only functions on how a given mutation will affect the life expectancy of an organism. Take moths in Europe for example. When coal was a regular heat source, it caused soot to gather on trees. Those moths that had a mutation of darker pigmentation where able to survive easier than those of lighter wing pigmentation. Its like asking ?what?s the probability that a moth of darker wings could be created? versus the question, ?which is more likely to survive in such an environment.?
Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.Evolution, by definition, doesn?t even remotely touch this subject. Origins of life are a completely different area of science. Its called Abiogenesis. Evolution is an examination of the facts of how life changes after its initial creation.
Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.Again, your confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Abiogenesis is the origins of life. Evolution only begins once life actually exists.
Really? No evidence? Just because you choose to ignore the evidence...doesn't mean it's not there.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.
Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates.
Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true.
This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.
One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.
Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.
Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.
Really? No evidence? Just because you choose to ignore the evidence...doesn't mean it's not there.
Then why don't you cite some instead of making up idiotic excuses.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.
Wrong. Evolutionary Theory accounts for changes in rate when ecological niches open up.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Flat out lie. We've observed it happening, so obviously it is "allowed"
Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.
Except the fossil record, genome studies, observed speciation etc. right? ::)
Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates.
*deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH!
Ahem. Mutations and genetic recombination during sexual reproduction, genetic drift and natural selection. Fascinating, I learned this "alleged evolutionary mechanism" in High school Biology and Sex Ed.
Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true.
There is no drive towards increasing complexity, just increased fitness. Nice straw man. ::)
And the drive towards increased fitness, by the way, is Natural selection, another concept the rest of us learned in high school.
This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
"Evolutionary Equation"? hehehehhehehehehhe you really are funny. I notice you don't cite any peer-reviewed articles on statistics to back up your arbitrary claim
Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.
That is the Theory of Abiogenesis, and it DOES have some lab proof, the Miller-Urey, and subsequent repeats of it using recent modern discoveries about primordial conditions STILL manage to generate amino acids and other biological precursors.
One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true.
Congratulations on getting the 2nd Law wrong. The 2nd law merely states that entropy will increase to the maximum in closed systems. Planet Earth is not a closed system, we are receiving input of energy from the sun, and from geothermal vents. And increasing complexity does not always equal decreasing entropy.
Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.
*snicker* Unfortunately, this is a point that no actualy physicist endorses. You are so funny.
Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.
Citations?
You are so laughably easy to refute.... Every Creationist uses the exact same arguments as if they haven't been refuted ad naseum....
Do your own homework.How about a very clear cut case of evolution in modern day?
Wrong. Evolutionaty theory only accounts for gradual changes...that is why no observable evolution can be seen today.Tell that to ANY researcher of HIV. Also, see point above or
What is observered? Genetic mutations? Not that are beneficial to the species.The above listed example is a perfect example of an evolutionary step/mutation that allows bacteria access to a new food source. Another mutation that can even be shown in humans (evolution) is lactose tolerance. Those people that where able to access this food source where able to survive better. Yes, this is evolution!
Since when are fossils, living organisms? Re-read that one and try again.That?s like debating that because your grandfather is now dead, he never was alive?.wtf?
I think genetic drift is my favorite made up word ever. Great Job!http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-G/genetic_drift.html
Increased fitness? Oh, thats rich. Problem is, to increase fitness an organism has to become more complex. Round and round we go.Not necessarily. It could just become more efficient. Efficiency and complexity do not have to go hand in hand.
Without Abiogensis you have no evolution. Amino acids and precursors are not life.ROFL. And yet here we are, living creatures, debating that it occurred at all. It surely had to of happened for life to be here at all. Sure, it may have been an exceedingly rare occurrence. But it only has to occur once. Hell, the debate that abiogenesis occurred on a comet or other extra-terrestrial source isn?t outside the conceivable.
Congrats on your premature ejaculation of BS. Go to the next one.Wait?did you just argue against your own argument?
As we can see the earth is not a closed system.
You chose to believe in whatever unprovable theory you want. BTW just because you through some latin in at the end of your post, doesn't make you sound any smarter.Heh, hardly. A classic example of evolution again, is dogs! (or see point #1)
Semper Fidelis.
Without Abiogensis you have no evolution. Amino acids and precursors are not life.
Wrong. Evolutionaty theory only accounts for gradual changes...that is why no observable evolution can be seen today.
What is observered? Genetic mutations? Not that are beneficial to the species.
Since when are fossils, living organisms? Re-read that one and try again.
I think genetic drift is my favorite made up word ever. Great Job!
Increased fitness? Oh, thats rich. Problem is, to increase fitness an organism has to become more complex. Round and round we go.
See #1
As we can see the earth is not a closed system.
Do your own homework.
Wrong. Evolutionaty theory only accounts for gradual changes...that is why no observable evolution can be seen today.
What is observered? Genetic mutations? Not that are beneficial to the species.
Since when are fossils, living organisms? Re-read that one and try again.
I think genetic drift is my favorite made up word ever. Great Job!
Increased fitness? Oh, thats rich. Problem is, to increase fitness an organism has to become more complex. Round and round we go.
See #1
Without Abiogensis you have no evolution.
Amino acids and precursors are not life.
Congrats on your premature ejaculation of BS. Go to the next one.
As we can see the earth is not a closed system.
www.google.com
You chose to believe in whatever unprovable theory you want. BTW just because you through some latin in at the end of your post, doesn't make you sound any smarter.
Semper Fidelis.
Theories need evidence, therefore there are no religious theories.To me, any theory, religious or scientific, that could be useful in my daily life, has to pass my logical reasoning before I include it in the set of my personal knowledge.There are plenty of religious hypotheses/conjectures, but I'm not aware of any religious theories.
Really? No evidence? Just because you choose to ignore the evidence...doesn't mean it's not there.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.
Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.
Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.
One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can.
Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. In other words, evolution could not have even started.
Common sense with most complicated and best
mathematics/science/probabilities etc. tells me that "Natural Selection"
relating to change in species through millions of years is a contradiction
of terms. "Natural" means by chance, and "Selection"-means intelligence.
(not to mention that "natural" is already an intelligent concept of
intelligent design".
Strangely enough there is no findings of millions of years of evolution of a
cow into a whale. (Darwin himself speaks about it, I included in this
message below). Scientists have a hard time predicting what happened a few
thousand years ago, and yet confidentially speak of millions and EVEN
billions of years into the past.
So that poor cow had to stay out in the water, swimming, and chomping on
orchard grass that might, also by chance, float by wile her calf nursed
underwater; and she and her descendants had to continue on like that for a
MILLION YEARS before that cow could change into whale!
It is the branch of biology which explains biodiversity. As such it doesn't permit supernatural explanations, has no doctrines, nor dogma, nor fables with morals; it has no rituals, traditions or holidays, nor either leaders or defenders of the faith because it doesn't allow faith. It holds nothing sacred, there's no place of worship, no enchantments, no clergy, no fashion of garb, and it neither promotes nor discourages belief in gods or souls, and says nothing about how we should live or what happens after we die. Evolution is therefore NOT a religion....
If folks don't want to (or choose not to) believe in Evolution, no matter
what kind of scientific and/or religious terminology you throw at them it
won't convince them. Same goes for Creationism. But because both parties are
sure they are correct in their views, it is healthy to simply share those
views instead of argue. Never know when "the light will dawn on someone" and
they will decide to change sides... blah blah blah
If anything he'll just give a copy paste of some Creationist propaganda, on a subject that neither he or the author understands.
You have yet to show any positive evidence whatsoever in support of creationism.
You have yet to show any positive evidence whatsoever in support of creationism.
Neither have you.
If folks don't want to (or choose not to) believe in Evolution, no matter
what ...
You have yet to show any positive evidence whatsoever in support of creationism.
Neither have you.
If folks don't want to (or choose not to) believe in Evolution, no matter
what ...
Copypasta'd from here. (http://www.presentruth.com/2009/05/the-earth-only-6000-years-old-perhaps-more-clear-now-than-before/)
Nice work.
You have yet to show any positive evidence whatsoever in support of creationism.
Neither have you.
Umm. Nor should he.
???
Thats a site with some good info. Check it out.
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
If folks don't want to (or choose not to) believe in Evolution, no matter
what ...
Copypasta'd from here. (http://www.presentruth.com/2009/05/the-earth-only-6000-years-old-perhaps-more-clear-now-than-before/)
Nice work.
Thats a site with some good info. Check it out.
If folks don't want to (or choose not to) believe in Evolution, no matter
what ...
Copypasta'd from here. (http://www.presentruth.com/2009/05/the-earth-only-6000-years-old-perhaps-more-clear-now-than-before/)
Nice work.
Thats a site with some good info. Check it out.
I laughed so hard when I saw that. You know you're observing a nadir of ignorance when you find a blog that uses Fox News as a scientific source.
Anyways, the point is that there actually is evidence of Evolution, and absolutely none from creationism.
The fossil record shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.Despite the name, the Cambrian explosion was hardly sudden.
You have yet to show any positive evidence whatsoever in support of creationism.
Neither have you.
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence. Also, even though evidence is not proof, you have posted no evidence at all, but the people in support for evolution has posted at least some evidence. Therefore, their case weighs heavier.
I doubt you've refuted their evidence, honestly.
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence.
I doubt you've refuted their evidence, honestly.
He hasn't. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence, either.
I doubt you've refuted their evidence, honestly.
He hasn't. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence, either.
I'm waiting.
I doubt you've refuted their evidence, honestly.
He hasn't. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence, either.
I'm waiting.
Your the one trying to convince us to abandon the accepted theory in favor of a non-parsimonious new one..... burden of proof is on you ::)
I doubt you've refuted their evidence, honestly.
He hasn't. I don't recall seeing any actual evidence, either.
I'm waiting.
Your the one trying to convince us to abandon the accepted theory in favor of a non-parsimonious new one..... burden of proof is on you ::)
Very well, you concede. Anyone else?
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence.
Tell that to the jurors of the OJ Simpson murder trial. They forgot it.
Science has much harsher boundaries.
Science has much harsher boundaries.
Not from what I've seen. ;)
Perhaps you'd like to link us back somewhere, or provide a quote of some evidence that you provided that didn't get obliterated?
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence.
Tell that to the jurors of the OJ Simpson murder trial. They forgot it.
Science has much harsher boundaries.
Not from what I've seen. ;)
Seeing as you don't seem to have read any actual research journals, or understand the scientific method, it doesn't surprise me that you would believe that.
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer.I have no idea what you admit to or what you don't.
Evolution as a whole is too broad. Lets pick one aspect of it, and intensely focus on it. Someone provide me a piece of evidence for evolution as Darwin and the modern scientists say it happened. One small aspect and we will trade evidence for and against.
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer. You all love to jump all over the huge posts line by line. Are you bored with the debate? Is the debate officially over? Hmmm. I guess I shall wait for a newb to come in and pick the debate back up.
On second thought, Singularity will be around eventually. He'll take me up on it.
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer. You all love to jump all over the huge posts line by line. Are you bored with the debate? Is the debate officially over? Hmmm. I guess I shall wait for a newb to come in and pick the debate back up.
On second thought, Singularity will be around eventually. He'll take me up on it.
Dogs
MRSA
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence. Also, even though evidence is not proof, you have posted no evidence at all, but the people in support for evolution has posted at least some evidence. Therefore, their case weighs heavier.
Ive posted evidence, they've posted evidence. Its all been refuted. Evolution as a whole is too broad. Lets pick one aspect of it, and intensely focus on it. Someone provide me a piece of evidence for evolution as Darwin and the modern scientists say it happened. One small aspect and we will trade evidence for and against.
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer. You all love to jump all over the huge posts line by line. Are you bored with the debate? Is the debate officially over? Hmmm. I guess I shall wait for a newb to come in and pick the debate back up.
On second thought, Singularity will be around eventually. He'll take me up on it.
Dogs
MRSA
MRSA = http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml Not in dispute
Not sure where you are going with dogs.....the different sub species of dog? Same as with the different races of Humans?
And I said one topic that was two.
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence. Also, even though evidence is not proof, you have posted no evidence at all, but the people in support for evolution has posted at least some evidence. Therefore, their case weighs heavier.
Ive posted evidence, they've posted evidence. Its all been refuted. Evolution as a whole is too broad. Lets pick one aspect of it, and intensely focus on it. Someone provide me a piece of evidence for evolution as Darwin and the modern scientists say it happened. One small aspect and we will trade evidence for and against.
Evolution is a theory on mutations and how they change animals, it is not a version of history. The thing I would gladly focus on is the rate of errors produced by dna polymerase. Mainly that some make an error as often as 1 in 9,000 nucleotides. A huge error rate considering the number of nucleotides in a DNA strand. Albeit this figure is for a bacterium with no proofreading mechanism, the proof reading mechanism in most animals has the same error rate. That is still a high number of mutations per replication.
If you don't believe evolution occurs, how do you explain this high error rate in dna replication as anything but evolution?
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer. You all love to jump all over the huge posts line by line. Are you bored with the debate? Is the debate officially over? Hmmm. I guess I shall wait for a newb to come in and pick the debate back up.
On second thought, Singularity will be around eventually. He'll take me up on it.
I'm trying to understand why everyone is not jumping all over my offer. You all love to jump all over the huge posts line by line. Are you bored with the debate? Is the debate officially over? Hmmm. I guess I shall wait for a newb to come in and pick the debate back up.
On second thought, Singularity will be around eventually. He'll take me up on it.
Whales. Definite transitional forms exist between an ancient wolf sized mammal living 50 million years ago and modern day wales.
You said you posted evidence for creationism. Mind linking us to that?
Evidence != Proof(or the truth for that matter)
Actually, evidence has to be true. Otherwise, it isn't evidence. Also, even though evidence is not proof, you have posted no evidence at all, but the people in support for evolution has posted at least some evidence. Therefore, their case weighs heavier.
Ive posted evidence, they've posted evidence. Its all been refuted. Evolution as a whole is too broad. Lets pick one aspect of it, and intensely focus on it. Someone provide me a piece of evidence for evolution as Darwin and the modern scientists say it happened. One small aspect and we will trade evidence for and against.
Evolution is a theory on mutations and how they change animals, it is not a version of history. The thing I would gladly focus on is the rate of errors produced by dna polymerase. Mainly that some make an error as often as 1 in 9,000 nucleotides. A huge error rate considering the number of nucleotides in a DNA strand. Albeit this figure is for a bacterium with no proofreading mechanism, the proof reading mechanism in most animals has the same error rate. That is still a high number of mutations per replication.
If you don't believe evolution occurs, how do you explain this high error rate in dna replication as anything but evolution?
I have found no numbers to support your claim that as long as the organism has the proof reading mechanism that the same error rate occurs. And even if this is correct how do these errors actually support the evolutionary theory? That errors occur? Or that the errors are allowed to occur as long as they are not harmful? Regardless the answer to either of those questions does not point to a 100% proof positive of Evolution.
In DNA replication, a DNA-dependent DNA polymerase makes a copy of a DNA sequence. Accuracy is vital in this process, so many of these polymerases have a proofreading activity. Here, the polymerase recognizes the occasional mistakes in the synthesis reaction by the lack of base pairing between the mismatched nucleotides. If a mismatch is detected, a 3′ to 5′ exonuclease activity is activated and the incorrect base removed.
Lets try to stay on topic right now. We are talking about DNA here. Man you smart people have a hard time following a topic....or directions.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is the theory that these errors occur. It makes several statements about what happens because of these errors, but its main statement is that they occur. The rest is basic logic, bad errors cause the organism to die, good errors allow the organism to live better. As these good errors build up we call it evolution, as the bad errors build up we call it dead.
Yes the errors occur. They cause things like Cancer, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Not confirmed, but probable), Friedreich's ataxia, progressive external ophthalmoplegia (Mitochondrial DNA), Huntington's disease, polycystic kidney disease.
The really funny thing is even if evolution is true, basically we have peeked. We are too complex now. Human beings are conceived in 200-fold copying error. None of the errors being beneficial, some being neutral and most being harmful. Even rigorous accounting cannot squeeze the harmful-error rate to below about 2 per conception. A figure of 5 to 10, or even 20, harmful mutations per conception may be quite likely. So I guess this is it. All we could have ever hoped for. I say we did pretty good. King of the animal kingdom and all.It is highly unlikely that Humans have "peaked" as you say, though our mastery of technology and civilization has certainly had a dampening effect on natural selection. As for your overstatement that none of the copying errors were beneficial, I would love to see your proof of that. It seems statistically improbable.
What about the high mutation rates of RNA viruses? Most of those are beneficial to survival. Multiple mutations mean that the virus is ever changing always ducking and dodging medicines, so why don't DNA viruses evolve a higher mutation rate as well? Wouldn't it be simple for them to have removed the proofreading domain?
Take as an example the sickle cell condition which also confers an immunity to malaria.
The only benefit of mutations I have seen is, beneficial outcomes. Meaning the benefits are only present when outside sources are present. IE antibiotics or whatnot. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a "live or die" situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations.Calm down and try to form a cogent argument please, and try to remember that just because you havent seen it or understood it does not mean it is valid.
I would love to see your proof that one beneficial mutation exists that doesn't depend on outside influences to actually be, beneficial.
The only benefit of mutations I have seen is, beneficial outcomes. Meaning the benefits are only present when outside sources are present. IE antibiotics or whatnot. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a "live or die" situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations.
I would love to see your proof that one beneficial mutation exists that doesn't depend on outside influences to actually be, beneficial.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is the theory that these errors occur. It makes several statements about what happens because of these errors, but its main statement is that they occur. The rest is basic logic, bad errors cause the organism to die, good errors allow the organism to live better. As these good errors build up we call it evolution, as the bad errors build up we call it dead.
Yes the errors occur. They cause things like Cancer, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Not confirmed, but probable), Friedreich's ataxia, progressive external ophthalmoplegia (Mitochondrial DNA), Huntington's disease, polycystic kidney disease.
The really funny thing is even if evolution is true, basically we have peeked. We are too complex now. Human beings are conceived in 200-fold copying error. None of the errors being beneficial, some being neutral and most being harmful. Even rigorous accounting cannot squeeze the harmful-error rate to below about 2 per conception. A figure of 5 to 10, or even 20, harmful mutations per conception may be quite likely. So I guess this is it. All we could have ever hoped for. I say we did pretty good. King of the animal kingdom and all.
What about the high mutation rates of RNA viruses? Most of those are beneficial to survival. Multiple mutations mean that the virus is ever changing always ducking and dodging medicines, so why don't DNA viruses evolve a higher mutation rate as well? Wouldn't it be simple for them to have removed the proofreading domain?
The only benefit of mutations I have seen is, beneficial outcomes. Meaning the benefits are only present when outside sources are present. IE antibiotics or whatnot. One well-known example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In an environment where antibiotics are present, mutations in the bacterial DNA that alter the target of the antibiotic allow the bacteria to survive (the bacteria are faced with a "live or die" situation). However, these same mutations come at the cost of altering a protein or system that is important for the normal functioning of the bacteria (such as nutrient acquisition). If the antibiotics are removed, typically the antibiotic resistant bacteria do not fare as well as the normal (or wild-type) bacteria whose proteins and systems are not affected by mutations.
I would love to see your proof that one beneficial mutation exists that doesn't depend on outside influences to actually be, beneficial.
Science = knowledge from observation.
Yet evolution has never been observed. So i would say certianly it's only a theory, and a poor one at that.
are you flat earth believer. or are you just doing it for parody?It's a mutation; a disadvantageous one.
as it makes no sense how a flat earth believer can believe in evolution.
also take another look at photo, what you are seeing isn't even a mutation. your seeing a loss, the back attatchements become lost with the ''mutation'' of the fly. loss of date itself just debunks evolution...the idea of evolution is evolving...not de-evolving and losing parts of the body (often parts which are needed)...
also these ''mutation'' experiments are not natural. if i poured radioactive waste over someone head and they melted is that evidence for evolution? same poor logic as they alleged mutation experiments.
are you flat earth believer. or are you just doing it for parody?
as it makes no sense how a flat earth believer can believe in evolution.
Ok, seriously, what the fuck does that even mean? How in the fuck is the shape of the Earth connected to chemical processes?
also take another look at photo, what you are seeing isn't even a mutation. your seeing a loss, the back attatchements become lost with the ''mutation'' of the fly. loss of date itself just debunks evolution...the idea of evolution is evolving...not de-evolving and losing parts of the body (often parts which are needed)...
also these ''mutation'' experiments are not natural. if i poured radioactive waste over someone head and they melted is that evidence for evolution? same poor logic as they alleged mutation experiments.
Science = knowledge from observation.
Yet evolution has never been observed. So i would say certianly it's only a theory, and a poor one at that.
Non-flat earth and evolution are both pseudo-science, they arn't observed.
What is observed however is a flat earth (i've walked for about 40 miles once and the earth didn't seem to curve, not even in the slightest) and also no change with anything...animals are not ''evolving'' they are ''static'' and remain unchanged. Evolution never has occured and never will.
Look at the image below,
(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/blackgoatcabal/TaylorIMMfjFruitFliesMutationsM.jpg)
What scientists have said (description of photo):
''Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.''
''The stubborn fruit fly has endured every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has ever produced anything except another fruit fly."
"No new species has ever been produced''
as it makes no sense how a flat earth believer can believe in evolution.
also take another look at photo, what you are seeing isn't even a mutation. your seeing a loss, the back attatchements become lost with the ''mutation'' of the fly. loss of date itself just debunks evolution...the idea of evolution is evolving...not de-evolving and losing parts of the body (often parts which are needed)...
also these ''mutation'' experiments are not natural. if i poured radioactive waste over someone head and they melted is that evidence for evolution? same poor logic as they alleged mutation experiments.
Heres i'll give you 4 reasons evolution isn't true:Go to the sources that were linked, or stop posting.
Heres i'll give you 4 reasons evolution isn't true:
1. Evolution Never Observed
This simple point is often overlooked, but some geneticists and evolutionists do ironically acknowledge it. The American geneticist and botanist Ledyard Stebbins, regarded as one of the leading evolutionists of the 20th century wrote the following:
No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.
