PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 19 20 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it's any comfort to you, i treat my friends the same way when their words are useless. =D


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:28 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, it helps to be hard-nosed around here.  :0)  

Especially if you're a Creationist, because, let's face it, this forum is dominated by the evos.  Creos get tired of arguing against the good sense of reason, I think.

God remains a personal matter of choice, of course.  If you want to take a deist point of view, that's fine with me.  But I have a hard time with the anthropocentric image of God that the Bible depicts.




(Edited by orion 10/28/2009 at 11:50 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:29 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 8:57 PM on October 28, 2009 :
This wisp character right away calls my words "useless"
So much for a friendly forum.


Since you don't seem to respond to polite questions, maybe you want to have an unfriendly forum.

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:17 PM on October 27, 2009 :
Is God powerful enough to use evolution?






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:09 AM on October 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:28 PM on October 28, 2009 :
If it's any comfort to you, i treat my friends the same way when their words are useless. =D



I can attest to that


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:38 AM on October 29, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So I am supposed to treat hostility and friendliness the same manner?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:42 PM on October 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. You're supposed to dramatize and avoid real issues. So don't worry, you're doing great.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:01 AM on October 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not to worry, Pharaoh, if you want civility, speak to Fencer and Orion; if you want a patronizing tone and loads of carefully worded "I am simply too clever for you", then speak to Wisp. If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance then try Derwood out.

The problem really is that they have nothing in the way of evidence to offer so they think they must hammer in the fluff with force and relentless bravado.

You can always ignore the ones that annoy you the most. Don't worry when they claim victory because you didn't answer them - it's just their determination to have the last word. Like good priests, they want whatever evos are out there not to lose the faith.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:46 AM on October 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:46 AM on October 30, 2009 :
If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance then try Derwood out.


The projection of the credential embellishing creationist knows few bounds.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:49 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can already sense 2 posters here may be less then civil?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 5:58 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about making only worthy posts?

Starting... Now!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:05 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 5:58 PM on October 30, 2009 :
I can already sense 2 posters here may be less then civil?

Yes - Lester and A-E.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:50 AM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can a Creationist make a"worthy" post?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 5:23 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:30 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes. I have seen some good post.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:37 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scores of creationists say there are no transitional fossils and evolutionists say there are. What is a going to persuade or convince a third party to objectively decide for himself?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 7:14 PM on November 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 7:14 PM on November 1, 2009 :
Scores of creationists say there are no transitional fossils and evolutionists say there are. What is a going to persuade or convince a third party to objectively decide for himself?


Looking at them and deciding for yourself.  Perhaps a nearby college has an introductory paleontology course you could take?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:46 PM on November 1, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So would I assume the  paleontologist would be of the evolutionary persuasion?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 9:04 PM on November 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why of course.

And that would be as objective as you can get.

I'm objective too. I have no emotional investment nor sacred books to respond to.

The same goes to most of us.

Bones are objective too:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:47 PM on November 1, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I took notice of your drawings there. What exactly is one to infer from them? Would I without a doubt assume that it is a species that evolved?  I don't know, it's possible. Could they all be unrelated species unto themselves perhaps? Is the reconstruction complete? Could they be just similar in nature?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 6:36 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2009 :
I took notice of your drawings there. What exactly is one to infer from them?


Unless you are willing to put in some effort to understand for yourself, you are pretty much limited to believing what somebody else tells you.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:15 PM on November 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pharoah
I took notice of your drawings there. What exactly is one to infer from them?
It's not only from those images.

Take a look at these ear structures (originally posted in 'Definitions'):

a) regular generalized land mammal
b) pakicetid
c) remingtonocetid/protocetid
d) a modern odontocete

a) and b) look very much alike.
There's a distinct feature present in pakicetids that are not present in any other land mammals though. Only whales have it nowadays. Take a close look.
The tympanic bone isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per), and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum. Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull, and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. The jaw will capture sound.

This is what has been found.

Besides, in c) the ear drum has dwindled, and the malleus is fused to the bone (which is a clear loss if the animal needs to capture sound waves in air).

So that's the issue. The Pakicetus had an involucrum. It fits smoothly. It doesn't take lots of imagination to put those images in a sequential order.

Would I without a doubt assume that it is a species that evolved?
No. You should learn more before deciding.

I don't know, it's possible.
Indeed.
Could they all be unrelated species unto themselves perhaps?
Possible, but unlikely.

If you bet for the evolutionary explanation you can be wrong every once in a while about some details, but never about the big picture. At least so far.
Is the reconstruction complete?
I don't understand the question.
Could they be just similar in nature?
Yes.