Conclusion: So never has evolution of any kind of animal been observed. This is even admitted by leading evolutionists themselves.
2. No Link Between Ape and Man
A blood transfusion between a modern man and any type of an ape (i.e. a chimpanzee) is not possible and both blood types are labeled under categorically different animal species.
Despite this common knowledge, in the 1990?s some evolutionists started to claim that Chimpanzees share 98.5% of the same DNA with modern people. Since these claims, scientists in the early 21st century then revised their claims of a DNA link of Chimpanzees to Humans to conclude chimps only shared 95% of their DNA with man (Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. USA 99 (21): 13633?13635, 2002). So a reduction of 3.5%; then what followed was an even bigger reduction. A year later, the DNA difference was concluded to be over 13% different to 86.7% (Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, USA 100(13): 7708?7713, 2003):
Conclusion: Clearly as science progresses it is proving modern man and women are lesser related to the ape then originally believed by evolutionists.
3. No Transitional Fossils
No transitional fossils of man and ape have ever been found.
Conclusion: Fossils are not evidence for evolution. The lack of findings to credit the theory of evolution resulted with the evolutionary community having to create frauds from the early 20th century such as the well known Piltdown Man.
5. Poor Findings
When alleged real findings of ??Hominids?? are discovered, never are they in complete form.
Take the famous case of ?Lucy? for example, according to evolutionists this Hominid lived between 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago in Africa and looked like a small primate. Yet what was actually discovered? All that was unearthed of Lucy was under 40% of bone, not even a skull was found except a lower part of the jawbone. Adding to this mess was the fact Lucy was apparently built up from two completely different specimens.
Conclusion: Evolutionists have no archeological evidence to prove their theory.
Heres i'll give you 4 reasons evolution isn't true:Of course, because evolution takes quite a long time, on the human scale of things. Nobody has ever "Seen" a glacier carve a valley, or a river erode a canyon, but we can infer it from our observations.
1. Evolution Never Observed
This simple point is often overlooked, but some geneticists and evolutionists do ironically acknowledge it. The American geneticist and botanist Ledyard Stebbins, regarded as one of the leading evolutionists of the 20th century wrote the following:
No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.
Conclusion: So never has evolution of any kind of animal been observed. This is even admitted by leading evolutionists themselves.
2. No Link Between Ape and ManYes, science itself is an evolving process. Just because out testing ability has improved, and the percentages have changed does not invalidate the theory.
A blood transfusion between a modern man and any type of an ape (i.e. a chimpanzee) is not possible and both blood types are labeled under categorically different animal species. Despite this common knowledge, in the 1990?s some evolutionists started to claim that Chimpanzees share 98.5% of the same DNA with modern people. Since these claims, scientists in the early 21st century then revised their claims of a DNA link of Chimpanzees to Humans to conclude chimps only shared 95% of their DNA with man (Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. USA 99 (21): 13633?13635, 2002). So a reduction of 3.5%; then what followed was an even bigger reduction. A year later, the DNA difference was concluded to be over 13% different to 86.7% (Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, USA 100(13): 7708?7713, 2003):
The sequence results actually dropped the DNA similarity estimate down to 86.7%. Indeed, the actual difference between the two species is greater than 5% by well more than a factor of two.
Conclusion: Clearly as science progresses it is proving modern man and women are lesser related to the ape then originally believed by evolutionists.
1. Evolution Never Observed
A blood transfusion between a modern man and any type of an ape (i.e. a chimpanzee) is not possible and...
I stopped reading there too. should anyone point out to him that the average human can't get a transfusions from most humans.1. Evolution Never Observed
I give you the cichlid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid).A blood transfusion between a modern man and any type of an ape (i.e. a chimpanzee) is not possible and...
OK I've read enough. I'm out.
I stopped reading there too. should anyone point out to him that the average human can't get a transfusions from most humans.1. Evolution Never Observed
I give you the cichlid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid).A blood transfusion between a modern man and any type of an ape (i.e. a chimpanzee) is not possible and...
OK I've read enough. I'm out.
Ironic also that Nord would cite Stebbins when he was apparently a staunch proponent of Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Ledyard_Stebbins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Ledyard_Stebbins)
Ironic also that Nord would cite Stebbins when he was apparently a staunch proponent of Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Ledyard_Stebbins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Ledyard_Stebbins)
that was the entire point...
Evolutionists themselves admit evolution has never been observed.
It must upset you evolutionists so much that your belief is a theory/religion not proven fact, never observed...
Evolutionists themselves admit evolution has never been observed.
Evolutionists claimed in the 1990's that chimps share 98.5% same DNA as modern man. Yet we know, a blood tranfusion between man and chimp is not possible.
Clearly you are confused...evolutionists claim chimps share nearly identical DNA to humans but that so transfers can take place of any kind.
Also, every evolutionist accepts evolution has never been observed, even darwin himself.
''When we descend to details, we can prove that no species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory." ?*Charles Darwin, in "Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887), P. 210.
evolution according to evolutionists requires imaginary timescales of millions or billions of years (which never existed)...
there you have darwin in his own words state evolution is not observable...why deny simple facts?
Evolutionists claimed in the 1990's that chimps share 98.5% same DNA as modern man. Yet we know, a blood tranfusion between man and chimp is not possible.
Also, every evolutionist accepts evolution has never been observed, even darwin himself.
''The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field''
''The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field''
?*Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, in Brief of Appellants prepared under the direction of William J. Gusto, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
Evolution has never been observed. This is a fact.
If you believe it not to be so, then why since reocrded history hasn't man mutated?
why don't we have two heads, why don't we grow an extra finger? are you going to wake up tomorrow ''evolved''...perhaps you will grow an extra leg...
sorry i don't subscribe to fairy tales. And true science is ''knowledge from observation.''. evolution is not observation it's pseudo-science and have never been observed.
why i joined this site is beccause flat earth is scientific based on the fact we observe it to be flat (noone when they walk notice the earth to curve etc...
Evolution has never been observed. This is a fact.
If you believe it not to be so, then why since reocrded history hasn't man mutated?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Don't. He seems to think that evolution is like what happens in pokemon, it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Note the 1985. My paper is from 2008. Your paper is older then mine. It is obsolete. Did I make that simple enough for you?
It may have been a fact a quarter century ago. It isn't true now.
It hasn't been long enough for anything significant. And even then there are a few. Increased average height, decreased body hair, eye color, light skin tone, sickle cell, HIV resistance....
The guy who wrote that is still alive, he's a PhD in biology/science...i can find about 1000 more quotes if you like (even more up to date) which are from evolutionists.
Note: I'm only quoting evolutionary sources here, sources from the evolutionary community which state evolution has never been observed. Richard Dawkins even admitted this.
This is why as i stated, evolutionists have to invent long periods of time to account for the idea of evolution.
As everyone here agrees evolution has not been observed since the earliest of recorded history (3000-2500BC). So evolution has not occured in 5,000 years. Since this is verified fact, why should we expect to believe in evolution? All the evidence (and common sense) is against it.
Evolution isn't observed now. Tell me, have you mutated an arm, a leg in your lifetime? Nothing evolves, evolutionists themselves with phD admit this, so i think you should revise your own beliefs.
Cro-magnon were taller then modern man (average 6 ft 2), i also have sources of cro mags up to 7 feet discovered across spain and scotland. And yes cro-magnon was fully the same as modern man, only taller. don't also forget cro-magnon and neanderthal cranial capacity was superior and larger to modern man. no evolution here, only the opposite. Light skin is not a mutation, neither are any eye colours. sickle cell and disease etc have always been around...they are not mutations. You have no evidence for any of these claims.
the rest of your post(s) resort to common evolutionist logical fallacies.
Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions.
The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ?replayed? evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 ? 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 ? 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.
Previous analyses of this experiment have shown numerous examples of parallel phenotypic and genetic evolution. All twelve populations under went rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time (2, 3, 22, 23). All evolved higher maximum growth rates on glucose, shorter lag phases upon transfer into fresh medium, reduced peak population densities, and larger average cellsizes relative to their ancestor (22?26). Ten populations evolved increased DNA supercoiling (27)
Four have evolved defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes (3, 33). There is subtle, but significant, bet ween population variation in mean fitness in the glucose-limited medium in which they evolved (2, 23). In media containing other carbon sources, such as maltose or lactose, the variation in performance is much greater (34). And while the same genes of ten harbor substitutions, the precise location and details of the mutations almost always different between the populations
Other findings suggest that E. coli has the potential to evolve a Cit+ phenotype. Hall (41) reported the only documented case of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant in E. coli. He hypothesized that some complex mutation, or multiple mutations, activated cryptic
genes that jointly expressed a citrate transporter, although the genes were not identified. Pos et al . (43) identified an operon in
E. coli K-12 that apparently allows anaerobic citrate fermentation, and which includes a gene, citT, encoding a citrate?succinate antiporter. High-level constitutive expression of this gene on a multicopy plasmid allows aerobic growth on citrate, but the native operon has a single copy that is presumably induced only under anoxic conditions.
Here we report that a Cit+ variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, and its descendants later rose to numerical dominance.
After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population.
Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen?s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells. No Cit+ cells were found in the samples taken at 30,000, 30,500, or 31,000 generations. Cit+ cells constituted ~0.5% of the population at generation 31,500, then 15% and 19% in the next two samples, but only ~1.1% at generation 33,000. It appears that the first Cit+ variant emerged bet ween 31,000 and 31,500 generations, although we cannot exclude an earlier origin.
Lol. There. Now lets realize that it is just ridiculous to claim that Evolution has never observed, because we can clearly see that we have.
What you have quoted isn't evidence. Firstly this doesn't come close to the standards for something scientific.
Do you know what science is? It's knowledge from observation.
Check your dictionary.
I don't have access to a 100,000$ test laboratory with equipment...neither do i think anyone here, thus none of us can confirm these things. however moving on...
you clearly haven't done some research on Dr Richard Lenski...
Firstly, his background is a militant-atheist-evolutionist hardly comes as a surprise. However take a look at the following article:
Giving up on reality
According to biology professor Dr Scott Minnich, the evolutionist researcher Dr Richard Lenski bred bacteria for more than 20,000 generations with all sorts of selective environments in the hope of getting a spontaneous increase in complexity?i.e. real evolution in the lab. He showed that they adapted to their environment, but the experiment failed to demonstrate the emergence of true novelty or spontaneous complexity. The bacteria were not only still bacteria, they were the same types of bacteria. So, says Minnich, he decided to work on digital organisms instead?computer simulations, which gave him the result he wanted in 15,000 generations. The lesson is clear: the real world of biology is very different from the carefully set up and manipulated world of electronic on-screen simulations.
Reference
1.Minnich, S., Paradigm of Design: the Bacterial Flagellum DVD, 2004
Less then a few years ago this guy gave up on his work. Yet magically in 08 ''he has proved evolution'' with the same experiments he declared he would give up on. Sounds very dodgey. And it's no surprise, the 08 article you pasted has been criticised by a wide viarety of science articles, provided with a mere google search.
Furthermore, it turns out ID's (intelligent designers) and other creationists have interpretated Lenski's work to prove creationism.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=328
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
Conclusion: Pasting an article from a guy who declared his work impossible less then 4 years ago is not evidence.
I don't have access to a huge lab to observe tsuch experiments.
Also might it be simply noted, why can't evolutionists observe things outside of their labs? of course because simply evolution is not observed in the real world.
you guys are running low...
all you have it seems is this dodgey 08 experiment...
and a recent alleged discovery of a fly which had ''mutated or evolved in the london underground''. Nothing physical or biological mutated however according to the evolutionists. What changed was ''the behaviour of it''...
heres also a link on gerhard lenski's dodgey background:
http://creation.com/blast-from-the-past-dr-johann-blasius
Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions.
The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ?replayed? evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 ? 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 ? 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations.
Previous analyses of this experiment have shown numerous examples of parallel phenotypic and genetic evolution. All twelve populations under went rapid improvement in fitness that decelerated over time (2, 3, 22, 23). All evolved higher maximum growth rates on glucose, shorter lag phases upon transfer into fresh medium, reduced peak population densities, and larger average cellsizes relative to their ancestor (22?26). Ten populations evolved increased DNA supercoiling (27)
Four have evolved defects in DNA repair, causing mutator phenotypes (3, 33). There is subtle, but significant, bet ween population variation in mean fitness in the glucose-limited medium in which they evolved (2, 23). In media containing other carbon sources, such as maltose or lactose, the variation in performance is much greater (34). And while the same genes of ten harbor substitutions, the precise location and details of the mutations almost always different between the populations
Other findings suggest that E. coli has the potential to evolve a Cit+ phenotype. Hall (41) reported the only documented case of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant in E. coli. He hypothesized that some complex mutation, or multiple mutations, activated cryptic
genes that jointly expressed a citrate transporter, although the genes were not identified. Pos et al . (43) identified an operon in
E. coli K-12 that apparently allows anaerobic citrate fermentation, and which includes a gene, citT, encoding a citrate?succinate antiporter. High-level constitutive expression of this gene on a multicopy plasmid allows aerobic growth on citrate, but the native operon has a single copy that is presumably induced only under anoxic conditions.
Here we report that a Cit+ variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, and its descendants later rose to numerical dominance.
After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population.
Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen?s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells. No Cit+ cells were found in the samples taken at 30,000, 30,500, or 31,000 generations. Cit+ cells constituted ~0.5% of the population at generation 31,500, then 15% and 19% in the next two samples, but only ~1.1% at generation 33,000. It appears that the first Cit+ variant emerged bet ween 31,000 and 31,500 generations, although we cannot exclude an earlier origin.
Heres i'll give you 4 reasons evolution isn't true:
1. Evolution Never Observed
This simple point is often overlooked, but some geneticists and evolutionists do ironically acknowledge it. The American geneticist and botanist Ledyard Stebbins, regarded as one of the leading evolutionists of the 20th century wrote the following:
No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.
Conclusion: So never has evolution of any kind of animal been observed. This is even admitted by leading evolutionists themselves.
Lol at your ridiculous assertion that a microbiology experiment documented in the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" isn't science.
Do you know what science is? It's knowledge from observation.
Darn. looks like you lied about the definition, your definition fits with #2, but you seem to have forgotten to mention that little thing called "experimentation".
Your argument from incredulity isn't a refutation. You fail. Your unwillingness to verify is your own fault.
Cute ad hominem. Its meaningless however.
I hate to tell you, but Lenski's experiment is on-going. And Lenski's paper isn't criticized. Its famous ::)
Non parsimonious, and not reliable sources. A blog, a "creation.com" and an Amazon forum post are absolutely pitiful responses to a peer-reviewed research study.
It has. Sickle cell anemia, atavisms, penicillin resistant bacteria, transition fossils, HIV resistance, dog breeding, botany. You need to realize that "Evolution" in real life is different from what happens in Pokemon, however.
Evolution by Natural Selection actually seems incredibly unlikely. Evolving by "chance" mutations? It seems like it would take trillions of years for the most basic appendage or internal organ to evolve.Agreed.
I'm a fan of Evolution of the Species by Symbiosis and Genetic Drift, myself. Intelligent genes.
Care to point to a single incidence of a Creationist paper, that actually made a testable hypothesis, that was denied access to a scientific journal. Also, I might point out that it was the scientific community, not creationist demagogues, that caught and exposed the frauds that did actually occur in the 19th century. Your pathetically transparent attempt to poison the well shows your obvious bias.QuoteLol at your ridiculous assertion that a microbiology experiment documented in the peer-reviewed "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" isn't science.
Just to point out, ''peer reviewed'' science publications are owned and written by evolutionists. Creationists, or anyone who opposes the theory of evolution is denied access to partake in such puplications. So what you quote is meaningless and flawed.
This is how evolutionists typically work, evolutionists discriminate against anyone else with a different believe, they deny them scientific access. Basically evolutionists = communism/fascism, they censor and supress any sign of other belief. It's no surprise that both Marx and Adolf were dedicated evolutionists.
''Darwin?s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle''
- Karl Marx, 1861
Despite the discrimination against scientists and people who don't believe in evolution, In recent years a lot of the public have grown tired of the evolutionist cult like attitude, which explains why in a recent poll in UK (a source as mainstream as the Daily Mail) informs 80% of those who participated in a survey wanted ''alternitive theories to evolution'' to be taught in science at schools, while only 20% (reflecting the lunatic atheist fringe) wanted evolution only to be taught. However despite more public not believing in evolution, the cult like evolutionists still deny access to anyone who thinks different to them.
Like a typical evolutionist you use logical fallacies. Read back through your posts, these fallacies include questioning my education, my age and also trying to justify evolution on the grounds ''it is the mainstream'' and most widely supported. What a shock then it must come to you with recent surveys where only 20% of people wanted evolution to only be taught in schools. You are the minority, and only reflect the fringe lunatic cult. You appear to be apart of the lunatic cult, which mostly consist of militant atheists i.e Richard Dawkins. Certainly not a normal represantation of sosicety, just the nutters. You are the David Ickes of society.
Deep down no evolutionists believes in evolution, this includes you. Evolutionists only believe what they do to justify their poor morality or bad acts they commit. Hence they are attracted to the idea of man having evolved from an imaginary savage or brutish ancestor. You should just admit it your head (and here) you don't really believe in evolution.QuoteDo you know what science is? It's knowledge from observation.
Evidence? Prove to me those experiments took place. The point is you can't prove anything because as i said, those experiments were apparently taken in a lab. Since evolutionists deny anyone access to their work and publications, what fair evidence is there anything they report is real?
Also, a simple question you avoided: Do you think the majority of everyday people have access to a lab with equipment worth thousands of $. The answer is obviously no. So how can an average reader be expected to believe 100% in these claims. Again, you reflect the minority fringe cult.
Another point: why can't evolutionists observe evolution outside of the lab anyway? In fact this was a point brought up by Lenski himself - bacteria is not observed to evolve or mutate in the real world ''only under certain conditions'' in a lab.
The natural world is not a laboratory.QuoteDarn. looks like you lied about the definition, your definition fits with #2, but you seem to have forgotten to mention that little thing called "experimentation".
My definition fits with all of those points you pasted. Science is knowledge from observation. Experiments can take place yes.
However it?s not science when evolutionists exclude anyone who doesn?t believe in evolution from observing their alleged experiments take place. Again, cult.QuoteYour argument from incredulity isn't a refutation. You fail. Your unwillingness to verify is your own fault.
Unless you think everyone has access to a science lab worth thousands of $. Then just stop trying to refute this point i made because it can?t be refuted. Your logic, is that everyone has access to experiments by evolutionists.
I don?t have a test laboratory in my house. Let me guess you think normal people have this in their home? And at the same time they have all the equiptment to partake in apparent evolutionary experiments? Btw, experiments which apparently take 20+ years, lol. Again you have proven yourself as a mr. Icke, crackpot, a part of the nutter fringe cult.QuoteCute ad hominem. Its meaningless however.
In his own words he?s ??a teacher of evolution??. Everyone already knows he?s an atheist.
You have no idea what you are typing.QuoteI hate to tell you, but Lenski's experiment is on-going. And Lenski's paper isn't criticized. Its famous ::)
Says who? Those same evolutionist websites which are communist/fascist and discriminate against anyone who believes in some
thing different? Or are you basing your claims on something like Wikipedia? A website any old idiot can alter.QuoteNon parsimonious, and not reliable sources. A blog, a "creation.com" and an Amazon forum post are absolutely pitiful responses to a peer-reviewed research study.
Perfect example of your Nazi/communist attitude which all evolutionists have.
Remember evolutionists don?t allow non-evolutionists access to write peer-reviewed articles. Learn some basic facts about your own belief system and how it discriminates...QuoteIt has. Sickle cell anemia, atavisms, penicillin resistant bacteria, transition fossils, HIV resistance, dog breeding, botany. You need to realize that "Evolution" in real life is different from what happens in Pokemon, however.
None of these things prove evolution and transitional fossils don?t exist.
Also how do you explain your own (evolutionary) community created frauds, such as Piltdown, java, Nebraska man etc as well? You have no evidence, so you created hoaxes.
Just to point out, ''peer reviewed'' science publications are owned and written by evolutionists. Creationists, or anyone who opposes the theory of evolution is denied access to partake in such puplications. So what you quote is meaningless and flawed.
This is how evolutionists typically work, evolutionists discriminate against anyone else with a different believe, they deny them scientific access. Basically evolutionists = communism/fascism, they censor and supress any sign of other belief. It's no surprise that both Marx and Adolf were dedicated evolutionists.
Despite the discrimination against scientists and people who don't believe in evolution, In recent years a lot of the public have grown tired of the evolutionist cult like attitude, which explains why in a recent poll in UK (a source as mainstream as the Daily Mail) informs 80% of those who participated in a survey wanted ''alternitive theories to evolution'' to be taught in science at schools, while only 20% (reflecting the lunatic atheist fringe) wanted evolution only to be taught. However despite more public not believing in evolution, the cult like evolutionists still deny access to anyone who thinks different to them.
Like a typical evolutionist you use logical fallacies.
Read back through your posts, these fallacies include questioning my education, my age and also trying to justify evolution on the grounds ''it is the mainstream'' and most widely supported.
What a shock then it must come to you with recent surveys where only 20% of people wanted evolution to only be taught in schools.
You are the minority, and only reflect the fringe lunatic cult. You appear to be apart of the lunatic cult, which mostly consist of militant atheists i.e Richard Dawkins. Certainly not a normal represantation of sosicety, just the nutters. You are the David Ickes of society.
Deep down no evolutionists believes in evolution, this includes you.
Evolutionists only believe what they do to justify their poor morality or bad acts they commit.
Hence they are attracted to the idea of man having evolved from an imaginary savage or brutish ancestor. You should just admit it your head (and here) you don't really believe in evolution.
Evidence? Prove to me those experiments took place.
The point is you can't prove anything because as i said, those experiments were apparently taken in a lab. Since evolutionists deny anyone access to their work and publications, what fair evidence is there anything they report is real?
Also, a simple question you avoided: Do you think the majority of everyday people have access to a lab with equipment worth thousands of $. The answer is obviously no. So how can an average reader be expected to believe 100% in these claims. Again, you reflect the minority fringe cult.
Another point: why can't evolutionists observe evolution outside of the lab anyway? In fact this was a point brought up by Lenski himself - bacteria is not observed to evolve or mutate in the real world ''only under certain conditions'' in a lab.
The natural world is not a laboratory.
My definition fits with all of those points you pasted. Science is knowledge from observation. Experiments can take place yes.
However it?s not science when evolutionists exclude anyone who doesn?t believe in evolution from observing their alleged experiments take place. Again, cult.
Unless you think everyone has access to a science lab worth thousands of $. Then just stop trying to refute this point i made because it can?t be refuted. Your logic, is that everyone has access to experiments by evolutionists.
I don?t have a test laboratory in my house. Let me guess you think normal people have this in their home? And at the same time they have all the equiptment to partake in apparent evolutionary experiments? Btw, experiments which apparently take 20+ years, lol. Again you have proven yourself as a mr. Icke, crackpot, a part of the nutter fringe cult.
In his own words he?s ??a teacher of evolution??. Everyone already knows he?s an atheist.
You have no idea what you are typing.
Says who? Those same evolutionist websites which are communist/fascist and discriminate against anyone who believes in something different? Or are you basing your claims on something like Wikipedia? A website any old idiot can alter.
Perfect example of your Nazi/communist attitude which all evolutionists have.
Remember evolutionists don?t allow non-evolutionists access to write peer-reviewed articles. Learn some basic facts about your own belief system and how it discriminates...
None of these things prove evolution and transitional fossils don?t exist.
Also how do you explain your own (evolutionary) community created frauds, such as Piltdown, java, Nebraska man etc as well? You have no evidence, so you created hoaxes.
you guys are running low...
all you have it seems is this dodgey 08 experiment...and a recent alleged discovery of a fly which had ''mutated or evolved in the london underground''. Nothing physical or biological mutated however according to the evolutionists. What changed was ''the behaviour of it''...
behaviour of it?
If you stick people underground with dim conditions with a lack of sunlight for a week, they are going to ''behave different''.
lol. pure comedy.
heres also a link on gerhard lenski's dodgey background:
http://creation.com/blast-from-the-past-dr-johann-blasius
you guys are running low...
all you have it seems is this dodgey 08 experiment...and a recent alleged discovery of a fly which had ''mutated or evolved in the london underground''. Nothing physical or biological mutated however according to the evolutionists. What changed was ''the behaviour of it''...
behaviour of it?
If you stick people underground with dim conditions with a lack of sunlight for a week, they are going to ''behave different''.
lol. pure comedy.
heres also a link on gerhard lenski's dodgey background:
http://creation.com/blast-from-the-past-dr-johann-blasius
You still haven't answered where you came up with your perverted view of what you think evolution is.
Honestly Nord, this site just isn't your style. We focus too much on logic, reasoning, and observable reality.
You might like it better here (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/11/08/09/pg1).
[link to ukraineplague.blogspot.com]
Here's the scoop...
READ IT!!!
It must be coming...
fucking stock up on your antibiotics now while they are still available. you know it's gonna look odd when you're still alive... and you know the gov. goons are gonna go on a looting spree. best stock up the ol cave also.
this one is bacteria - colloidal silver will nail it
Oh bullshit, like i said in another thread Pneumonic Plague spreads like wildfire and kills within a week. The mortality rate is nearly 100%. the onset of symptoms is two to three days after exposure. The Ukraine situation has been going on for over a week. There would be far more dead then we are seeing now. They would be digging mass graves. Can the bullshit.
Well the Muslims were messing around with bubonic plague at n AQ camp in Algeria a while ago. They would have good reason to start an epidemic amongst the Slav infidels - as they are both in competition to see who grabs Europe first - but if this was Pneumonic plague you would expect to see a far far higher death rate!
Oh, the baseless conspiracy. Since they don't agree with you, they must be evil and deliberately suppressing the truth. How amusing.
Translation: I can't actually refute the facts, so I'm going to make up wild theories and compare modern science to facism with no reason
And like a typical Creationist, you can't refute the facts, provide any positive evidence for your own position, and have to resort to ad hominem.
Lies. Evolution happened. I've provided evidence, and you haven't even tried to refute it.
That's an amusing supposition. Last I checked my scientific beliefs were irrelevant to my morals.
The paper, the fact that literally hundreds of people have seen it, there are probably security camera footage, the fact that the government funds it, the fact that a paper trail exists, the fact that a record exists of Lenski procuring the starting E. coli samples, the fact that any idiot can go visit the university and walk past the lab while they are working and see it themselves.
Whats next? Are you going to deny the existence of Japan and the entire Asian continent, and maybe Australia too?
Yes, the Nazis and Communists would have been right insofar as they refuse to accept trash as scientific evidence.
....Discriminates against unqualified morons from wasting limited space in a print journal. If you have something to say, get credentialed, do an experiment, and they'll probably be happy to publish you.
The lying is strong with this one. Transition fossils do exist, as we can clearly see.
Evolution promotes poor-morality. Even Darwin admitted this. If you believe in evolution you can't have morals. Most evolutionists are also homosexuals, because they use it to justify homosexuality as acceptable and ''normal''.
Look at who supports the evolutionary community: atheists, homosexuals, liberals, anarchists, communists, nazis.
Basically the fuel for evolution is people who don't want rules and revolt against tradition. Columbine schools killing etc and nearly all modern acts of crime are/were committed by ''social Darwinists?'.
So yes, I think most will agree anyone who believes in evolution is ''evil'' on the basis they have no morals and are a part of a false modern belief system.
Translation: I can't actually refute the facts, so I'm going to make up wild theories and compare modern science to facism with no reason
I?ve disproved evolution with the simple point it isn?t observed. Nothing you say changes this fact.
And you avoided my question, why isn?t evolution observed in the real world....REAL WORLD...not talking labs here. So don?t paste me more labs experiments.
The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ?replayed? evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 ? 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 ? 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
No evidence yet provided. So far you?ve pasted an article (repeatedly) which you can?t prove took place.
Also I stressed for evidence that evolution has been observed in the real world, not in a test laboratory. Why aren?t we observing animals mutate or evolve in their natural environment?
You can?t have morals and believe in evolution. Both heavily conflict with each other.
It?s not open to everyone. They only will show that (even if it exists) to evolutionists. As I said discrimination...
No since those places prove the earth is only a few thousand years old.
New Zealand was only inhabited in 1100AD. Easter Island in 600AD. Japan only a few thousand years ago by the Ainu. China in 2900BC. Some islands in Oceania were only occupied 500 years ago.
Are you saying you are a nazi or communist?
Anyone who opposes evolution can?t get published by the mainstream science journals because they are evolutionist.
Pasting more lies i see.
Lucy is a confimed hoax.
"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."?*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).
NOTE: the ??new scientist?? is an evolutionist magazine run by evolutionist for evolutionists.
So evolutionists themselves, don?t all believe in lucy.
again i'm quoting your own people's sources (evolutionists) to refute you, i'm not even using my own. Thats how easy evolutionists are at ddisproving
Im still trying to figure out mutation with beneficial outcomes = new species/proof of evolution.
QuoteOh, the baseless conspiracy. Since they don't agree with you, they must be evil and deliberately suppressing the truth. How amusing.
Evolution promotes poor-morality. Even Darwin admitted this. If you believe in evolution you can't have morals. Most evolutionists are also homosexuals, because they use it to justify homosexuality as acceptable and ''normal''.
I don't need to refute evolution, history already does. The history of man only goes back 3000BC as verified by ancient writings. According to evolutionists modern man ??homo sapiens?? evolved 200,000 years ago out of Africa. So why did man not use his brain for over 190,000 years? So for over 190,000 years man chose not to write or build civilization, then randomly one day decided to?Jericho was inhabited in 9,000BC.
I?ve disproved evolution with the simple point it isn?t observed. Nothing you say changes this fact.
And you avoided my question, why isn?t evolution observed in the real world....REAL WORLD...not talking labs here. So don?t paste me more labs experiments.
No evidence yet provided. So far you?ve pasted an article (repeatedly) which you can?t prove took place.
Also I stressed for evidence that evolution has been observed in the real world, not in a test laboratory. Why aren?t we observing animals mutate or evolve in their natural environment?
We will never find total proof of evolution
Its fairly simple really.We will never find total proof of evolution
Best thing you ever said.
All these small changes over generations and many years, seem to me provide evidence against evolution. How does an organism that lives exclusively in water slowly change to be a land dwelling organism without dying in the process. Or vice versa for that matter.
Except that it doesn't help you, when you take into account that we will never, ever, prove anything 100%.We will never find total proof of evolutionBest thing you ever said.
All these small changes over generations and many years, seem to me provide evidence against evolution. How does an organism that lives exclusively in water slowly change to be a land dwelling organism without dying in the process. Or vice versa for that matter.All these objects accelerating towards the ground at 9.81 m/s seems to me to disprove gravity.
We will never find total proof of evolution
Best thing you ever said.
All these small changes over generations and many years, seem to me provide evidence against evolution. How does an organism that lives exclusively in water slowly change to be a land dwelling organism without dying in the process. Or vice versa for that matter.
Except that it doesn't help you, when you take into account that we will never, ever, prove anything 100%.We will never find total proof of evolutionBest thing you ever said.QuoteAll these small changes over generations and many years, seem to me provide evidence against evolution. How does an organism that lives exclusively in water slowly change to be a land dwelling organism without dying in the process. Or vice versa for that matter.All these objects accelerating towards the ground at 9.81 m/s seems to me to disprove gravity.
Vice versa as in the whale? There are over a dozen transitions between when the whale was a land dweller to when it was entirely aquatic. The seal and the sea lion are examples of another animal that could be considered half way between being fully land locked and fully aquatic, and they are doing just fine. The penguin is another example.
I never claimed that there was 100 percent proof for evolution, that is impossible in science, you are the one who has been asking for that. What I do claim is that with the evidence we have, evolution is the most reasonable, and most likely explanation, and we have found no evidence that suggests something else is going on, like creationism.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.It has also been scientifically proven that you are an ape.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.It has also been scientifically proven that you are an ape.
Not according to your fellow evolutionists.Oh really? Sauce please.
I notice you skipped right over the succinct explanation of your question.It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.It has also been scientifically proven that you are an ape.
Not according to your fellow evolutionists.
Not according to your fellow evolutionists.Oh really? Sauce please.
I notice you skipped right over the succinct explanation of your question.It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.It has also been scientifically proven that you are an ape.
Not according to your fellow evolutionists.
Raist already answered this but since I can not find it I will answer it. Lets look at eels that live in freshwater in tropical climates. since the water is very warm there is less oxygen in it. this eel goes up to the surface takes a mouthful of air which goes next to the back of its mouth which has a lot of blood vessels that absorb the oxygen from the air. I think it is easy to see how that characteristic evolved. that looks like the beginning of a lung to me.We will never find total proof of evolution
Vice versa as in the whale? There are over a dozen transitions between when the whale was a land dweller to when it was entirely aquatic. The seal and the sea lion are examples of another animal that could be considered half way between being fully land locked and fully aquatic, and they are doing just fine. The penguin is another example.
I never claimed that there was 100 percent proof for evolution, that is impossible in science, you are the one who has been asking for that. What I do claim is that with the evidence we have, evolution is the most reasonable, and most likely explanation, and we have found no evidence that suggests something else is going on, like creationism.
I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Wow, you are dense. Skipped right over the explanation of the sea-land transition for animals that I posted.
Unfortunately not many fossils have been found of the species which directly link fish and amphibians.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Your point being?I believe his point was that he had no actual argument.
Raist already answered this but since I can not find it I will answer it. Lets look at eels that live in freshwater in tropical climates. since the water is very warm there is less oxygen in it. this eel goes up to the surface takes a mouthful of air which goes next to the back of its mouth which has a lot of blood vessels that absorb the oxygen from the air. I think it is easy to see how that characteristic evolved. that looks like the beginning of a lung to me.We will never find total proof of evolution
Vice versa as in the whale? There are over a dozen transitions between when the whale was a land dweller to when it was entirely aquatic. The seal and the sea lion are examples of another animal that could be considered half way between being fully land locked and fully aquatic, and they are doing just fine. The penguin is another example.
I never claimed that there was 100 percent proof for evolution, that is impossible in science, you are the one who has been asking for that. What I do claim is that with the evidence we have, evolution is the most reasonable, and most likely explanation, and we have found no evidence that suggests something else is going on, like creationism.
I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
There are also plenty of examples of the opposite transition as well. Not that it is needed, if you acknowledge the examples I have given for transitions from land to water, then you are acknowledging evolution.
People who keep aquariums at home are aware of several intermediates. Anabantids (gouramis and bettas) about every 30 seconds take a gulp of air from the surface and pump it through their gills. They are sometimes known as labyrinth fish for the convoluted structure in their head to capture air. You will see carp or goldfish gulping at the surface continuously if an aquarium is overcrowded. The Arrowana, a large Amazonian fish that jumps high out of the water to catch insects has a lung-like sac near its stomach.
There are mud skippers with feet-like fins that can waddle out of the water and move about. They breath through their skin and the lining of their mouths like frogs. They can also retain a bubble of air in their gill chambers.
There are many fish that bury in the mud to survive drought or cold, for example the colourful killifishes.
Lungfishes have a pair of lungs. Nearly all fish have a gas sac called a swim bladder for buoyancy, which may have been the beginnings of a lung.QuoteIt has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Of course they are, like I said in a previous post, evolution does not allow one type of thing to change into another fundamentally different type of thing. A dog will always be a canine, but has developed features that distinguish it from other canines.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Your point being?
Wow, you are dense. Skipped right over the explanation of the sea-land transition for animals that I posted.
Yes i skipped your post because you said nothing.
You explained why. I totally agree breathing air is easier than extracting it from water with gills. Way to go. Impressed.
This was my favorite part of your copypasta.QuoteUnfortunately not many fossils have been found of the species which directly link fish and amphibians.
Thats too bad. It would be a slam dunk for evolution.
That's like saying "x = x". Technically true, but it proves nothing.Raist already answered this but since I can not find it I will answer it. Lets look at eels that live in freshwater in tropical climates. since the water is very warm there is less oxygen in it. this eel goes up to the surface takes a mouthful of air which goes next to the back of its mouth which has a lot of blood vessels that absorb the oxygen from the air. I think it is easy to see how that characteristic evolved. that looks like the beginning of a lung to me.We will never find total proof of evolution
Vice versa as in the whale? There are over a dozen transitions between when the whale was a land dweller to when it was entirely aquatic. The seal and the sea lion are examples of another animal that could be considered half way between being fully land locked and fully aquatic, and they are doing just fine. The penguin is another example.
I never claimed that there was 100 percent proof for evolution, that is impossible in science, you are the one who has been asking for that. What I do claim is that with the evidence we have, evolution is the most reasonable, and most likely explanation, and we have found no evidence that suggests something else is going on, like creationism.
I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
Electric eels are not really eels and are obligate air breathers, how is that a transition?I see your point. But all of those animals breathe air. How can mutations and natural selection show that they can evolve to breathe water which is what had to happen to get us out of the ocean originally. Actually the opposite, but you get my point.
The whale was not my anology. It was a copypasta, and posted for other things in that read.
There are also plenty of examples of the opposite transition as well. Not that it is needed, if you acknowledge the examples I have given for transitions from land to water, then you are acknowledging evolution.
People who keep aquariums at home are aware of several intermediates. Anabantids (gouramis and bettas) about every 30 seconds take a gulp of air from the surface and pump it through their gills. They are sometimes known as labyrinth fish for the convoluted structure in their head to capture air. You will see carp or goldfish gulping at the surface continuously if an aquarium is overcrowded. The Arrowana, a large Amazonian fish that jumps high out of the water to catch insects has a lung-like sac near its stomach.
There are mud skippers with feet-like fins that can waddle out of the water and move about. They breath through their skin and the lining of their mouths like frogs. They can also retain a bubble of air in their gill chambers.
There are many fish that bury in the mud to survive drought or cold, for example the colourful killifishes.
Lungfishes have a pair of lungs. Nearly all fish have a gas sac called a swim bladder for buoyancy, which may have been the beginnings of a lung.QuoteIt has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Of course they are, like I said in a previous post, evolution does not allow one type of thing to change into another fundamentally different type of thing. A dog will always be a canine, but has developed features that distinguish it from other canines.
How do gills work? If you are putting air over gills...i would say its not really a gill to begin with. And the gs sac is just that...buoyancy. You trying to fit it in with your concept of evolution is just ridiculous, and typical.
It has been scientifically proven all dogs....are dogs.
Your point being?
They said nothing can be scientifically proven 100%. I disagreed.
How old are you? "If you believe in evolution you're a homo." This isn't the playground. Perhaps you should take a look at the definition of evolution, which I included for you below, and compare it to the distinctly odd perception of it that you have. If you are referring to no one observing evolution having taken place because no one has been around long enough to see the accrual of the process, as proof for your statement then you are hanging your hat on pathetic semantics. By that logic, the formation of diamonds and the grand canyon, and the growth of Giant Sequoias are fallacies too.
Speaking of homosexuality and morals, how much did the church spend to silence the children of Boston and move pedo priests around the country?
I also like Jim Jones, Heaven's gate and David Koresh. How did their followers end up?
Jericho was inhabited in 9,000BC.
Speaking of Jericho, how's this for morality?
Canis Lupis Familiaris
Evolution = idea things evolve, yet only the opposite is observed and proven by science, in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution is not observed today and never has been.
You are talking of Catholics, who don?t represent true Christians.
Jim Jones was a communist, Heavens Gate was run by a homosexual and David Koresh was a paedophile.
Perhaps we should print these screen shots of your online activity and show them to your parents and see what they think about you admiring lunatics and paedophiles, or perhaps the admin would like to contact the authorities.
Archeologists can?t give exact dates for anything, there is an estimate range. The extreme limit is 9,000BC, on the other end is around 4000-3000BC which fits the biblical chronology.
This has nothing to do with morality. You clearly have no idea what the Bible is about. The Bible is only concerned with the birthright of one people ? the Israelites. Everything in the bible is justified on these grounds.
The ancestors of dogs were dogs. A 5 year old knows this.
No, you've demonstrated that you don't have any idea what evolution actually is, and as for your demands that I stop presenting evidence that shows that your opinions are bull, you can just cry your heart out, because I'm not taking your silly orders
"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" Lenski et al, Proceedings of the National Academy for the Sciences, June 2008. Volume 105, number 23, pages 7899-7906.
They are, but you've been ignoring it. We've already posted multiple examples of evolution in nature. But you seem to think Evolution is like what happens in Pokemon, so you don't quite grasp it yet.
I was mocking you, but it seems that it went over your head.
That may have been the case in 1984, I suppose. Obviously isn't now.
Evolution = idea of evolving (hence the name)...yet nothing evolves, all we observe is things getting worse.
Quote"Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" Lenski et al, Proceedings of the National Academy for the Sciences, June 2008. Volume 105, number 23, pages 7899-7906.
This is not evidence for evolution.
You need to provide observed evolution in the real natural environment, not quote lab experiments from evolutionists who deny anyone who doesn?t believe in their believes access...we?ve already been over this. If all you can continue to do is spam, then it shows you have no interest in the online discussion here. I believe then you could be labelled a troll.
In fact you are a troll. You are a sceptic of flat earth..why are you here in the first place? this is a society for flat earthers..
No evidence yet provided. All you?ve done is spam a repeated link from a atheist-evolutionist.
How about i spam this page up with 50-100 creationist links...then according to your logic that must mean i win the debate.
Can you explain why parts of asia were only settled as recently as 500 years ago, but according to you and the evolutionary community man is 200,000 years old?
Simple fact you have ignored: evolutionists can?t even agree with themselves on their beliefs ie. You have about 50 hypothesis like ??ape-aquatic theory??, then the ??out of Africa theory?? then the ??multi-regional theory??...etc.
You guys don?t even know where you came from or at what time or from what.
QuoteHow old are you? "If you believe in evolution you're a homo." This isn't the playground. Perhaps you should take a look at the definition of evolution, which I included for you below, and compare it to the distinctly odd perception of it that you have. If you are referring to no one observing evolution having taken place because no one has been around long enough to see the accrual of the process, as proof for your statement then you are hanging your hat on pathetic semantics. By that logic, the formation of diamonds and the grand canyon, and the growth of Giant Sequoias are fallacies too.
Evolution = idea things evolve, yet only the opposite is observed and proven by science, in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution is not observed today and never has been.
Evolution = idea things evolve, yet only the opposite is observed and proven by science, in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution is not observed today and never has been.
QuoteSpeaking of homosexuality and morals, how much did the church spend to silence the children of Boston and move pedo priests around the country?
You are talking of Catholics, who don?t represent true Christians.QuoteI also like Jim Jones, Heaven's gate and David Koresh. How did their followers end up?
Jim Jones was a communist, Heavens Gate was run by a homosexual and David Koresh was a paedophile.
Perhaps we should print these screen shots of your online activity and show them to your parents and see what they think about you admiring lunatics and paedophiles, or perhaps the admin would like to contact the authorities.
QuoteJericho was inhabited in 9,000BC.
Archeologists can?t give exact dates for anything, there is an estimate range. The extreme limit is 9,000BC, on the other end is around 4000-3000BC which fits the biblical chronology.
QuoteSpeaking of Jericho, how's this for morality?
This has nothing to do with morality. You clearly have no idea what the Bible is about. The Bible is only concerned with the birthright of one people ? the Israelites. Everything in the bible is justified on these grounds.
QuoteCanis Lupis Familiaris
The ancestors of dogs were dogs. A 5 year old knows this.
us
us
Please stop associating yourself with us. Evolution is conclusively proven and we are a secular (largely atheist, really) organisation whose theories are based on empirical evidence, so we have nothing in common with your kind.
QuoteHow old are you? "If you believe in evolution you're a homo." This isn't the playground. Perhaps you should take a look at the definition of evolution, which I included for you below, and compare it to the distinctly odd perception of it that you have. If you are referring to no one observing evolution having taken place because no one has been around long enough to see the accrual of the process, as proof for your statement then you are hanging your hat on pathetic semantics. By that logic, the formation of diamonds and the grand canyon, and the growth of Giant Sequoias are fallacies too.
Evolution = idea things evolve, yet only the opposite is observed and proven by science, in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolution is not observed today and never has been.
If you had anything more than a parochial school education, you would know that evolution does not violate thermodynamics in any wayQuoteSpeaking of homosexuality and morals, how much did the church spend to silence the children of Boston and move pedo priests around the country?
You are talking of Catholics, who don?t represent true Christians.
I smell a demagogue!QuoteI also like Jim Jones, Heaven's gate and David Koresh. How did their followers end up?
Jim Jones was a communist, Heavens Gate was run by a homosexual and David Koresh was a paedophile.
Perhaps we should print these screen shots of your online activity and show them to your parents and see what they think about you admiring lunatics and paedophiles, or perhaps the admin would like to contact the authorities.QuoteJericho was inhabited in 9,000BC.
Archeologists can?t give exact dates for anything, there is an estimate range. The extreme limit is 9,000BC, on the other end is around 4000-3000BC which fits the biblical chronology.QuoteSpeaking of Jericho, how's this for morality?
This has nothing to do with morality. You clearly have no idea what the Bible is about. The Bible is only concerned with the birthright of one people ? the Israelites. Everything in the bible is justified on these grounds.
QuoteCanis Lupis Familiaris
The ancestors of dogs were dogs. A 5 year old knows this.
Yes, and look how much variance we have gotten out of the dog in just a few hundred years of selection.
Yes, and look how much variance we have gotten out of the dog in just a few hundred years of selection.
Honest scientists have something far different to say about evolutionary theory.
These are men, highly competent in their respective fields, who can see the flaws in evolution far better than the man on the street.
Here is what they would like to tell you:
A leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless"
- Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.
''Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.''
?Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B *quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"Evolution is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.
? James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to GIVE UP trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."
?G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.
QuoteYes, and look how much variance we have gotten out of the dog in just a few hundred years of selection.
the variance was always in the genome. all dogs look the same and have same features, only difference is their size and colour. all dogs are dogs. nothing changes.
As i said, a 5 year old knows a dog = dog.
A leading scientist of our time has this to say:
"Evolution is baseless"
- Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
QuoteYes, and look how much variance we have gotten out of the dog in just a few hundred years of selection.
the variance was always in the genome. all dogs look the same and have same features, only difference is their size and colour. all dogs are dogs. nothing changes.
As i said, a 5 year old knows a dog = dog.
Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own.
You are neglecting the time component of the equation. If amateur Victorians with no understanding of evolution can get that level of variance in that short of a period, imagine what variation and natural selection can do over millions of years. That was the point I was making.QuoteYes, and look how much variance we have gotten out of the dog in just a few hundred years of selection.
the variance was always in the genome. all dogs look the same and have same features, only difference is their size and colour. all dogs are dogs. nothing changes.
As i said, a 5 year old knows a dog = dog.
In 1990 biologist Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue-including blood vessels and even whole cells when it was necessary to break a supposedly 65 million-year-old tyrannosaurus rex huge thigh bone that was found in Montana's Hell Creek Formation. Schweitzer said that the vessels were flexible and some could even be squeezed. After extensive testing, there was confirmation that this T. rex bone even had hemoglobin (red blood cells). This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old.
In 1990 biologist Mary Schweitzer discovered soft tissue-including blood vessels and even whole cells when it was necessary to break a supposedly 65 million-year-old tyrannosaurus rex huge thigh bone that was found in Montana's Hell Creek Formation. Schweitzer said that the vessels were flexible and some could even be squeezed. After extensive testing, there was confirmation that this T. rex bone even had hemoglobin (red blood cells). This was surprising because the blood should have completely disintegrated if the bones were really 65 million years old.
Actually no, that is really true. That is how they were actually able to determine that the T-Rex's closest living ancestor is the chicken.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
Meanwhile, Schweitzer?s research has been hijacked by ?young earth? creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn?t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it?s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer?s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as ?a complete and total Christian.? On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: ?For I know the plans I have for you,? declares the Lord, ?plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
Actually no, that is really true. That is how they were actually able to determine that the T-Rex's closest living ancestor is the chicken.
Read part b.
or perhaps the ability to mutate is beneficial because it allows us to adapt to our environment.
or perhaps the ability to mutate is beneficial because it allows us to adapt to our environment.
This.
That doesn't mean we evolve to a new species.
or perhaps the ability to mutate is beneficial because it allows us to adapt to our environment.
This.
That doesn't mean we evolve to a new species.
I'd say it is a fairly small jump in logic to assume we do eventually produce a new "species" an artificial category we designate to different types of organisms.
I'd say it is a fairly small jump in logic to assume we do eventually produce a new "species" an artificial category we designate to different types of organisms.
Would you call it a leap in faith?
I'd say it is a fairly small jump in logic to assume we do eventually produce a new "species" an artificial category we designate to different types of organisms.
Would you call it a leap in faith?
No, I wouldn't. It's following a pattern. If you some pennies in your pocket each day and put them in a jar, is it a leap of faith to assume you'd eventually have a dollar in the jar? Or would it be following basic logic?
Or would it be following basic logic?
So Wardogg, do you believe that the genes involved in reproduction are somehow immune to mutation?
So Wardogg, do you believe that the genes involved in reproduction are somehow immune to mutation?
Uhhh no, and I think Ive stated as much. I'm not sure where you are going with this but mutation/adaptation does not prove evolution. Also this is no where near my area of expertise so basically anything I have on this is copypasta.
So Wardogg, do you believe that the genes involved in reproduction are somehow immune to mutation?
Uhhh no, and I think Ive stated as much. I'm not sure where you are going with this but mutation/adaptation does not prove evolution. Also this is no where near my area of expertise so basically anything I have on this is copypasta.
Uhhh no, and I think Ive stated as much. I'm not sure where you are going with this but mutation/adaptation does not prove evolution. Also this is no where near my area of expertise so basically anything I have on this is copypasta.So you understand that absolutely everything about a creature is written in their genes?
Mutations do not produce new species.
Mutations do not produce new species.
Yes, they do. Mutations produce a phenotypic change, so eventually, they will reach the point where the result is unrecognizable from your starting point.
Mutations do not produce new species.
Yes, they do. Mutations produce a phenotypic change, so eventually, they will reach the point where the result is unrecognizable from your starting point.
Proof?
Mutations do not produce new species.
Yes, they do. Mutations produce a phenotypic change, so eventually, they will reach the point where the result is unrecognizable from your starting point.
Proof?
Oh. And I forgot to mention common sense and logic. You have yet to prove the existence of any magical force that would restrict the mutations. Burden of Proof is on you since you are the one making the non-parsimonious argument.... Have fun looking for research that proves the existence of God, and that proves he directly intervenes to restrict mutations. ;)
Great job at failing. None of that showed proof of a mutation creating a NEW species.
The point is...if you had PROOF we wouldn't be having this debate at all...now would we.
Great job at failing. None of that showed proof of a mutation creating a NEW species.
Also this is no where near my area of expertise so basically anything I have on this is copypasta.
I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"
There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.
You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"
There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.
No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur. Excellent. Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation. IE A NEW SPECIES. And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.
You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"
There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.
No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur. Excellent. Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation. IE A NEW SPECIES. And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.
Take for example a population group of big cats living on the Savannah. Through random mutation or genetic recombination, one of the cats receives a gene that codes for a protein allowing it to run 5% longer or 5% faster than other cats in the group. This cat will be a marginally more successful hunter, and will be more likely to mate and confer this advantage with its offspring than other cats in the group. A fair number of these offspring will also receive this advantage, and they too will be more successful. Competing with other groups of the same species, this group will have a decided advantage, and because of this will add to their genetic pool because they will have more access to mates than other cats will. This will lead to even more genetic recombination, conferring even more traits to the population group. The bad traits will quickly be weeded out through natural selection, while the beneficial traits will continue to bolster the success of the group. Eventually, there will be enough new traits added to this population that they will no longer be pro-creatively compatible with the original population. This is what we refer to as speciation.
Can someone find me a simplified tree of our evolution
Interesting, according to that tree of life we started as Eukaryotes(which is just a large group of organisms....so no specifics there) that splits to an unnamed node, that splits to a Opisthokonts(another general term of a group of organisms), then there is a big split, one side is "animal" the otherside is fly agaric(a mushroom) man those mutations must have been pretty severe.
Interesting, according to that tree of life we started as Eukaryotes(which is just a large group of organisms....so no specifics there) that splits to an unnamed node, that splits to a Opisthokonts(another general term of a group of organisms), then there is a big split, one side is "animal" the otherside is fly agaric(a mushroom) man those mutations must have been pretty severe. Oh yeah and a little magic thrown in on the unnamed node...whatever the hell that was.
To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.
Hrmmmm again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?
Google is your friend.
Hrmmmm again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with?
How how does something mutate and natural select itself into two different forms...one being fungus the other being animal?Almost 60 pages into this thread and you are still asking stupid questions like this? You are a complete waste of time.
First of all you are creating a straw man through your dogged determination to hold on to an oversimplification of the evolutionary process. Variance and selection do not occur in a vacuum, nor does it occur singly to individuals only. Rather, population groups are constantly exchanging elements between individuals in the group, and between groups themselves. Also, selection is extremely dependent on environmental conditions. Take for example a population that occasionally expresses a gene for bright plumage, which attracts the attention of females of the species, but also predators as well. If a high percentage of these birds get eaten before passing on this gene, it wont be any advantage at all. However, if the group migrates to a local where those predators are not prevalent, then suddenly you will see more birds with bright plumage.You are taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works. First of all, a single mutation likely would not result in a new species incapable of mating with the existing species. Secondly, evolution does not necessarily occur in a single organism, but in population groups.
I've posted proof repeatedly. But your only response is to go: "Llalalalalalalalalalalalal! I'm not listening! Science doesn't count unless I say so! lalalalalalal not listening!!!!"
There's nothing I can do to stop you from sticking your head in the sand, besides pity you.
No, what you have proven is that genetic mutations occur. Excellent. Show me one instance of a mutation creating a new species, where the species before the mutation can now not reproduce with the species with the mutation. IE A NEW SPECIES. And then explain how that species would survive being the only one of its kind not able to reproduce with anything.
Take for example a population group of big cats living on the Savannah. Through random mutation or genetic recombination, one of the cats receives a gene that codes for a protein allowing it to run 5% longer or 5% faster than other cats in the group. This cat will be a marginally more successful hunter, and will be more likely to mate and confer this advantage with its offspring than other cats in the group. A fair number of these offspring will also receive this advantage, and they too will be more successful. Competing with other groups of the same species, this group will have a decided advantage, and because of this will add to their genetic pool because they will have more access to mates than other cats will. This will lead to even more genetic recombination, conferring even more traits to the population group. The bad traits will quickly be weeded out through natural selection, while the beneficial traits will continue to bolster the success of the group. Eventually, there will be enough new traits added to this population that they will no longer be pro-creatively compatible with the original population. This is what we refer to as speciation.
Interesting. And exactly where does the cat that is getting bigger and stonger actually start to look differnent than its current form. Because you know we have to have that to explain the
Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species
The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon.
MC2219
Lets look at your first sites tree.....not very informative is it?
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr81/WardoggKC130FE/evol-1.jpg)
Here is something else I enjoyed greatly,QuoteThe rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon.
Seems like alot of holes and uncertainty clouds evolution. Too bad really for a scientific proof. ::)
Actually your fungus idea isn't that far fetched. A fungus is very closely related to animals. Ever wondered why we don't have antibiotics for a fungus, mainly because their cell structures are nearly identical, antibiotics work by damaging the mechanism for creating cell membranes, meaning when the organism grows it splits open and dies. This means the few anti fungal drugs usually cause a lot of harm to the human as well.Actually, most anti-biotics work by inhibiting growth and reproduction, but the penicillin class antibiotics do in fact kill the organism.
Odd that two groups that have been shown to be closely related look and behave so differently, almost like they are the results of genes and not just made to be similar.
It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.
It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.
Funny stuff man. Seriously...your beliefs or mine...all have holes filled with faith and belief. That you choose not to see that and hide behind weak evidence squeezed and molded into your theory is something I can't change. Im bored, I will be going back to copypasta now.
Its not faith or belief to say "I dont know...exactly....yet", which is something that Creationists cant possibly do.It is impossible for us to know exactly how it happened and evolution makes not claims about how it happened other than through mutations and competition.
Funny stuff man. Seriously...your beliefs or mine...all have holes filled with faith and belief. That you choose not to see that and hide behind weak evidence squeezed and molded into your theory is something I can't change. Im bored, I will be going back to copypasta now.
Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
This theory doesn't explain anything. It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.
Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?
Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.
This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist links. Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.
Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
This theory doesn't explain anything. It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.
Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?
Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.
This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist links. Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.
You grossly oversimplify things in an attempt to set a straw man.Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
This theory doesn't explain anything. It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.
Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?
Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.
This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist links. Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.
You grossly oversimplify things in an attempt to set a straw man.Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
This theory doesn't explain anything. It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.
Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?
Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.
This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist links. Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.
Who said anything about a transitional fossil?
I enjoyed this part of your link....QuoteTo explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.
Interesting, so all of a sudden there would be a mutation and some natural selection only to go back to genetic stablility.
Hrmmmm again how does the new mutated species reproduce with no one else to reproduce with? How how does something mutate and natural select itself into two different forms...one being fungus the other being animal?
EVOLUTION AND WESTERN CULTUREWonder twin powers combine.
......
.....
....
et cetera et cetera
EVOLUTION AND WESTERN CULTUREWonder twin powers combine.
......
.....
....
et cetera et cetera
Form of; Giant wall of text.
Are you testing some beta program for Bill Gates where the email said you'd get $.01 for every 10 word you post in a forum?
Seriously Nord, if you are going to just keep regurgitating arguments that have already been refuted, just GTFO of this thread.
In fact, just leave FES altogether. You are useless.
You have not yet proven evolution for over 50 pages, along with other users i.e thread starter and pete.
As the user WardoggKC130FE stated, you completely fail. Your only responces now are offtopic.
Lets look at your first sites tree.....not very informative is it?
(http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr81/WardoggKC130FE/evol-1.jpg)
Wardogg, please read these sentence carefully.
A theory does not explain what happens. It explains a mechanism for how it happened. Evolution makes 0 claims whatsoever about what has happened in the past.
This theory doesn't explain anything. It makes large guesses, and molds some actual occurrences in to fit its assumption.
Question: Where did man come from if he didn't come from God?
Assumption: He must have mutated his way up the food chain from single celled organism which we can't prove either.
This is what I hear and see with all this evidence and proof you provide and the really funny thing over the last couple of posts I used the evolutionist links. Not even the .org and creationist sites I usually pull from.
Lol. The theory of evolution makes predictions about the past? Lulz.
Those are the affects of evolution being taught, mostly evolution fueled communism, as well as nazism, anarchism, liberalism and socialism.
If the theory evolution wasn't invented then the effects of communism, nazism, anarchism, liberalism and socialism would not have shaped society.
Everyone agrees (even did darwin himself) that evolution gave the world bad ideologies.
Now i ask you evolutionists here, why do you support a theory which ruined the world.
It also makes predictions about common traits, the fact that every vertebrate has red blood, and every invertebrate has blue blood, validates that prediction, among other findings. When it comes to whales, many still have vestigial traits such as pelvis bones and legs (something creationist cannot explain). Even if they have lost their legs completely, they are still tetrapods by descent, and it has been confirmed that the genes for creating these limbs, passed down through generations, are still there.
Heres what i'll leave you with:All of the above died before The Origin of Species was written. Half of them died before Darwin was even born. How could they have possibly rejected Darwinism if they had no idea what it even was?
Famous inventors and pioneers of science who REJECTED Darwinism/lamarckism/theory of evolution:
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
John Ray (1627-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
Heres what i'll leave you with:All of the above died before The Origin of Species was written. Half of them died before Darwin was even born. How could they have possibly rejected Darwinism if they had no idea what it even was?
Famous inventors and pioneers of science who REJECTED Darwinism/lamarckism/theory of evolution:
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
John Ray (1627-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
Honestly, why are the mods allowing him to spam a serious thread with nonsense?
It also makes predictions about common traits, the fact that every vertebrate has red blood, and every invertebrate has blue blood, validates that prediction, among other findings. When it comes to whales, many still have vestigial traits such as pelvis bones and legs (something creationist cannot explain). Even if they have lost their legs completely, they are still tetrapods by descent, and it has been confirmed that the genes for creating these limbs, passed down through generations, are still there.
Those are things that are predicted because of it and are testable. It does not mean the theory itself predicts them.
Fossils are dead animals, you can't go back in time and prove they had babies. Thus trying to prove common descent or a ''missing link'' via a fossil can not be done.
Fossils are not evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for evolution.
And calling me a troll, when all you do is spam this place up is one liner responces i.e ''fuck off'' just proves you are the troll.
why not answer my questions? because you can't. Note also that everyone who asked me a question i responded to, i also gave links.
And who is the only person who quotes scientists here (with publication and page number)? only me.
yep you fail, over 50 pages and you can't prove evolution.
It also makes predictions about common traits, the fact that every vertebrate has red blood, and every invertebrate has blue blood, validates that prediction, among other findings. When it comes to whales, many still have vestigial traits such as pelvis bones and legs (something creationist cannot explain). Even if they have lost their legs completely, they are still tetrapods by descent, and it has been confirmed that the genes for creating these limbs, passed down through generations, are still there.
Those are things that are predicted because of it and are testable. It does not mean the theory itself predicts them.
yay semantics. The point is if any of those predictions were proven wrong then evolution would be falsified.
It also makes predictions about common traits, the fact that every vertebrate has red blood, and every invertebrate has blue blood, validates that prediction, among other findings. When it comes to whales, many still have vestigial traits such as pelvis bones and legs (something creationist cannot explain). Even if they have lost their legs completely, they are still tetrapods by descent, and it has been confirmed that the genes for creating these limbs, passed down through generations, are still there.
Those are things that are predicted because of it and are testable. It does not mean the theory itself predicts them.
yay semantics. The point is if any of those predictions were proven wrong then evolution would be falsified.
Not at all. Things predicted because of a theory can not be used as disproof of a theory only of the prediction.
I didn't say that they were different species. How do you explain the fact that there is a definite observed diversity of different species existing on the earth today?
So you believe that new species of animals were magically created from nothing, in fully adult form. Where is your proof?
The fact that we have never observed this is good enough evidence to make an educated assumption that the animals in the fossil record had parents.
I said Lamarckism as well. Secondly Darwinism didn?t start with Charles, it started with Erasmus Darwin.Oh nice, an Ad Hominem? It matches your appeal to authority nicely. So shall I take this as a concession that you have no real arguments against Evolution to make?
Google: Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life (1794)
Darwinism was around in the late 1700?s.
It?s you who has no idea...i can tell you are just a young kid (hence your immature name and avatar) who has never really looked into anything other than evolution. No need to feel embarrassed, scared or ashamed to look into alternitive ideas to evolution.
EVOLUTION AND WESTERN CULTUREWonder twin powers combine.
......
.....
....
et cetera et cetera
Form of; Giant wall of text.
Are you testing some beta program for Bill Gates where the email said you'd get $.01 for every 10 word you post in a forum?
The proper exclamation is "Wonder twin power, activate!"
It did make me laugh though. Thanks. :)
So you believe that new species of animals were magically created from nothing, in fully adult form. Where is your proof?
The fact that we have never observed this is good enough evidence to make an educated assumption that the animals in the fossil record had parents.
there are no new species. the ''varience'' is already in the genome
So you believe that new species of animals were magically created from nothing, in fully adult form. Where is your proof?
The fact that we have never observed this is good enough evidence to make an educated assumption that the animals in the fossil record had parents.
there are no new species. the ''varience'' is already in the genome
So in a totally homozygous population of fruit flies, how did white eyes arise? 4 genes were involved, all of them coded for red eye pigment.
Do you not believe in mutations?
Heres what i'll leave you with:
Famous inventors and pioneers of science who REJECTED Darwinism/lamarckism/theory of evolution:
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics.
Sir David Brewster (1781-1868): optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology
Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics.
Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory.
Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve.
Joseph Henry (1797-1878): electric motor, galvanometer.
Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars.
James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics.
Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy.
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778): classification system, systematic biology.
Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery.
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization.
Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry.
John Ray (1627-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals.
John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis.
I'll believe the words of these men of course, over a bunch of atheist-evolutionists who for some bizarre reason join flat earth society forum..why not join an evolutionist forum? probably because you don't even believe in evolution deep down and you come here just to be different. lol makes you feel special does it?
dna does not mutate. absolutely nothing does. never will do. evolution/mutations are in the minds of men, and also children who watch things like the incredible hulk.
we are static or we get worse (devolution).
dna does not mutate. absolutely nothing does. never will do. evolution/mutations are in the minds of men, and also children who watch things like the incredible hulk.
we are static or we get worse (devolution).
Do you know what mutate means?
dna does not mutate. absolutely nothing does. never will do. evolution/mutations are in the minds of men, and also children who watch things like the incredible hulk.
we are static or we get worse (devolution).
Do you know what mutate means?
If i got a knife and cut off my finger is that mutation?
answer is no. it's a loss of my parts. animals can loose things, but they suffer and loosing the things is harmful/threatens it's existance...
yea i know what mutate means...but evolutionists emply verbal tricknology. words have been altered. Just how micro-evolution was changed from simply 'variance'.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
list your education you have and i will list mine
dna does not mutate. absolutely nothing does. never will do. evolution/mutations are in the minds of men, and also children who watch things like the incredible hulk.
we are static or we get worse (devolution).
Do you know what mutate means?
If i got a knife and cut off my finger is that mutation?
answer is no. it's a loss of my parts. animals can loose things, but they suffer and loosing the things is harmful/threatens it's existance...
yea i know what mutate means...but evolutionists emply verbal tricknology. words have been altered. Just how micro-evolution was changed from simply 'variance'.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
Viruses do mutate. Why do you think there is a different flu shot each year?
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
Viruses do mutate. Why do you think there is a different flu shot each year?
Its an "adaptation" or a "behavioral change" obviously. ::) /sarcasm
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
Viruses do mutate. Why do you think there is a different flu shot each year?
Its an "adaptation" or a "behavioral change" obviously. ::) /sarcasm
Viruses have no behavior, it is a change of binding proteins on the virus. Which can only be changed by its DNA changing.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
So how do you explain bacteria suddenly gaining the ability to be resistant to antibiotics? Or the ability to eat vinyl? Or humans developing resistance to HIV, the ability to see into the ultraviolet spectrum, enhanced strength, or bones so strong they rival Bruce Willis's character in the movie Unbreakable.
In biology, a mutation is a randomly derived change to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism. What you see in the Incredible Hulk, or X-men, is not mutation, that is fantasy.
I didn't say that they were different species. How do you explain the fact that there is a definite observed diversity of different species existing on the earth today?
all 'species'', better termed 'kinds' sprung from the same kinds but with a primordial set of genes. the diversity of animals kinds today is just this gene expression. nothing complicated to understand. only evolutionists complicate things. the ancestors of animals were their own kind ie ancestor of dog a dog, a man a man etc...no ''ape-men'' ''ape-fish'' etc.
theres no such thing a a mutation in natural world. there are however manmade mutations. pouring a chemical substance i.e over a cat etc. scientists do these mutations. but not natural world mutations.
Pathophysiology
The pathophysiology of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is unknown. It is an inherited autosomal dominant disorder with complete penetration but variable gene expressivity. Findings suggest that fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva maps to band 4q27-31, a region that contains at least 1 gene involved in the bone morphogenic protein (BMP) signaling pathway.1 BMPs are members of the transforming growth factor-beta superfamily and play a role in the development of bone and other tissues.2 The condition is multifocal, starting to develop usually after traumatization. The genetic cause of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva lies within the ACVR1 gene, which encodes a type I BMP transmembrane receptor. A recurrent mutation in the BMP type I receptor ACVR1 causes inherited and sporadic fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva.3 In one study, it was mapped to 2q23-24 by linkage analysis.4
A number of mutations have been documented. A mutation of the noggin (NOG) gene in a fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva family has been described.5 The FOP gene in the 17q21-22 region had been observed with several mutations described in the NOG gene (located in 17q22) in 4 fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva patients, including the G91C mutation, which was transmitted dominantly in a Spanish fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva family. This mutation is a guanine to adenine change at nucleotide 283 (283G?>A) of the NOG gene and was transmitted by the affected mother to her 2 affected children. A novel mutation in the activin A type 1 receptor gene was described in one patient.6 Analysis showed that the patient was heterozygous for a mutation, G356D.7
Patients with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?like heterotopic ossification and/or toe malformations have been described in 2 categories: fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?plus (classic defining features of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva plus one or more atypical features) and fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva variants (major variations in one or both of the 2 classic defining features of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva)8 While the typical mutation was found in all cases of classic fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva and most cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?plus, novel ACVR1 mutations were identified in the fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva variants and some with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva?plus.
Two unique mutations in the ACVR1 gene have also been identified in 2 fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva patients from the United Kingdom with some atypical digit abnormalities and other clinical features.9 The resultant mutations were interpreted to result in local structural changes in the ACVR1 protein, as revealed by interrogating homology models of the native and mutated ACVR1 kinase domains.
Jesus christ. :o
If I had that, I would have somebody shoot me.
601 aggtgggttg ctggccaggg gcccaggctt
agg tgg gtt gct ggc cag ggg ccc agg ctt
Rosetta@home needs your help to determine the 3-dimensional shapes of proteins in research that may ultimately lead to finding cures for some major human diseases. By running the Rosetta program on your computer while you don't need it you will help us speed up and extend our research in ways we couldn't possibly attempt without your help. You will also be helping our efforts at designing new proteins to fight diseases such as HIV, Malaria, Cancer, and Alzheimer's (See our Disease Related Research for more information). Please join us in our efforts! Rosetta@home is not for profit.
dna does not mutate. absolutely nothing does. never will do. evolution/mutations are in the minds of men, and also children who watch things like the incredible hulk.
we are static or we get worse (devolution).
Do you know what mutate means?
If i got a knife and cut off my finger is that mutation?
answer is no. it's a loss of my parts. animals can loose things, but they suffer and loosing the things is harmful/threatens it's existance...
yea i know what mutate means...but evolutionists emply verbal tricknology. words have been altered. Just how micro-evolution was changed from simply 'variance'.
Virus/disease are germs that attack. yes, everyone knows this. disease though don't mutate. that's pseudo-science.
if virus mutated think about it...we would all be dead. for according to evolutionists humans are millions of years old (in different forms though) thats means a simple ''cough virus'' would by this time millions or hundreds of years later been so powerful it would kill in 1 second...yet what do we observe? that virus etc are still pretty weak and are cured by medicines.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
Yes, genetic disorders are something you are born with, the mutation occurs during transcription or cross over at gametogenesis, or when the gametes fuse and undergo genetic recombination across chromosomes. You are the only one who seems unaware of this fact.
I'll accept your concession now. I've shown the mutation, detailed EXACTLY which mutation it is, in which gene, in which chromosome, and how it changes the phenotype, and you respond to all my research and detailed explaining with a two sentence straw man. I win.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
Yes, genetic disorders are something you are born with, the mutation occurs during transcription or cross over at gametogenesis, or when the gametes fuse and undergo genetic recombination across chromosomes. You are the only one who seems unaware of this fact.
I'll accept your concession now. I've shown the mutation, detailed EXACTLY which mutation it is, in which gene, in which chromosome, and how it changes the phenotype, and you respond to all my research and detailed explaining with a two sentence straw man. I win.
This is what troll wants as proof of mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMNT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Avenger
He's being obtuse.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
Yes, genetic disorders are something you are born with, the mutation occurs during transcription or cross over at gametogenesis, or when the gametes fuse and undergo genetic recombination across chromosomes. You are the only one who seems unaware of this fact.
I'll accept your concession now. I've shown the mutation, detailed EXACTLY which mutation it is, in which gene, in which chromosome, and how it changes the phenotype, and you respond to all my research and detailed explaining with a two sentence straw man. I win.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
Yes, genetic disorders are something you are born with, the mutation occurs during transcription or cross over at gametogenesis, or when the gametes fuse and undergo genetic recombination across chromosomes. You are the only one who seems unaware of this fact.
I'll accept your concession now. I've shown the mutation, detailed EXACTLY which mutation it is, in which gene, in which chromosome, and how it changes the phenotype, and you respond to all my research and detailed explaining with a two sentence straw man. I win.
You said you are born with those diseases but then contradict yourself by saying they mutate the phenotype.
the phenotype isn't mutated if you born already with the didease. the disease is passed down in the genetic material from the parents.no mutation.
and the fact you changed the topic to bacteria and disease mutations really says you fail at trying to prove human evolution. why is it evolutionists when they try and prove their theories never talk about man? only bacterias or dieases. the answer is because you know you have absolutely no evidence.
piltdown, java, nebraska man...these are your evidences? all were hoaxes.
I think we've established that Nord has absolutely no idea what mutation (or evolution) is. Let's move on, shall we?
Ok, seriously, I've won. You don't even know what mutations are.Exactly. Everyone knows it. So stop feeding the troll now.
Ok, seriously, I've won. You don't even know what mutations are.Exactly. Everyone knows it. So stop feeding the troll now.
And now, lets get into exactly how this disease is genetic in nature, and Nord's claim that mutations don't exist are utter bull. :D
Those pictures you pasted, those kids in them were born with it. not mutation.
same for down syndrome etc. You proved nothing.
Yes, genetic disorders are something you are born with, the mutation occurs during transcription or cross over at gametogenesis, or when the gametes fuse and undergo genetic recombination across chromosomes. You are the only one who seems unaware of this fact.
I'll accept your concession now. I've shown the mutation, detailed EXACTLY which mutation it is, in which gene, in which chromosome, and how it changes the phenotype, and you respond to all my research and detailed explaining with a two sentence straw man. I win.
You said you are born with those diseases but then contradict yourself by saying they mutate the phenotype. the phenotype isn't mutated if you born already with the didease. the disease is passed down in the genetic material from the parents.
no mutation.
and the fact you changed the topic to bacteria and disease mutations really says you fail at trying to prove human evolution. why is it evolutionists when they try and prove their theories never talk about man? only bacterias or dieases. the answer is because you know you have absolutely no evidence.
piltdown, java, nebraska man...these are your evidences? all were hoaxes.
I asked for evidence. Still none provided to prove evolution/mutations.
Pasting photos of deformed children proves nothing.
And yes, you would label me a troll since you failed to prove evolution, avoid my questions and are a bunch of atheists.
This is tedious. I'm not even an atheist, and I proved the existence of mutations and that they lead to changed phenotypes on page 60.
evolution is not compatible with theism. Especially not christianity. You are seriously confused. I also see your posts on this site supporting homosexuals and you believe skin is a mutation/evolution etc
All your beliefs are against what the bible teaches.
read Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9...for homosexuality: punishment is death, so why are you supporting it?
then it's odd in the other thread you call me a fanatic. read the scripture. what you are doing is picking and choosing and altering it to fit your own agenda. You are either anti-christian or a fake christian.
The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old (tracing the geneology in the table of nations).
So can you explain exactly why you stated the earth is billions of years old.
Just another one of your contradictions. Yet, oddly you wish to be credited as a serious forum debater and not a troll.
Wow. If you're going to be a troll Nord, can you at least try harder.
there is no evidence for any mutations. Again, evolutionists state skin mutated but it's not observable or scientific.I wonder how viruses become immune to already built antibodies...oh wait. I just caused DNA mutations in lab this week.
In fact recent DNA tests have proven the following:
12 % of the DNA Differs Amongst Human Races and Populations
Till now, humans of different races were thought almost identical
http://news.softpedia.com/news/12-of-the-DNA-Differs-Amongst-Human-Races-and-Populations-40872.shtml
Now although this article is evolutionist, it had updated and debunked the evolutionary ''out of africa'' theory and mutations
Races are no longer considered 99% percent identical. Now only 88-89% which disproves the idea of mutation.
Well according to the Notre Dame department of philosophy you can.Wow. If you're going to be a troll Nord, can you at least try harder.
Pete claims to be a christian. Yet supports homosexuality, supports evolution, and also believes white skin is a mutation.
All these are rejected in the bible.
The definition of Adam, Strong?s Exhaustive Concordance, is:
119: aw-dam?; to show blood (in the face) i.e. flush or turn rosy;
The bible states adam (the first man) was white skinned (only blood - haemoglobin shows under pale skin).
Again pete contradicts himself. You cant believe in evolution and mutations and bible.
well 60+ pages and evolution/mutations have not been proven. Plus, the fact i've encountered an alleged christian here who supports homosexuality and evolution, also if you read back a few pages a guy who supports a paedophile. And these people are the so called skeptics of the flat earth and consider themselves ''normal''. lol.
Wow. If you're going to be a troll Nord, can you at least try harder.
And what evidence is there of your theory?
What i believe isn't a theory, it's proven fact:
1. Man only began to document history less than 5,000 years ago.
2. Civilizations are only a few thousand years old i.e Ancient Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt.
3. World myths and traditions support Young Earth Creationist dates.
The evidence for the antiquity of man only goes back less than 5,000 years. Not billions or millions based on imaginary pseudo-hominids.
Evolution is disproved on the basis it's a modern theory. To understand you would have to understand traditionalism and respect for your ancestors, which blatently evolutionists have no idea about, which is why they are sell outs and follow a modern theory of materialistic pseudo-science...
Well according to the Notre Dame department of philosophy you can.Wow. If you're going to be a troll Nord, can you at least try harder.
Pete claims to be a christian. Yet supports homosexuality, supports evolution, and also believes white skin is a mutation.
All these are rejected in the bible.
The definition of Adam, Strong?s Exhaustive Concordance, is:
119: aw-dam?; to show blood (in the face) i.e. flush or turn rosy;
The bible states adam (the first man) was white skinned (only blood - haemoglobin shows under pale skin).
Again pete contradicts himself. You cant believe in evolution and mutations and bible.
According to 1.3 billion Catholics, you can.Well according to the Notre Dame department of philosophy you can.Wow. If you're going to be a troll Nord, can you at least try harder.
Pete claims to be a christian. Yet supports homosexuality, supports evolution, and also believes white skin is a mutation.
All these are rejected in the bible.
The definition of Adam, Strong?s Exhaustive Concordance, is:
119: aw-dam?; to show blood (in the face) i.e. flush or turn rosy;
The bible states adam (the first man) was white skinned (only blood - haemoglobin shows under pale skin).
Again pete contradicts himself. You cant believe in evolution and mutations and bible.
According to my Biology and Theology profs, you can.
well 60+ pages and evolution/mutations have not been proven.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/ibe4op.jpg)And what evidence is there of your theory?
What i believe isn't a theory, it's proven fact:
1. Man only began to document history less than 5,000 years ago.
Contradicted by all those 10,000 year old Neolithic ruins.... And all that cave artwork.2. Civilizations are only a few thousand years old i.e Ancient Rome, Greece, Babylon, Egypt.
Except for the Mesopotamian ones which are significantly older.3. World myths and traditions support Young Earth Creationist dates.
And Greek Mythology teaches that diseases are caused by Apollo, Son of Zeus, shooting you with an arrow. What the frack is your point?The evidence for the antiquity of man only goes back less than 5,000 years. Not billions or millions based on imaginary pseudo-hominids.
Oh snap, a temple that was in use in 10,000 B.C. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html)Evolution is disproved on the basis it's a modern theory. To understand you would have to understand traditionalism and respect for your ancestors, which blatently evolutionists have no idea about, which is why they are sell outs and follow a modern theory of materialistic pseudo-science...
Your silly. Morals and "traditionalism" have nothing to do with science. ::)
You are officially:
(http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/jmiles/2008/05/18/fractal_wrongness.jpg?maxWidth=2000)
Got a wiki link for fish that wear clothes? No, didn't think so.What a ridiculous argument. You must have been infantry.
*various mps*
evolution is not compatible with theism. Especially not christianity. You are seriously confused. I also see your posts on this site supporting homosexuals and you believe skin is a mutation/evolution etc
All your beliefs are against what the bible teaches.
read Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9...for homosexuality: punishment is death, so why are you supporting it?
evolution is not compatible with theism. Especially not christianity. You are seriously confused. I also see your posts on this site supporting homosexuals and you believe skin is a mutation/evolution etc
All your beliefs are against what the bible teaches.
Is that where the source of thinking you've disproved anything comes from? You think theism is incompatible with evolution, you believe in god, therefore evolution is proven wrong?Quoteread Lev 18:22-23, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9...for homosexuality: punishment is death, so why are you supporting it?
The "punishment" for everyone is death. Last time I checked there isn't anyone living forever. And if Leviticus is correct why is homosexuality still around? Perhaps because it is a steaming pile of hatemongering BS?
Yet over 60 pages and no evidence has been provided. It's irrelevant what my beliefs are, as this thread is about the evidence for evolution (which appears to be none so far presented).
Yet over 60 pages and no evidence has been provided.
Keep posting that and it will come true!
Oh no wait. That's never never land.
Go away troll.
Yet over 60 pages and no evidence has been provided. It's irrelevant what my beliefs are, as this thread is about the evidence for evolution (which appears to be none so far presented).
Your lack of critical thinking and analytical ability are not our problems. You have repeatedly been given evidence to show the case for evolution and you repeatedly ignore it. You can't seem to wrap your head around the meaning of several terms we are using and continue to fall back on homophobe athiest comments. Why are you so hung up on "ape men"? Any evidence provided on that front, or any front you turn a blind eye to and throw up archaic garbage by "intellectuals" that is supposed to refute modern science.
You were given canis lupis familiaris as a prime example yet your argument is that they aren't a new species, yet there is no where, except in your convoluted head, that requires a new species for evolution. The definition of evolution you want where someone wakes up tomorrow as a half man half bear & half pig isn't going to happen because that isn't evolution.
You are truly a waste of time.
three more irrelevant, spam posts from the evolutionists...
why are you avoiding to prove evolution? all you are doing is spamming this place up with posts not relevant to the thread topic.
three more irrelevant, spam posts from the evolutionists...
why are you avoiding to prove evolution? all you are doing is spamming this place up with posts not relevant to the thread topic.
the odds against [winning the lottery] through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, [winning the lottery] is mathematically impossible.
When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sensePlease show your math bacing this up including mathematical laws used, biological laws tested, error rate observed, total error allowed in a particular genetic code, as well as the varying time spans you used in your study.
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without including sterilization or death.
Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.
the odds against [winning the lottery] through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, [winning the lottery] is mathematically impossible.
And yet it happens weekly.
QuoteThe genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without including sterilization or death.
Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Yet children are born genetically sterile and dead all of the time through genetic mutations.
QuoteMoreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.
No one here is expecting a mouse to turn into an elephant, so fortunately we agree on one thing.
the odds against [winning the lottery] through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, [winning the lottery] is mathematically impossible.
And yet it happens weekly.
Its 1000 times worse than the lottery.
the odds against [winning the lottery] through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, [winning the lottery] is mathematically impossible.
And yet it happens weekly.
Its 1000 times worse than the lottery.QuoteThe genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without including sterilization or death.
Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Yet children are born genetically sterile and dead all of the time through genetic mutations.
I know...thats what I said.QuoteMoreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.
No one here is expecting a mouse to turn into an elephant, so fortunately we agree on one thing.
No just dinosaurs to birds. ::)
When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.
Dinosaurs and birds have nearly identical bone structures, scales and feathers are made of the same exact chemical, just arranged slightly differently to make a feather arrangement instead of a scale arrangement. There is fossilized evidence of dinosaurs with feathers.
I don't see how that is a huge leap at all.
RAWWRR-A-DoodleDOOOOOOOO!!!Yeah. Or you could have posted an image of one of the dinosaurs that we happen to know, for fact, had feathers and/or wings.
(http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/DinoChicken-300x290.jpg)
When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense
The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.
Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.
No just dinosaurs to birds. Roll Eyes
Dinosaurs and birds have nearly identical bone structures, scales and feathers are made of the same exact chemical, just arranged slightly differently to make a feather arrangement instead of a scale arrangement. There is fossilized evidence of dinosaurs with feathers.
I don't see how that is a huge leap at all.
RAWWRR-A-DoodleDOOOOOOOO!!!
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/images/prod-04-l.jpg)
Dinosaurs and birds have nearly identical bone structures, scales and feathers are made of the same exact chemical, just arranged slightly differently to make a feather arrangement instead of a scale arrangement. There is fossilized evidence of dinosaurs with feathers.
I don't see how that is a huge leap at all.
RAWWRR-A-DoodleDOOOOOOOO!!!
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/images/prod-04-l.jpg)
not too far off though I think they'd make more of a screech noise.
ZOMG you found a picture. That totally refutes peer-reviewed research. ::)
LOL - 2 of the 3 men who discovered and wrote about it were in the field of paleontology, and 1 of the 3 men came from 2 backgrounds of both vertebrate paleontology and zoogeography.
B-T-W- they are not the only 3 men who have studied this- there are others - MANY MANY MANY.
I guess all their work is also not peer-reviewed, because we all know that Pete knows everything about peer-review and even every single person that has ever written anything about science, their articles, and their fields of expertise. How pompous.
LOL - If when one does not try to refute your evolutionist theories and leaves creation out of the picture - you can't even see when someone is showing you evidence for YOUR side.
Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.
B-T-W- they are not the only 3 men who have studied this- there are others - MANY MANY MANY.
Wow! Thats so cool! Oh wait, your just lying again.
Oh so finally someone agrees with something I said, - because your bud Pete called me liar. Thanks for that one Chief. However although they have found dinosaurs with feathers - they have also found some that were NOT. I never said ALL - Raist was implying all, and my response was to that. And it's not moot, because like i said they found some that were this way, and not moot because Many people feel the same way- see references cited.Nobody ever claimed that all dinosaurs had feathers.
Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.
Oh so finally someone agrees with something I said, - because your bud Pete called me liar. Thanks for that one Chief. However although they have found dinosaurs with feathers - they have also found some that were NOT. I never said ALL - Raist was implying all, and my response was to that. And it's not moot, because like i said they found some that were this way, and not moot because Many people feel the same way- see references cited.
B-T-W- they are not the only 3 men who have studied this- there are others - MANY MANY MANY.
Wow! Thats so cool! Oh wait, your just lying again.
Righty-O! I am just a liar- just like the time you said the Lipson piece did not exist, nor the journal- and I proved it did, and even took pictures of the full article, and proved everything, but you just think I concoct everything in Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop. Sure, yeah, OK Pete. See references below on the many people who had studied this bird Gastornis and it's similar bird Diatryma.
Bigelow, Phil (2006): Controversial Patterson "Diatryma footprint" slab has been moved. Posted on the Dinosaur Mailing List 2006-APR-02. HTML fulltext
Brodkorb, Pierce (1967): Catalogue of Fossil Birds: Part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes, Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 11(3). PDF or JPEG fulltext
Buffetaut, Eric (2004): Footprints of Giant Birds from the Upper Eocene of the Paris Basin: An Ichnological Enigma. Ichnos 11(3-4): 357-362. doi:10.1080/10420940490442287 (HTML abstract)
Cockerell, Theodore Dru Alison (1923): The Supposed Plumage of the Eocene Bird Diatryma. American Museum Novitates 62: 1-4. PDF fulltext
Cope, Edward Drinker (1876): On a gigantic bird from the Eocene of New Mexico. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 28(2): 10-11.
Cox, Barry; Harrison, Colin; Savage, R.J.G. & Gardiner, Brian (1999): The Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Creatures: A Visual Who's Who of Prehistoric Life. Simon & Schuster.
Cuvier, Georges (1800): Sur les Ornitholithes de Montmartre ["On the bird fossils of Montmartre"]. Bulletin des Sciences par la société Philomatique de Paris 41: 129. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Doughton, Sandi (2004): Big birds on the Green River? The debate continues. Seattle Times, 2004-DEC-06. HTML fulltext
Dughi, R. & Sirugue, F. (1959): Sur des fragments de coquilles d'oeufs fossiles de l'Eocène de Basse-Provence ["On fossil eggshell fragments from the Eocene of Basse-Provence"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 249: 959-961 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Fabre-Taxy, Suzanne & Touraine, Fernand (1960): Gisements d'œufs d'Oiseaux de très grande taille dans l'Eocène de Provence ["Deposits of eggs from birds of very large size from the Eocene of Provence"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 250(23): 3870-3871 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Haines, Tim & Chambers, Paul (2006) The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. Firefly Books Ltd., Canada.
Hébert, E. (1855a): Note sur le tibia du Gastornis pariensis [sic] ["Note on the tibia of G. parisiensis"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 579-582 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Hébert, E. (1855b): Note sur le fémur du Gastornis parisiensis ["Note on the femur of G. parisiensis"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 1214-1217 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Lartet, E. (1855): Note sur le tibia d'oiseau fossile de Meudon ["Note on the fossil bird tibia from Meudon"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 582-584 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Lemoine, V. (1881a): Recherches sur les oiseaux fossiles des terrains tertiaires inférieurs des environs de Reims (Vol. 2): 75-170. Matot-Braine, Reims.
Lemoine, V. (1881b): Sur le Gastornis Edwardsii et le Remiornis Heberti de l'éocène inférieur des environs de Reims ["On G. edwardsii and R. heberti from the Lower Eocene of the Reims area"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 93: 1157-1159 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Lyell, Charles (1865): Elements of Geology (6th ed.). J. Murray. HTML/PDF fulltext at Google Books.
Mlíkovský, Jirí (2002): Cenozoic Birds of the World, Part 1: Europe. Ninox Press, Prague. ISBN 80-901105-3-8 PDF fulltext
Prévost, Constant (1855): Annonce de la découverte d'un oiseau fossile de taille gigantesque, trouvé ? la partie inférieure de l'argile plastique des terrains parisiens ["Announcement of the discovery of a fossil bird of gigantic size, found in the lower Argile Plastique formation of the Paris region"]. C. R. Hebd. Acad. Sci. Paris 40: 554-557 [Article in French]. PDF fulltext at Gallica.
Wetmore, Alexander (1930): The Supposed Plumage of the Eocene Diatryma. Auk 47(4): 579-580. DjVu fulltext PDF fulltext
(http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy172/babsinva66/evolution/GastornisExtinct.jpg)
RAWWRR-A-DoodleDOOOOOOOO!!!Yeah. Or you could have posted an image of one of the dinosaurs that we happen to know, for fact, had feathers and/or wings.
(http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/DinoChicken-300x290.jpg)
Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!Once again trying to use out-dated claims to prop up your conclusion. It wont fly.
Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.
Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!
For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists
On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.
In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who?d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.
This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It?s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin?s finches.
The finches ? or, technically, tanagers ? have adapted to the conditions of each island in the Galapagos, and they provided Darwin with a clear snapshot of evolutionary divergence when he sailed there on the HMS Beagle. The Grants have pushed that work further, with decades of painstaking observations providing a real-time record of evolution in action. In the PNAS paper, they describe something Darwin could only have dreamed of watching: the birth of a new species.
Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud!
Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them.
Hey wow, I can use wikipedia too!
Evolution didn't happen, of course. A magic man in the sky that we can't see created us with magic in six days.Finally some sense
And then on the eighth day he made the transistor, lol.I like Frankie Boyles version.
Evolution didn't happen, of course. A magic man in the sky that we can't see created us with magic in six days.
Ive stopped posting in this thread. My last two posts have been deleted.But you just have!!!
Just wait...it will disappear too. I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together. Its like I don't exist!!Your like the McFly's in BTTF
Just wait...it will disappear too. I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together. Its like I don't exist!!Your like the McFly's in BTTF
NOT all dinosaurs that did have feathers were actually feathers. There is also fossilized evidence of dinosaur birds that were supposedly feathered that were not.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff101/Yiak/660px-Archaeopteryx-model.jpg)
I must have missed that bit!!!!Just wait...it will disappear too. I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together. Its like I don't exist!!Your like the McFly's in BTTF
Doesn't Marty end up having sex with his mother? What are you implying?
I must have missed that bit!!!!Just wait...it will disappear too. I think there is a conspiracy to eliminate me all together. Its like I don't exist!!Your like the McFly's in BTTF
Doesn't Marty end up having sex with his mother? What are you implying?
I'll never understand why people think evolution is at odds with a god.
You forgot the capital "G".I usually don't bother holding the shift key, as I see it more of a title than a name.
And, he did say "a god" after all, not "the God". But thats wardoggy for ya.
The dinosaurs that developed feathers are the ones that gave rise to birds. Before they had full flight feathers they had plumage a lot like what you have shown. Flight feathers developed from simpler proto feathers that were originally used for insulation, not flight. Birds still have plumage today, exactly like many dinosaurs had.
Funny, that picture you provided looks a lot like an emu. This is because emu's, as well as all birds are modern day dinosaurs that evolved from ancient feather bearing dinosaurs.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Emoe.jpg)
The three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them. In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds. Hence birds are dinosaurs.
Quote from: Masterchief2219 on November 15, 2009, 07:54:19 PMAnd your other quote said this ...
Babs took those pictures straight from Wikipedia. He is right, what was believed to be some kind of feathers turned out to be from a plant. But since then we have uncovered dinosaur remains with fully intact feathers on them. So your argument is moot.
Nobody ever claimed that all dinosaurs had feathers.
Sorry if these points have been brought up before but I haven't read the thread in it's entirety. Now don't get me wrong I'm no creationist, I do however see a few flaws in the theory of evolution. I also think the keyword in that last sentence is theory
1) If evolution is correct then why did animals evolve to use sex as the method of reproduction, splitting in the same way that micro-organisms do is much more efficient.
2) Which leads to the question if all life started off as micro-organisms and all micro-organisms reproduce by splitting themselves how did sex evolve?
3) Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain? There is no fossil record of short necked giraffes for instance.
4) What about species that have regressed. I'm searching for the example but can't remember it's name, there is however a sea creature that originated from land.
Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.
Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.
Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.
Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.
Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.
Seems that you are ignoring his major point. How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?
What organism was the first male, female reproduction. Was it a mutation that formed in that organism? Why the switch? What forced the organism to switch in the first place?
There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.
Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.
Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.
Seems that you are ignoring his major point. How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?
Because it's better.
Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.
There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.
1) If evolution is correct then why did animals evolve to use sex as the method of reproduction, splitting in the same way that micro-organisms do is much more efficient.
2) Which leads to the question if all life started off as micro-organisms and all micro-organisms reproduce by splitting themselves how did sex evolve?
3) Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain? There is no fossil record of short necked giraffes for instance.
4) What about species that have regressed. I'm searching for the example but can't remember it's name, there is however a sea creature that originated from land.
Thanks Marcus for clearing up some points for me, still not wholly convinced but you've given me a couple of starting points to look further. One other question is how come some species haven't evolved? As in everything started micro-organisms, but we still have them today. Sure some of them such as viruses, bacteria and parasites have evolved to benefit from larger life forms, but there are still ones around that don't like zoo plankton.
Why would they be gone? They survive successfully and reproduce successively. Organisms simply make themselves more suited to their current environment, complexity is not a goal of evolution it is simply occasionally a consequence.
Seems that you are ignoring his major point. How does natural selection and luck/chance explain throwing out efficient and easy reproduction for a hard and non-efficient process?
Because it's better.
Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.
MOSTLY INCORRECT
You are confusing hermaphrodite with asexual, and also do not understand when or how they do it.
* Note 1: Self-fertilization is NOT the same as Asexual, which requires NO fertilization. Note 2: Some crustaceans are hermaphrodites but they do not self fertilize, (not usually- but can), so not all hermaphrodites from different family classes or even the the same family class have the same trait of self-fertilization. Note 3: Other snails and slugs are hermaphrodites (true), but also cannot self-fertilize like their kin the banana slug. So the banana slug has anomalies among both hermaphrodites of different families, phylums, and classes, and an anomaly of self-fertilization within its own family of snails (gastropods). Note 4: With all that being said, then yes Raist most snails are hermaphrodites, but not all self-fertilize and none are asexual with no fertilization, but instead they either self-fertilize - like simulataneous hermaphrodites (example banana slug), or for other snails and some other hermaphrodites they copulate as sequential hermaphrodites (by switching to the other gender)
Additionally:
Note 5: Some hermaphrodites are very different than they are for human beings or snails. Human and snail hermaphrodites have both genetalia, but most other types of hermaphrodites usually just switch between female and male when necessary. In the latter, those hermaphrodites can switch back and forth many times in the course of their lives, while other hermaphrodites can switch only one time.
Note 6: Those that can switch to the other gender do NOT switch to sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction as you said Raist due to "high incidents of parasites," but instead switch the gender when the female has been removed from the group, so it's not related to parasites at all as a reason for doing so. When no female is present they either switch (or in the case of the Banana Slug they self-fertilize.) This is called "artificial selection" also known as selective breeding, which is not the same as natural selection, which describes intentional breeding for certain traits or combination of traits. Even evolutionist Charles Darwin knew that, for he utilized the term in contrast to natural selection in which the diffential reproduction of organisms with certain traits is attributed to improved survival or reproductive ability.
Note 7: There are hermaphrodites that are sequential and those that are simultaneous (for genetalia). Sequential are: Wrasses (marine fish), the Clownfish, Teleost, flowering plants and MOST Gastropods. Simultaneous hermaphrodites are Hamlets, Banana Slugs, and Earthworms, (which were originally thought to be asexual).
Note 8: And Raist, your remark of "The first male was probably a hermaphrodite"- actually hermaphrodites (not including humans) can start as a male and switch to female, as well as a female can switch to a male; they do NOT ALL START as males.
Raist, whatever happened to that biology degree you say you have, while working on another degree of the same sort? I would suggest a better university.
I like how this thread has descended into nitpicking.
The three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them. In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds. Hence birds are dinosaurs.
#3) Lastly you are incorrect that all birds as you said, and you did say "all" are 3 toed. There are birds with 2, 3, 4, and 5 toes. Only one bird has 2 and that is the ostrich. Most birds have 4. The chicken has 5, because the fifth is used as a defensive spur. The part of the bird's leg that looks like its shin, is actually the equivalent to the arch. Those birds with 4 toes have the 1st one pointing backward consisting of a small metatarsal and one phalanx (toe bone). The second, third, and fourth digits or toes (of same 4 toed bird) are counted from the inside of the foot out and have two, three, and four phalanges respectively.
I like how this thread has descended into nitpicking.
Pete, this is not nitpicking; Marcus was just plain incorrect. He said...QuoteThe three toed foot of an emu is unique in the animal kingdom, all birds have them, and all theropoda dinosaurs had them. In fact, every trait common in dinosaurs we also see in birds. Hence birds are dinosaurs.
Of which I responded...Quote#3) Lastly you are incorrect that all birds as you said, and you did say "all" are 3 toed. There are birds with 2, 3, 4, and 5 toes. Only one bird has 2 and that is the ostrich. Most birds have 4. The chicken has 5, because the fifth is used as a defensive spur. The part of the bird's leg that looks like its shin, is actually the equivalent to the arch. Those birds with 4 toes have the 1st one pointing backward consisting of a small metatarsal and one phalanx (toe bone). The second, third, and fourth digits or toes (of same 4 toed bird) are counted from the inside of the foot out and have two, three, and four phalanges respectively.
Nitpicking is when you have asked me to cite references and called me a liar, before even knowing the facts.
You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,
while using abusive language to drag someone through the mud - trying to discredit them.
Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.
Practice what you preach.
You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,
I belabor it because you keep making claims you can't source.
Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.
I didn't even try, I don't see the point. You guys have gone completely off topic and descended into bickering over semantics.
You re-hash, and belabour something for 6 days over and over because you don't like evidence you hear,
I belabor it because you keep making claims you can't source.
I may not have cited info to your satisfaction on the Lipson article but I have cited material on Marcus' 3 toed claim- and I have cited material on Raist feathered dinosaurs - a few pages back.Then when someone brings up something you cannot refute - then and only then do you say I am nitpicking.QuoteI didn't even try, I don't see the point. You guys have gone completely off topic and descended into bickering over semantics.
Marcus saying "ALL" birds have 3 toes makes them dinsosaurs because thermapods had 3 toes- when in fact birds have 2, 3, 4, or 5 - - is not semantics. Sematics is related to word choice like vernacular - not related to wrong information. If you think that was sematics then you really need a dictionary. And It is very on point- not off topic at all - he was trying to make a point that birds were in fact dinosaurs with his arguement because of the toe count- and I showed this is NOT so - based on his claim of the number of toes. If he wants to make another claim - then we'll talk about that - but the 3 toe count thing is not a valid arguement in support of evolution. His claim has been refuted.
You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.Clothing was probably invented when homo sapiens began to move northward. That puts a nice long time period between divergence of species and invention of clothing.
You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.
You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.
You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.
I know, that's insane. Obviously hair is controlled by several genes as we can see by the bell curve formed when graphing the amount of body hair on people. This means that it would have taken hundreds of generations in a warm plains like climate where the body had no advantage with these genes functional and an advantage without them functional.
The rest just arent old enough to have shed their hair right?
Because it's better.
Sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring capable of better dealing with infections and parasites. Certain snails can reproduce either sexually or asexually depending on their situations. In areas where there are high incidences of parasites the snails will switch to sexual reproduction, in areas where parasites are not found they reproduce asexually. I don't see how that isn't seen as a benefit.
There wasn't. The first "male" was probably a hermaphrodite. Though sharing your dna with another organism is hardly exclusively higher order. Bacteria trade discrete little packets of dna to each other called plasmids, which serves a similar function to sexual reproduction.
Uh.... You pretty much misinterpreted everything I said and showed that you do not know anything about the subject.
I'm not going to wade through that paragraph of utter shit, but I'd just like to say keep the ad hominems out when you can't even figure out what I was saying. I was referring specifically to animals that reproduce both asexually by budding and sexually through mitosis and sexual intercourse depending on external pressures.
Now please stop making assumptions.
Note to babsniva, stop quoting multiple things and then writing a giant wall of text.
Note to babsniva, stop quoting multiple things and then writing a giant wall of text.
I quoted 3 things with comments in between then afterwards 3 paragraphs- NOT a wall of text - as you say. Of course I expect that as your only come back because that's all you got - your last claim has been refuted, just as the one before that, and before that. Obviously this is your best attempt, which has failed, and that is your reason for slinging mud now. Bravo Raist - LOL.
Note to babsniva, stop quoting multiple things and then writing a giant wall of text.
Note to babsniva, stop quoting multiple things and then writing a giant wall of text.
I quoted 3 things with comments in between then afterwards 3 paragraphs- NOT a wall of text - as you say. Of course I expect that as your only come back because that's all you got - your last claim has been refuted, just as the one before that, and before that. Obviously this is your best attempt, which has failed, and that is your reason for slinging mud now. Bravo Raist - LOL.
Sorry, you've refuted nothing, you've made long meandering claims while I tear apart your quotes in bullet form. You then highlight partial sentences in my posts and ramble about them for a half paragraph and then claim you refuted the entire post.
Sorry, I didn't sling any mud.
I thought we werent supposed to use profanity. Nice behavior from a moderator!That depends on whether or not S&AS is considered a "serious discussion" board.
I thought we werent supposed to use profanity. Nice behavior from a moderator!
Why Raist, because I challenge you? How sad that you cant take it. Good point about the serious discussion. I guess I can start cussing in all of the forums using that logic, because most of them are far from serious discussions, especially ones with Raist the Ad Hominem King involved. lol.
You make it sound like one great ape had hair and then gave birth to a hairless version...which now had to use its huge brain to invent Tommy Hilfiger. Im not sure that was the case.
Of course, if you understand how useless the arretor pili muscle is when we are this devoid of body hair, you will see that that is likely exactly what happened, albeit more gradually then a single generation. ::)
Yes, goosebumps occur when the autonomic nervous system triggers a response in response to the cold, contracting the arretor pili muscle to pull on the hair follicle, raising the hair to trap body heat. Of course this vestigal function is pretty much useless since we don't have enough hair to make it effective.
Darn. Outsmarted by the creationist doctrine again.
I thought babs was a chick. OoopsWhy Raist, because I challenge you? How sad that you cant take it. Good point about the serious discussion. I guess I can start cussing in all of the forums using that logic, because most of them are far from serious discussions, especially ones with Raist the Ad Hominem King involved. lol.
I was talking about babsniva. Not you. Please stop assuming everything is about you especially when I am addressing you and speaking in the third person.
What about female orgasms? Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse. Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse.
Aren't you arguing there is no evolution?
Also with your original post on redundant dna, There are many redundant sources. Why does everything (nearly) do glycolysis? etc. I can give a ton of examples of such similarities between different species.
What about female orgasms? Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse. Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse.
Isn't that proof that there wasn't a designer? Evolution implies that there will be certain aspects of an organism that give no benefit as long as they are not a detriment to the organism.
What about female orgasms? Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse. Some scientists have formed a hypothesis that the female orgasm is vestigial, meaning that it serves no apparent evolutionary function. They claim that research has failed to prove that the female orgasm causes an increased chance of impregnation. Furthermore, a woman?s likelihood of experiencing an orgasm appears to have no effect on her decision to take part in intercourse.
Are you implying that glycolysis is the only way to produce ATP? And aren't you arguing for me? I am confused on which side you are on.
Also explain insulin and why animal insulins were used for diabetes before we could produce human insulin effectively?
Female orgasm causes more contractions in the vaginal walls to help guide the male baby half to the female baby half.If the female orgasm is so evolutionarily advantageous because it increases the chance of pregnancy, why is it so unreliably produced by intercourse, and so much easier to produce with other types of stimulation?
Some organisms only use glycolysis. How do you explain almost everything doing glycolysis when there are far more efficient metabolic methods for specific organisms? Evolution explains it.
Epic.
Female orgasm causes more contractions in the vaginal walls to help guide the male baby half to the female baby half.Shown to have no appreciable difference in sperm propagation. Refuted, in other words.
Really? You would ask such a question? Yeast, (how do you think we get alcohol?), many bacteria such as E. Coli., etc. Lots of stuff. Better brush up on your bio.
Epic.
So wardogg, why did our almighty god implant so many ERV's in matching spots of chimpanzees?
Raist you are clearly wrong. Why do you have a half post which requires me to ask what you are talking about.
Aerobic respiration is 4 steps, glycolysis being the first.
Yeast can also do aerobic but will survive fine on glycolysis.
E. Coli only do glycolysis. Do you even know what you are talking about? I know the difference.
You have no clue how anaerobic works.
EDIT: Glycolysis gives 2 atp molecules per turn so you don't need krebs cycle and oxidative phosphyrlation. You weren't taught very well i see.
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
Epic.
So wardogg, why did our almighty god implant so many ERV's in matching spots of chimpanzees?
Remember though, to the bacteria, bacteriophages ARE a disease. How very specist of you.Epic.
So wardogg, why did our almighty god implant so many ERV's in matching spots of chimpanzees?
Today, we think of viruses (Latin for ?poison?) only in the context of disease. However, some viruses (or at least virus-like genes) are involved in a positive function in nature. Some groups of viruses, like bacteriophages, play a positive role in controlling bacteria in ecosystems and may play a role in diversity. Another group of viruses play a role in turning off the immune system during pregnancy in mammals and humans (Liu 2007). This is a group referred to as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERVs are among a kind of repetitious genetic elements called ?retrotransposons?.
Research has shown that the ERV design prohibits the mother?s immune system from damaging the child?s body. These retroviruses cannot fully replicate, only expressed in local immune cells (such as macrophages) of the placenta, thereby preventing them from initiating a full-blown immune response (Gillen and Sherwin 2005; Liu 2007). Thus, the mother?s immune system remains competent to respond to other infections but is specifically prevented from mounting an immune response to the developing embryo (Gillen and Sherwin 2005; Liu 2007). So in creation, the selective ability to turn off the immune system for protection would be a ?good? design. Other ERVs also play a positive role in animal and human reproduction. However, since the corruption of creation, the corrupted retrovirus, HIV, and various leukemia viruses turn off the entire immune system, leaving the body open to devastating infections. These examples may provide clues to the origin of viruses and how some may have been created during Creation Week by design and how some have been corrupted as a result of the Fall.I see that you dont cite any "evidence" that Creation is the only possible way that ERVs could come about.
An arguement could also be made after the great flood, when God put a very short limit on human life.
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
Did we all miss the fundamental incorrectness of this statement and rather just argue about tools and clothing? Neanderthal's, non-homosapiens, wore clothing did they not?
Epic.
So wardogg, why did our almighty god implant so many ERV's in matching spots of chimpanzees?
Today, we think of viruses (Latin for ?poison?) only in the context of disease. However, some viruses (or at least virus-like genes) are involved in a positive function in nature. Some groups of viruses, like bacteriophages, play a positive role in controlling bacteria in ecosystems and may play a role in diversity. Another group of viruses play a role in turning off the immune system during pregnancy in mammals and humans (Liu 2007). This is a group referred to as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERVs are among a kind of repetitious genetic elements called ?retrotransposons?.
Research has shown that the ERV design prohibits the mother?s immune system from damaging the child?s body. These retroviruses cannot fully replicate, only expressed in local immune cells (such as macrophages) of the placenta, thereby preventing them from initiating a full-blown immune response (Gillen and Sherwin 2005; Liu 2007). Thus, the mother?s immune system remains competent to respond to other infections but is specifically prevented from mounting an immune response to the developing embryo (Gillen and Sherwin 2005; Liu 2007). So in creation, the selective ability to turn off the immune system for protection would be a ?good? design. Other ERVs also play a positive role in animal and human reproduction. However, since the corruption of creation, the corrupted retrovirus, HIV, and various leukemia viruses turn off the entire immune system, leaving the body open to devastating infections. These examples may provide clues to the origin of viruses and how some may have been created during Creation Week by design and how some have been corrupted as a result of the Fall.
An arguement could also be made after the great flood, when God put a very short limit on human life.
Why were humans the only animal to evolve into clothing.
Did we all miss the fundamental incorrectness of this statement and rather just argue about tools and clothing? Neanderthal's, non-homosapiens, wore clothing did they not?
Why would they....was neanderthal man modest?
Obviously you do.
Idk where you copy pasted this argument from
gogogogo Wardogg I'm sure answers in genesis will have another article for you to copy and paste.
They weren't nearly as hairy as their ancestors
Obviously you do.
Idk where you copy pasted this argument fromgogogogo Wardogg I'm sure answers in genesis will have another article for you to copy and paste.
They weren't nearly as hairy as their ancestors
So they were ashamed of their non-hairyness?
You have no clue how anaerobic works.
EDIT: Glycolysis gives 2 atp molecules per turn so you don't need krebs cycle and oxidative phosphyrlation. You weren't taught very well i see.
Look at what humans did with dogs.
Dogs is proof of concept.Provide examples of natural selection witch are harmful to the species please.
"Natural selection" is just as I said. Any trait that happens to breed true is pasted on. Sure, traits that advance the species ability to thrive & reproduce are more likely to be based on. That doesn't mean that irrelevant or potentially harmful traits can't be passed on. So not everything that is evolved is an improvement.
Cancer, alzheimers, huntingtons, etc. We have a lot of defects from natural selection.Interesting that i didn't considered diseases... but... point proven.
Allergies, poor eyesight, or any other condition that's been increasing common place as time goes on.and their is the problem.
Humans are by far thee worst species evolution wise. Our medical science is enabling the advancement and spread of genes that would otherwise have never been passed on. From a purely evolution view, the human race is shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot.
If we were to throw out every word of human history and look at the world today. There are fossils of many ancient creatures as well as a lot of that contribute to the evolution theory. If evolution did not happen, then that begs the question why did the creator(s) create all these fossils?
Allergies, poor eyesight, or any other condition that's been increasing common place as time goes on.Allergies are actually good in some situations. it decreases the likelihood of us catching a parasite.
Humans are by far thee worst species evolution wise. Our medical science is enabling the advancement and spread of genes that would otherwise have never been passed on. From a purely evolution view, the human race is shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot.
If we were to throw out every word of human history and look at the world today. There are fossils of many ancient creatures as well as a lot of that contribute to the evolution theory. If evolution did not happen, then that begs the question why did the creator(s) create all these fossils?
Sure, but can they not produce the same results?
Sure, but can they not produce the same results?
Only if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
They do.Sure, but can they not produce the same results?
Only if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Cancer, alzheimers, huntingtons, etc. We have a lot of defects from natural selection.
Also, Find me the proverb about shooting yourself in the foot.
Thats the explanation. Not the proverb.Also, Find me the proverb about shooting yourself in the foot.
(The Message) 10 ?
http://proverbsaday.wordpress.com/category/chapter/proverbs-26/
10 Hire a fool or a drunk
and you shoot yourself in the foot.
They do.Sure, but can they not produce the same results?
Only if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.
Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
Only if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
I breed doggies, but we've never had to prop one up. When the dogs are stuck together after breeding, they're tied. When this happens, the male dog will turn around, facing away from the female dog. Just about here is where my female dog will try to sit.Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
By Crustinator ...QuoteOnly if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Not incapable, just not attracted. I am not saying they could not - only saying they probably would not. I have a friend that breeds dogs for a living - sometimes only purebreads but at times she has bred a Yorkshire Terrier with a Pomeranian to create a Yorkpalm, as she called it. And NO not all Pomeranians are small enough to fit inside a woman's purse, for some are larger (at maturity), just like there are different sizes of poodles and collies. There was a little runt of the litter (from the Yorkies) yet it had the biggest tool, and when it became old enough to breed it was still a little runt and could not reach the female dogs whether Pommies or Yorkies, so she propped him up - 2 pillows high and yes he did his thing. He just needed a little lift and he was there.
2nd - the comment about rape - not only the male dogs try to hump a female whenever (she is) in heat - for most female dogs when in heat will let the male know she wants to be poked by displaying a courtship of wiggling her -ss and raising her tail for clearance to alert him as to ... ... come and get it; I want some. Those females (my friend had) didn't care how small the runt was, or that it was a different breed - for those females still wanted it, and he would try anything to get at it, so it was still not artificial selection or forcing them to mate - but simply helping the two of them to consumate the courtship they began. She raised him up to do their business. Viola! - Success -4 pups in the next litter.
With that being said, when a male is in there - the head of his penis swells and they cannot detach until the swelling goes down, however the female b-tch will try and move away, and a larger male would be able to hold her in position, but with a small runt, a female could wipe the floor with him. This posed a problem, so the breeder had to hold the female in place, until the swelling went down, and they could safely detach. So the problem was not about arousal for either gender, but was a little about getting started because of the height difference and mostly about the finishing up process. Therefore sexual attraction could be part of the problem - sure, but also could be because males may not want the penis ripped off, and therefore find it to be a health hazzard. So it is more about compatibility issues (based on instinct) than anything else.
I breed doggies, but we've never had to prop one up. When the dogs are stuck together after breeding, they're tied. When this happens, the male dog will turn around, facing away from the female dog. Just about here is where my female dog will try to sit.Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
By Crustinator ...QuoteOnly if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Not incapable, just not attracted. I am not saying they could not - only saying they probably would not. I have a friend that breeds dogs for a living - sometimes only purebreads but at times she has bred a Yorkshire Terrier with a Pomeranian to create a Yorkpalm, as she called it. And NO not all Pomeranians are small enough to fit inside a woman's purse, for some are larger (at maturity), just like there are different sizes of poodles and collies. There was a little runt of the litter (from the Yorkies) yet it had the biggest tool, and when it became old enough to breed it was still a little runt and could not reach the female dogs whether Pommies or Yorkies, so she propped him up - 2 pillows high and yes he did his thing. He just needed a little lift and he was there.
2nd - the comment about rape - not only the male dogs try to hump a female whenever (she is) in heat - for most female dogs when in heat will let the male know she wants to be poked by displaying a courtship of wiggling her -ss and raising her tail for clearance to alert him as to ... ... come and get it; I want some. Those females (my friend had) didn't care how small the runt was, or that it was a different breed - for those females still wanted it, and he would try anything to get at it, so it was still not artificial selection or forcing them to mate - but simply helping the two of them to consumate the courtship they began. She raised him up to do their business. Viola! - Success -4 pups in the next litter.
With that being said, when a male is in there - the head of his penis swells and they cannot detach until the swelling goes down, however the female b-tch will try and move away, and a larger male would be able to hold her in position, but with a small runt, a female could wipe the floor with him. This posed a problem, so the breeder had to hold the female in place, until the swelling went down, and they could safely detach. So the problem was not about arousal for either gender, but was a little about getting started because of the height difference and mostly about the finishing up process. Therefore sexual attraction could be part of the problem - sure, but also could be because males may not want the penis ripped off, and therefore find it to be a health hazzard. So it is more about compatibility issues (based on instinct) than anything else.
If they don't tie, the male doesn't finish leaving his seed in the female doggy, and the chance of puppies is much lower.
Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
He just needed a little lift and he was there.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
By Crustinator ...QuoteOnly if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Not incapable, just not attracted. I am not saying they could not - only saying they probably would not. I have a friend that breeds dogs for a living - sometimes only purebreads but at times she has bred a Yorkshire Terrier with a Pomeranian to create a Yorkpalm, as she called it. And NO not all Pomeranians are small enough to fit inside a woman's purse, for some are larger (at maturity), just like there are different sizes of poodles and collies. There was a little runt of the litter (from the Yorkies) yet it had the biggest tool, and when it became old enough to breed it was still a little runt and could not reach the female dogs whether Pommies or Yorkies, so she propped him up - 2 pillows high and yes he did his thing. He just needed a little lift and he was there.
2nd - the comment about rape - not only the male dogs try to hump a female whenever (she is) in heat - for most female dogs when in heat will let the male know she wants to be poked by displaying a courtship of wiggling her -ss and raising her tail for clearance to alert him as to ... ... come and get it; I want some. Those females (my friend had) didn't care how small the runt was, or that it was a different breed - for those females still wanted it, and he would try anything to get at it, so it was still not artificial selection or forcing them to mate - but simply helping the two of them to consumate the courtship they began. She raised him up to do their business. Viola! - Success -4 pups in the next litter.
With that being said, when a male is in there - the head of his penis swells and they cannot detach until the swelling goes down, however the female b-tch will try and move away, and a larger male would be able to hold her in position, but with a small runt, a female could wipe the floor with him. This posed a problem, so the breeder had to hold the female in place, until the swelling went down, and they could safely detach. So the problem was not about arousal for either gender, but was a little about getting started because of the height difference and mostly about the finishing up process. Therefore sexual attraction could be part of the problem - sure, but also could be because males may not want the penis ripped off, and therefore find it to be a health hazzard. So it is more about compatibility issues (based on instinct) than anything else.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
By Crustinator ...QuoteOnly if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Not incapable, just not attracted. I am not saying they could not - only saying they probably would not. I have a friend that breeds dogs for a living - sometimes only purebreads but at times she has bred a Yorkshire Terrier with a Pomeranian to create a Yorkpalm, as she called it. And NO not all Pomeranians are small enough to fit inside a woman's purse, for some are larger (at maturity), just like there are different sizes of poodles and collies. There was a little runt of the litter (from the Yorkies) yet it had the biggest tool, and when it became old enough to breed it was still a little runt and could not reach the female dogs whether Pommies or Yorkies, so she propped him up - 2 pillows high and yes he did his thing. He just needed a little lift and he was there.
2nd - the comment about rape - not only the male dogs try to hump a female whenever (she is) in heat - for most female dogs when in heat will let the male know she wants to be poked by displaying a courtship of wiggling her -ss and raising her tail for clearance to alert him as to ... ... come and get it; I want some. Those females (my friend had) didn't care how small the runt was, or that it was a different breed - for those females still wanted it, and he would try anything to get at it, so it was still not artificial selection or forcing them to mate - but simply helping the two of them to consumate the courtship they began. She raised him up to do their business. Viola! - Success -4 pups in the next litter.
With that being said, when a male is in there - the head of his penis swells and they cannot detach until the swelling goes down, however the female b-tch will try and move away, and a larger male would be able to hold her in position, but with a small runt, a female could wipe the floor with him. This posed a problem, so the breeder had to hold the female in place, until the swelling went down, and they could safely detach. So the problem was not about arousal for either gender, but was a little about getting started because of the height difference and mostly about the finishing up process. Therefore sexual attraction could be part of the problem - sure, but also could be because males may not want the penis ripped off, and therefore find it to be a health hazzard. So it is more about compatibility issues (based on instinct) than anything else.
So you say that they won't, but what you actually meant is that they need help (can't) and then I skipped your detailed analysis of why it is dangerous, another can't. The actual answer is they will but it's dangerous. Exactly what I said, would but have trouble.
Those 2 dogs would copulate if given the opportunity.
Sure. They're just itching to get at it. Someone off camera is holding them back.
And either the Great Dane rips the Chihuahua apart or the Chihuahua uses a step ladder to get up to the Great Danes ass.
Either way it's got to be worth YouTubing.Incapable of mating /= no sexual attraction, and unlike you dogs don't constantly try to rape things they are attracted to.
By Crustinator ...QuoteOnly if what dogs think is pretty and what humans think is pretty are the same thing.
Not incapable, just not attracted. I am not saying they could not - only saying they probably would not. I have a friend that breeds dogs for a living - sometimes only purebreads but at times she has bred a Yorkshire Terrier with a Pomeranian to create a Yorkpalm, as she called it. And NO not all Pomeranians are small enough to fit inside a woman's purse, for some are larger (at maturity), just like there are different sizes of poodles and collies. There was a little runt of the litter (from the Yorkies) yet it had the biggest tool, and when it became old enough to breed it was still a little runt and could not reach the female dogs whether Pommies or Yorkies, so she propped him up - 2 pillows high and yes he did his thing. He just needed a little lift and he was there.
2nd - the comment about rape - not only the male dogs try to hump a female whenever (she is) in heat - for most female dogs when in heat will let the male know she wants to be poked by displaying a courtship of wiggling her -ss and raising her tail for clearance to alert him as to ... ... come and get it; I want some. Those females (my friend had) didn't care how small the runt was, or that it was a different breed - for those females still wanted it, and he would try anything to get at it, so it was still not artificial selection or forcing them to mate - but simply helping the two of them to consumate the courtship they began. She raised him up to do their business. Viola! - Success -4 pups in the next litter.
With that being said, when a male is in there - the head of his penis swells and they cannot detach until the swelling goes down, however the female b-tch will try and move away, and a larger male would be able to hold her in position, but with a small runt, a female could wipe the floor with him. This posed a problem, so the breeder had to hold the female in place, until the swelling went down, and they could safely detach. So the problem was not about arousal for either gender, but was a little about getting started because of the height difference and mostly about the finishing up process. Therefore sexual attraction could be part of the problem - sure, but also could be because males may not want the penis ripped off, and therefore find it to be a health hazzard. So it is more about compatibility issues (based on instinct) than anything else.
So you say that they won't, but what you actually meant is that they need help (can't) and then I skipped your detailed analysis of why it is dangerous, another can't. The actual answer is they will but it's dangerous. Exactly what I said, would but have trouble.
@Raist - Agreed
M-M-Macro evolution
M-M-Macro evolution
Lol @ pointless distinction only used by people that poorly understand evolution.
M-M-Macro evolution
Lol @ pointless distinction only used by people that poorly understand evolution.
I agree. That is why its so lolzy to hear creationists say they believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution.
Its like, they believe that genetic information can change and create different features in an organism that are different from its ancestors, but not that over time this genetic change could ever result in infertility with offspring who share this ancestor.
I am not saying animals don't adapt or change their habits, but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of life, and that we all sprang from one cell, and over time became more complex.
You both are making assumptions. I never said I believed in micro and not macro evolution. I do not believe in either.
I am not saying animals don't adaptThen what are you saying? Genetic adaption over generations of a species is what evolution is.
but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of lifeProtip: It doesn't. The Theory of Evolution only applies with pre-existing life; it describes how life changes and adapts over generations.
I'm glad you agree that animals adapt. The word adapt means a genetic change that is passed on to their offspring. Adaptation IS evolution.
I didn't say its lolzy to hear "babsinva" say he believes in micro evolution and not macro evolution, I said its lolzy to hear creationists say they believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution. Or biblical literalists as the little pedant likes to refer to them.
You both are making assumptions. I never said I believed in micro and not macro evolution. I do not believe in either.I am not saying animals don't adapt
Then what are you saying? Genetic adaption over generations of a species is what evolution is.but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of lifeProtip: It doesn't. The Theory of Evolution only applies with pre-existing life; it describes how life changes and adapts over generations.
I am not saying animals don't adapt or change their habits, but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of life, and that we all sprang from one cell, and over time became more complex.
While even I think it is splitting hairs at times, no one argues that evolution explains where life came from. That's called abiogenesis. However, if you lump the creation of life in with evolution, it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
Also, what is evolution if not the random mutations of alleles tested against predators and sexual preferences to produce the most apt or appealing specimens for their environment? You can't say that you believe that bugs become resistant to pesticides or bacteria builds immunities to penicillin and then with the very next breath deny that evolution, whether it be macro or micro, exists.
If you truly believe that nothing evolves, then you should have no need to get a flu shot ever again.
I have to remember I am talking to mostly evolutionists in this thread and NOT creationists, and the vernacular I used was wrong, so I'll shed the creationist cap and put on the other. I look back now and realize yes I put creation in the same sentence with evolution - doesn't really work. I see that now in the part Michael and Pongo quoted of my last response. I will explain and try to be clearer.
I do believe in science and have no aversion towards it, and I believe in evolution but just not the way some of you guys do. First off, some people believe in evolution as fact AND theory, and others believe it is fact AND NOT theory, while still others believe it is ONLY a theory and NOT a fact. Some believe that evolution describes all the variation of species we find on the earth, while others are more strict in their discipline and believe we (humans) have a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. There are all kinds of people in this forum that have different beliefs.
As far as my belief in evolution, I think you can see evolution in many things, such as evolution of psychology, evolution of linguistics, evolution of dance etc etc, just not evolution from monkeys. And I believe in genetics - of course I do. Some young are pre-disposed to things - sure - and some people are carriers only and have no outwardly displays of such. I understand about dominant traits such as widow's peak, white forelock, and cleft chin to name a few. Guys, I don't hate science nor do I think that it is a conspiracy, for alot of good has come from scientists' discoveries. Science is great, but MY creator - is the grandest scientist of them all, and He has created everything.
Will this stop man from learning, exploring and discovering because there is a God? I hope not; it's a good thing. I do not believe that all living things i.e. birds, bananas (unpicked and attached, growing on a live tree), fish, and flower etcetera are originally traced back (for lack of better word) to springing from one cell that became more complex over time, NOR do I believe we evolved from monkeys, for the monkeys have never been wiped out - they still exist.
And whether they still exist or not has little bearing on the fact there is God, at least for me anyhow. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not expect you to agree with me, but that's ok. Believing in science's variety of species, and yet believing in God too, does not hurt you. What could be the harm? If however, you are of the opinion that evolution describes the various things we see - then we are closer to the same page. But if you see evolution as ..... and I will be carfeful this time (not to say 'reason for creation') a way to describe the existence of life or how we advanced into humans then we are worlds apart. You guys are still pretty cool - most of the time, unfortunately this may be something that separates us.
I'm glad you agree that animals adapt. The word adapt means a genetic change that is passed on to their offspring. Adaptation IS evolution.I didn't say its lolzy to hear "babsinva" say he believes in micro evolution and not macro evolution, I said its lolzy to hear creationists say they believe in micro evolution and not macro evolution. Or biblical literalists as the little pedant likes to refer to them.You both are making assumptions. I never said I believed in micro and not macro evolution. I do not believe in either.I am not saying animals don't adapt
Then what are you saying? Genetic adaption over generations of a species is what evolution is.but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of lifeProtip: It doesn't. The Theory of Evolution only applies with pre-existing life; it describes how life changes and adapts over generations.
I will answer all of you, but first I think Pongo said it best (in blue) ....I am not saying animals don't adapt or change their habits, but I do not believe as some do that with evolution it explains the creation of life, and that we all sprang from one cell, and over time became more complex.
While even I think it is splitting hairs at times, no one argues that evolution explains where life came from. That's called abiogenesis. However, if you lump the creation of life in with evolution, it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
Also, what is evolution if not the random mutations of alleles tested against predators and sexual preferences to produce the most apt or appealing specimens for their environment? You can't say that you believe that bugs become resistant to pesticides or bacteria builds immunities to penicillin and then with the very next breath deny that evolution, whether it be macro or micro, exists.
If you truly believe that nothing evolves, then you should have no need to get a flu shot ever again.
I have to remember I am talking to mostly evolutionists in this thread and NOT creationists, and the vernacular I used was wrong, so I'll shed the creationist cap and put on the other. I look back now and realize yes I put creation in the same sentence with evolution - doesn't really work. I see that now in the part Michael and Pongo quoted of my last response. I will explain and try to be clearer.
I do believe in science and have no aversion towards it, and I believe in evolution but just not the way some of you guys do. First off, some people believe in evolution as fact AND theory, and others believe it is fact AND NOT theory, while still others believe it is ONLY a theory and NOT a fact. Some believe that evolution describes all the variation of species we find on the earth, while others are more strict in their discipline and believe we (humans) have a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. There are all kinds of people in this forum that have different beliefs.
As far as my belief in evolution, I think you can see evolution in many things, such as evolution of psychology, evolution of linguistics, evolution of dance etc etc, just not evolution from monkeys. And I believe in genetics - of course I do. Some young are pre-disposed to things - sure - and some people are carriers only and have no outwardly displays of such. I understand about dominant traits such as widow's peak, white forelock, and cleft chin to name a few. Guys, I don't hate science nor do I think that it is a conspiracy, for alot of good has come from scientists' discoveries. Science is great, but MY creator - is the grandest scientist of them all, and He has created everything. Will this stop man from learning, exploring and discovering because there is a God? I hope not; it's a good thing. I do not believe that all living things i.e. birds, bananas (unpicked and attached, growing on a live tree), fish, and flower etcetera are originally traced back (for lack of better word) to springing from one cell that became more complex over time, NOR do I believe we evolved from monkeys, for the monkeys have never been wiped out - they still exist. And whether they still exist or not has little bearing on the fact there is God, at least for me anyhow. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not expect you to agree with me, but that's ok. Believing in science's variety of species, and yet believing in God too, does not hurt you. What could be the harm? If however, you are of the opinion that evolution describes the various things we see - then we are closer to the same page. But if you see evolution as ..... and I will be carfeful this time (not to say 'reason for creation') a way to describe the existence of life or how we advanced into humans then we are worlds apart. You guys are still pretty cool - most of the time, unfortunately this may be something that separates us.
As far as my belief in evolution, I think you can see evolution in many things, such as evolution of psychology, evolution of linguistics, evolution of dance etc etc, just not evolution from monkeys. And I believe in genetics - of course I do. Some young are pre-disposed to things - sure - and some people are carriers only and have no outwardly displays of such. I understand about dominant traits such as widow's peak, white forelock, and cleft chin to name a few. Guys, I don't hate science nor do I think that it is a conspiracy, for alot of good has come from scientists' discoveries. Science is great, but MY creator - is the grandest scientist of them all, and He has created everything. Will this stop man from learning, exploring and discovering because there is a God? I hope not; it's a good thing. I do not believe that all living things i.e. birds, bananas (unpicked and attached, growing on a live tree), fish, and flower etcetera are originally traced back (for lack of better word) to springing from one cell that became more complex over time, NOR do I believe we evolved from monkeys, for the monkeys have never been wiped out - they still exist. And whether they still exist or not has little bearing on the fact there is God, at least for me anyhow. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not expect you to agree with me, but that's ok. Believing in science's variety of species, and yet believing in God too, does not hurt you. What could be the harm? If however, you are of the opinion that evolution describes the various things we see - then we are closer to the same page. But if you see evolution as ..... and I will be careful this time (not to say 'reason for creation') a way to describe the existence of life or how we advanced into humans then we are worlds apart. You guys are still pretty cool - most of the time, unfortunately this may be something that separates us.
Science is so interesting sometimes. I read recently that they have found a gene that makes it predeterminal 'fact' so they say that predisposes an individual to accept Christ Jesus. Thus, they concluded that unless you have this gene, you will never believe in Jesus. And it just so happened that this group of scientists were gay. GOD is spirit, not of the body ... why we keep coming up with this stuff that is not truth is to justify our own beliefs and to fit GOD into our world making HIM a man, which HE is not. We stir the pot of hatred with a spoon of lies.
I agree with the redundancy comment. According to evolutionary theory, a species mutates into a new and separate species every so slowly with a myriad of transitional forms appearing along the way. Where is the evidence of all of these transitional forms - we should be literally tripping over them?
Can someone explain this to me?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7452051/#post54384763 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7452051/#post54384763)QuoteScience is so interesting sometimes. I read recently that they have found a gene that makes it predeterminal 'fact' so they say that predisposes an individual to accept Christ Jesus. Thus, they concluded that unless you have this gene, you will never believe in Jesus. And it just so happened that this group of scientists were gay. GOD is spirit, not of the body ... why we keep coming up with this stuff that is not truth is to justify our own beliefs and to fit GOD into our world making HIM a man, which HE is not. We stir the pot of hatred with a spoon of lies.
I agree with the redundancy comment. According to evolutionary theory, a species mutates into a new and separate species every so slowly with a myriad of transitional forms appearing along the way. Where is the evidence of all of these transitional forms - we should be literally tripping over them?
I agree with the redundancy comment. According to evolutionary theory, a species mutates into a new and separate species every so slowly with a myriad of transitional forms appearing along the way. Where is the evidence of all of these transitional forms - we should be literally tripping over them?
I agree with the redundancy comment. According to evolutionary theory, a species mutates into a new and separate species every so slowly with a myriad of transitional forms appearing along the way. Where is the evidence of all of these transitional forms - we should be literally tripping over them?
Good God. Here. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transitional+fossils)
If you think we should be "tripping" over the results of such a rare event, maybe you would like to review your basic geology? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/dinosaurs/making_fossils/)
This thread absolutely refuses to die.
This thread was intelligently designed to succeed in an environment full of morons.Actually it adapted and evolved to succeed.
This thread absolutely refuses to die.
Don't bother; it's been 100% trolling the whole way through.This thread absolutely refuses to die.
And everytime it pops up I think should I start posting my 2 cents worth, but I would have to go back and read 70 odd pages first just to get a grip on it.
This thread was intelligently designed to succeed in an environment full of morons.Actually it adapted and evolved to succeed.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."You mistake the facts of evolution with the debate over mechanisms.
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."You mistake the facts of evolution with the debate over mechanisms.
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.I See. How Come Can't Thee? by minorwork
Plants and animals and stuff in between
Have parents, at least it seems so to me.
The creatures are different, there are some that fly
And others that have no bones inside.
Inside the earth below
Are layers of long ago
Holders of remnants, simpler still
Than the ones above it on the hill
Let’s give it a name, a solution
One that’s called evolution
The lineage from the past seems clear
From things that are simple have come things complex
How did it happen? That’s what will perplex.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
I've read half of your posts so far and both of them are just you copy pastaing other people's shit. If we wanted to read your garbage we'd google it ourselves. Also that poem is trash.Finally, a critic that's not stroking me. I'm well aware of the hack nature of my poetry. Get tuff.
/Raist
I've read half of your posts so far and both of them are just you copy pastaing other people's shit. If we wanted to read your garbage we'd google it ourselves. Also that poem is trash.Finally, a critic that's not stroking me. I'm well aware of the hack nature of my poetry. Get tuff.
/Raist
In my own words. Again. The facts of evolution result from observation. The observations that all living things have parents. Living things have different parts, attributes. Examination of the geologic record reveals that the older, deeper fossils are simpler than those that are more recent.
From those observations I deduce that from fins have come legs and that legs have become wings, arms, and hands.
How all that occurred are the mechanisms that are so debated. That is the difference between the facts of evolution and the theories of mechanisms.
First of all I'd like you to define the term "simpler" as a term in biology.Ha. I’d really like to comply. I’ll try to be a bit more explicit in how I use the term then. Prokaryotes are simpler than Eukaryotes simply (sic?) because the geologic record shows them existing billions of years BEFORE the Eukaryotes. I’ll class them less organized, simpler, also because there is no nuclear membrane isolating the DNA from the rest of the cell. Less organized, then, I’ll use synonymously with “simple.” Single cells organized into multicellulars, then invertebrates, then vertebrates, etc.
I've seen things appear more specialized, but that in no way means more complicated.Seems that “simple” and “complex” can say just as much about the abilities of an observer as the thing observed. I open my dated 8 year old Molecular Biology of the Cell and I am overwhelmed at the complexity. I'll not be writing a better text I'm sure. My own abilities determine what I judge to be complex or simple, though I am most open to suggestions as my understanding improves.
Then you have organisms that are hardly specialized at all (i.e. yeast) that have some of the most complex dna possible surpassing even our own in amount of nucleic acids used to code it.Though humans might have fewer genes, the protein coding genes can form different proteins. I wonder if complexity instead should be related to the proteome, the number of proteins that are coded. Hmm. Genes code for proteins and it is proteins that build cells and bodies.
As for your other assertions, variances in the life on earth are poor proofs for evolution.Good thing life’s diversity is not offered as proof. I offer the three observations combined as the facts that evolution explains. Creationism has its own explanation for the three observations. God did it. Cognitive scientists can deal with the solipsist explanation as the whole of history being generated by consciousness, but that is stretching my cognitive powers though it is my philosophical view when modified with panpsychism as it is compatible in my mind with emergent qualities from organization and complexities which I can deal with, at least until smoke comes out of my ears.
Distribution of alleles within noncompetitive locci(sp?) compared to distribution of alleles in locci where there is a competitive advantage for one allele over another is a much better proof for natural selection. Most other forms of evolution are self evident (mutation, genetic drift, etc..)I spell it loci but I’m not sure if that is technically the plural or not. I’m as much an authority on it as a coal miner can be. Maybe I’d bet a nickel on it.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species_%281859%29/Chapter_XIV
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species_%281859%29/Chapter_XIV
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."
You're quoting the first edition, I'm quoting the sixth. Please don't undermine the author by quoting an obsolete edition of his work. This is a typical Evolutionist tactic of deceit to trick people into believing their propaganda.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
I meant the epic troll part.Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
The fact that so many people have fallen for it is proof of it's epic troll status.
I meant the epic troll part.Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
The fact that so many people have fallen for it is proof of it's epic troll status.
Let me restate.I meant the epic troll part.Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
The fact that so many people have fallen for it is proof of it's epic troll status.
So did I.
Let me restate.I meant the epic troll part.Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
The fact that so many people have fallen for it is proof of it's epic troll status.
So did I.
Do you have proof of the epic troll?
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/crockaduck.jpg)Let me restate.I meant the epic troll part.Why is this thread still going? Even Darwin, your savior of evolution, admitted that man was created by a divine being. The last sentence of "The Origin of Species," begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms..."Proof?
It's well documented that "The Origin of Species" was one big troll and every evolutionist on the planet fell for it.
The fact that so many people have fallen for it is proof of it's epic troll status.
So did I.
Do you have proof of the epic troll?
No, do you have proof of evolution? Maybe a Crock-a-duck? Didn't think so.
(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/crockaduck.jpg)
I didn't think that a crock-a-duck would prove anything, anyways.(http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/crockaduck.jpg)
Best 'proof' for evolution I've ever seen.
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
Considering crocodiles and birds have the same unusual lung type, it's hard to say they are anything but close relatives.Please tie that to why the non-existence of crocoducks is support against evolution.
Considering crocodiles and birds have the same unusual lung type, it's hard to say they are anything but close relatives.Please tie that to why the non-existence of crocoducks is support against evolution.
Good thing they don't exist then.Considering crocodiles and birds have the same unusual lung type, it's hard to say they are anything but close relatives.Please tie that to why the non-existence of crocoducks is support against evolution.
The existence of crocoducks is support against evolution.
No.Considering crocodiles and birds have the same unusual lung type, it's hard to say they are anything but close relatives.Please tie that to why the non-existence of crocoducks is support against evolution.
So if evolution never happened, why no wheeled animals? I think that wheels would be quite useful for, say, a horse.
So if evolution never happened, why no wheeled animals? I think that wheels would be quite useful for, say, a horse.I am to lazy to figure out if you are just trolling or not so I will assume this is a serious question. do you have any idea how badly wheels work on anything except man made terrain? besides a couple of deserts there is no place wheels would be that useful and deserts don't stay put long enough for it to cause a completely new mode of transportation.
Not to mention the problems involved in transferring nutrients from a limb through a rotating axle. In a proper wheel the axle and the wheel need to be completely non connected.
The wheels could be grown like fingernails and broke off when a new one needed to be put on. But wheels have no advantage and are at a disadvantage over all terrains when compared to the advantages of legs and feet, legs and hooves, or wings.Not to mention the problems involved in transferring nutrients from a limb through a rotating axle. In a proper wheel the axle and the wheel need to be completely non connected.
They could be wheels made from a different organic or non-organic substance, such as the elephants that wheel themselves on seedpods in the His Dark Materials trilogy.
Not to mention the problems involved in transferring nutrients from a limb through a rotating axle. In a proper wheel the axle and the wheel need to be completely non connected.
So if evolution never happened, why no wheeled animals? I think that wheels would be quite useful for, say, a horse.
but even then turning the wheel would still require some fairly complex systems that would probably not work well.The wheels could be grown like fingernails and broke off when a new one needed to be put on. But wheels have no advantage and are at a disadvantage over all terrains when compared to the advantages of legs and feet, legs and hooves, or wings.Not to mention the problems involved in transferring nutrients from a limb through a rotating axle. In a proper wheel the axle and the wheel need to be completely non connected.
They could be wheels made from a different organic or non-organic substance, such as the elephants that wheel themselves on seedpods in the His Dark Materials trilogy.
Not to mention the problems involved in transferring nutrients from a limb through a rotating axle. In a proper wheel the axle and the wheel need to be completely non connected.
They could be wheels made from a different organic or non-organic substance, such as the elephants that wheel themselves on seedpods in the His Dark Materials trilogy.
I would really like to hear some intermediate steps for that symbiotic relationship.But not necessarily more fit as a functioning wheel like that on cars and trains. Could be on a hard, flat, and featureless planet a derived function from a flagella might have some advantage of population increase similar to wheels of today. I imagine it would look like the Fred Flintstone car, perhaps, with feet being the propulsion system that when disengaged would still allow movement.
I would like to append my statement to say that this axle would need intermediate steps that are all more fit or equally fit as their predecessors.
How about this?Yes. Note the curled up pill bug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillidiidae). A real critter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curl-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curl-up)
Anyway, my point is, if creatures had been intelligently designed, God would have made all sorts of crazy animals that couldn't evolve naturally, such as the three-faced tree fish, and the wheeled panther, which He would have provided with tarmac roads upon which to roll.Why?
Why not. He's god. If I was god, I'd do all sorts of crazy shi'ite.Anyway, my point is, if creatures had been intelligently designed, God would have made all sorts of crazy animals that couldn't evolve naturally, such as the three-faced tree fish, and the wheeled panther, which He would have provided with tarmac roads upon which to roll.Why?
Why? Just because it was crazy? How would you know it was?Why not. He's god. If I was god, I'd do all sorts of crazy shi'ite.Anyway, my point is, if creatures had been intelligently designed, God would have made all sorts of crazy animals that couldn't evolve naturally, such as the three-faced tree fish, and the wheeled panther, which He would have provided with tarmac roads upon which to roll.Why?
I would really like to hear some intermediate steps for that symbiotic relationship.But not necessarily more fit as a functioning wheel like that on cars and trains. Could be on a hard, flat, and featureless planet a derived function from a flagella might have some advantage of population increase similar to wheels of today. I imagine it would look like the Fred Flintstone car, perhaps, with feet being the propulsion system that when disengaged would still allow movement.
I would like to append my statement to say that this axle would need intermediate steps that are all more fit or equally fit as their predecessors.
Were the planet to have had a watery phase, the wheel's disconnect from the axle might be like that of the bubonic plague bacterium's flagella. Depending on conditions, such disconnected tissue could have advantages as helicopter type blades for flight that, when environmental conditions change once again, could function in a wheel mode. It is a mistake to think that the mechanism we call the wheel would have the same use in every environment during its development.
The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
God is Infinitely good.
Good Things are Awesome.
Therefore God is infinitely awesome.
Therefore, if God had created the world, then he would have put equally awesome creatures on that world (laser tigers).
Why not. He's god. If I was god, I'd do all sorts of crazy shi'ite.
Why not. He's god. If I was god, I'd do all sorts of crazy shi'ite.
If I were president I would do all sorts of crazy shi'ite. Does that mean that the current president would/should do crazy shi'ite?
The awesomeness of laser tigers is absolute, and not open for subjective interpretation.The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
God is Infinitely good.
Good Things are Awesome.
Therefore God is infinitely awesome.
Therefore, if God had created the world, then he would have put equally awesome creatures on that world (laser tigers).
That is only according to what you think is awesome. Perhaps God doesn't think they are awesome, and therefore they don't exist.
You bring the beer, I've got the volcano part down.Why not. He's god. If I was god, I'd do all sorts of crazy shi'ite.
If I were president I would do all sorts of crazy shi'ite. Does that mean that the current president would/should do crazy shi'ite?
Beer volcanoes and stripper factories for all.
If we were intelligently designed then I would like to report a complete lack of weapons functions to whoever built us. I mean you make a whole universe and I don't come standard with a single long range tactical weapon.to be far I think the fact you don't have any is probably pretty good idea. but the fact we are sitting ducts by ourselves is kind of a problem. you would think if a supreme being that wanted us to be on top would have at least given us poison claws or something.
I would be much happier with long range attack capabilities. In fact, the whole world would probably be a bit more awesome.if you had nuclear capability the world would be over after a day.
I would be much happier with long range attack capabilities. In fact, the whole world would probably be a bit more awesome.if you had nuclear capability the world would be over after a day.
Long range could refer to time coordinates too. The abilities of animal/plant species' survival into the future by a slow genome alteration to a changing environment over time is superseded in humans by their ability to alter the environment to a much greater degree than other animals in a much shorter time.
were you thinking lasers or something that needs ammo the body grows?Long range could refer to time coordinates too. The abilities of animal/plant species' survival into the future by a slow genome alteration to a changing environment over time is superseded in humans by their ability to alter the environment to a much greater degree than other animals in a much shorter time.
Or I meant a gun that I could shoot the hell out of things with....
just saying
were you thinking lasers or something that needs ammo the body grows?Long range could refer to time coordinates too. The abilities of animal/plant species' survival into the future by a slow genome alteration to a changing environment over time is superseded in humans by their ability to alter the environment to a much greater degree than other animals in a much shorter time.
Or I meant a gun that I could shoot the hell out of things with....
just saying
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.
I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.
I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?
I dont think Ive ever said that. Ive always known that the swan was mostly monogamous. Spreading the dominant seed to as many females is much more beneficial. Why would the evolutionary process make a complete left turn from that? The animals dont make a conscious decision to do that. So nature had to help it along....and make it hard wired into their brains. The question is why?
Monogamous animals are proof evolution never happened.
Not at all, monogamy is in fact a very useful tool as it provides the female with a male that will help her raise the babies increasing the likelihood they will survive. Yet most males even in monogamous relationships will cheat if there is any second male advantage at all. (meaning if the second male to mate with a female is more likely to fertilize the egg, this is quite a common theme.) DNA testing has revealed that in many populations of so called "monogamous" birds the chicks are fathered by males from other ponds.
I also thought monogamy was one of the things that set us apart from animals. Which is it wardogg?
I dont think Ive ever said that. Ive always known that the swan was mostly monogamous. Spreading the dominant seed to as many females is much more beneficial. Why would the evolutionary process make a complete left turn from that? The animals dont make a conscious decision to do that. So nature had to help it along....and make it hard wired into their brains. The question is why?
The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
Just in case it got missed:The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
Isn't trolling the entire point of this thread?Just in case it got missed:The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
It was addressed both times. Troll harder.
Isn't trolling the entire point of this forum?Just in case it got missed:The absence of laser tigers disproves Creationism.
It was addressed both times. Troll harder.
Plasmodium leads to the conclusion that evolution=BS.
It was a paper written in a state of delirium!You're really going with that fallacy? The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has no bearing on the factualness of the claim. A drunken man could say "the grass is green" and that wouldn't make it any less true.
I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.It was a paper written in a state of delirium!You're really going with that fallacy? The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has no bearing on the factualness of the claim. A drunken man could say "the grass is green" and that wouldn't make it any less true.
[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]
With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.
The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium! Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.
Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.
Actually he wouldn't have published it at the time if it wasn't for Wallace.[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]
With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.
The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium! Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.
Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.
Uh, darwin came to the conclusions for origin of species while traveling on the Beagle. He spent those 20 years meticulously finding examples and studies to back up every single point in his book. Another biologist published a similar theory at the same time, but Darwin's thorough documentation and extensive knowledge on the subject got him credited with the discovery.
As for a delirious man giving him the idea, that is irrelevant to the idea itself and an ad hominem attack at best.
If heterozygous protection from malaria is disappearing that is likely malaria adapting to its new environment, ie the human body.
From now on either stick to debating the theory not the author of the theory or stick to the lower realms of debate.
Actually he wouldn't have published it at the time if it wasn't for Wallace.[Heterozygous sickle cell traits are no longer protecting people from malaria like they used to.]
With plasmodium it is important to realize the life cycle and the effects it has on human hosts.
When escaping from conquered host cells such as erythrocytes, the body is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of plasmodium haploid cells and their widespread, numerous mutations.
This happens at unpredictable, sudden times and a result of this, is a patient's tendency to experience a sudden onslaught of symptoms in isolated waves.
One common symptom is a state of deliriuum.
The disgraceful naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace contracted malaria himself in the middle to late 1850s. He became very weak with a bout of delirium, and it was during this time that he wrote a paper arguing the same points of natural selection. He then wrote to Darwin describing his ideas. Darwin was in fact, reading the spoutings of a man mentally unstable. It was a paper written in a state of delirium! Darwin already had a 20 year delay in his own publication and he only finished up due to receiving the ramblings of a demented man that agreed with him. Let us not forget this is from the same naturalist who tried to prove the Earth round.
Clearly from history that evolution was never a serious theory to begin with. The only reason it exists today is because of the crazy ideas of man battling a bout of delirium.
Uh, darwin came to the conclusions for origin of species while traveling on the Beagle. He spent those 20 years meticulously finding examples and studies to back up every single point in his book. Another biologist published a similar theory at the same time, but Darwin's thorough documentation and extensive knowledge on the subject got him credited with the discovery.
As for a delirious man giving him the idea, that is irrelevant to the idea itself and an ad hominem attack at best.
If heterozygous protection from malaria is disappearing that is likely malaria adapting to its new environment, ie the human body.
From now on either stick to debating the theory not the author of the theory or stick to the lower realms of debate.
Also, the state of the human host is irrelevant to plasmodium. What matters is the state of its mosquito host.
The reason malaria is almost unheard of in the U.S.A. is because of the man-made alterations to the female mosquito and it's age. By lowering the amount of days a female can live by a small amount, scientists were able to make it so that the female died before the diploid stage of plasmodium and reproduction completed in the stomach lining.
In other parts of the world, the mosqiutos are still able to reach the 26/28d age barrier and thus plasmodium can complete it's cycle.
As for your second statement, I thought evolution didn't happen, the environment of neither host should matter according to your previous statements. Darwin's "Origin of species" was about animals adapting to their environment.
It isn't irrelevant.As for your second statement, I thought evolution didn't happen, the environment of neither host should matter according to your previous statements. Darwin's "Origin of species" was about animals adapting to their environment.
I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.
I would favor the thousands of papers written that dispute the claims of a crazy/mentally unstable man any day.
You honestly seem to not understand the fallacy. Your comment if the equivalent to saying "Einstein got drunk once and came up with the theories of relativity, therefore the theories of relativity are wrong." The mental state a person is in when they make a claim has absolutely no bearing on whether or not their claim is true. The facts speak for themselves. Debate the argument, not the person.
It isn't irrelevant. I'm talking about evolution. How hosts are involved is a part of the topic.
You said plasmodium it adapting to the human body. Example- people with sickle cell traits (hetero)
My point was that the vertebrate host of plasmodium is irrelevant to the survival of the species. The mosquito however, is what matters. If evolution were correct, the ability to infect sickle cell individuals is irrelevant to plasmodium.
Darwin had a great point following the Beagle, though.
Tracing purebred dogs back is fairly easy, and you can see how traits can be changed over time from one generation to the next to the next through choosing the dogs you want to breed.
Evolution just says instead of people selecting the breeding partners, over a large period of time the ones with the traits to survive will be more likely to breed, thus influencing the traits of their offspring.
I don't see what it's that hard to understand.
Natural Selection =/= evolution, i know, but still.Darwin had a great point following the Beagle, though.
Tracing purebred dogs back is fairly easy, and you can see how traits can be changed over time from one generation to the next to the next through choosing the dogs you want to breed.
Evolution just says instead of people selecting the breeding partners, over a large period of time the ones with the traits to survive will be more likely to breed, thus influencing the traits of their offspring.
I don't see what it's that hard to understand.
0/10
Natural Selection =/= evolution, i know, but still.Darwin had a great point following the Beagle, though.
Tracing purebred dogs back is fairly easy, and you can see how traits can be changed over time from one generation to the next to the next through choosing the dogs you want to breed.
Evolution just says instead of people selecting the breeding partners, over a large period of time the ones with the traits to survive will be more likely to breed, thus influencing the traits of their offspring.
I don't see what it's that hard to understand.
0/10
I tried. :(
Do Labradoodles prove or disprove evolution.
Do Labradoodles prove or disprove evolution.