But where would you put your money?
Would you bet that the only land mammal ever found with such a structure, at a stage that fits smoothly between a) and c), was completely unrelated?

What would the odds be?

What if i tell you next that it was found in a geographic region that fits perfectly in the model?

What if i tell you next that it was found in the exact strata?


(Edited by wisp 11/3/2009 at 08:44 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:08 AM on November 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how much Pharoah knows about evolution, but based on the interactions thus far I'm going to guess very little, correct me if I'm wrong.

Being young and thus completely ignorant a few years ago about evolution, I can easily empathize with someone coming into the debate not knowing anything, and worse misconceptions.

I think in order to show that evolution is real you first must show how it works on small scales and genetically. After all that is how Darwin first came up with the theory, by observing slight variances due to allopatric speication (fancy way of saying a species was geographically isolated and adapted to its new environment and became a new species, usually very similar to the parent/original species). That combined with Mendel's genetics and mutations is the basics which the modern synthesis of evolution is derived from.

If you really want to learn what the theory says I think a good place to start is the three observations of Darwin
1) Organisms produce more offspring than what the environment will be able to support.
2) Each offspring is slightly different from one another and their parents.
3) Some of these variations are better suited for their environment and some are detrimental for their environment. And those that are better suited tend to reproduce more often than those that are less suited.

Now take the observations of Darwin and add in genetics; how the organisms change. You are made up of DNA which determines your genetics, and it has 4 nitrogen bases A,T,C,G (I'm hoping this sounds familiar). When your body, or anyone, passes on their DNA they replicate it inside of the cell gametes (sperm or egg) and sometimes they make mistakes called mutations and change the nitrogen bases in some way. While it may seem that changing these would be bad, it is usually neutral, and some are bad and some are good, thus representing the offspring that are neutral, better, and worse off than their competitors in their environment. Over time these changes can have astounding affects, as Wisp has shown through the drawings posted.

Hope that helped in some way.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:59 PM on November 3, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My question is: How did it all start?



-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 9:12 PM on November 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So your question is not about Evolution...


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:15 PM on November 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 9:12 PM on November 6, 2009 :
My question is: How did it all start?


Evolution doesn't require a natural or supernatural start to life or the universe. All that it requires is that life is here now.

To answer your question though; if you want the beginning of life look up abiogenesis. If you want the beginning of the universe look up big bang theory.

If you want before the big bang, there are a few ideas out there, but I'm not sure how much you'll find online about it though.

In addition many religious people believe that God started it all, while many atheists believe that the energy has always existed and will always exist.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:59 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The reason I found this site is that someone I work with started talking about these things creation, evolution and it was intriguing. These subjects always lead to others and broader subjects but they all seem tied together, you know big bang, life creation, intelligence but he believes in creation and was talking about fossils and how the record is not sufficient to support evolution.


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 09:20 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Quote from Pharoah at 09:20 AM on November 7, 2009 :
...he believes in creation and was talking about fossils and how the record is not sufficient to support evolution.


So, I'll venture a wild guess - he is not a paleontologist and got all his information from creationist sources?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:05 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pharoah
The reason I found this site is that someone I work with started talking about these things creation, evolution and it was intriguing. These subjects always lead to others and broader subjects but they all seem tied together, you know big bang, life creation, intelligence
The connection between the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution is that the three tend to be believed by the smart and educated. But they don't need each other.

If Zeus made the first living cell, everything is fine for the ToE.

but he believes in creation and was talking about fossils and how the record is not sufficient to support evolution.
1) It is.
2) It doesn't matter. We have so much more evidence than it wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't.

For instance, we humans have vitamin C deficiency. We can't produce our own. And it's an essential part of the metabolism of plants and animals alike.

The mutation that took away our ability to synthesize it is shared by all  species from the order anthropoidea, which consists of tarsiers,

monkeys,

and us.


If they want to say that harmful mutations begun after the fall, ok, but how do you explain that every species from our order of mammals have this one?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:08 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


but he believes in creation and was talking about fossils and how the record is not sufficient to support evolution.


Most Creationists are going to say that.  How much does your friend know about the fossil record?  

However, there is more that supports evolution than the fossil record.  

- biogeography
- genetics
- embryology
- comparative biology
- phylogenetics
- geology and plate tectonics
- cosmology

All these things support evolution.  Look at all the things that come together from such a diverse range of scientific disciplines.  They all point in the same direction, to evolution.  That's a very powerful argument supporting evolution.

On the other hand, how much of this material supports Creationism?  You won't find that support in the scientific arena.  But not because there is some sort of conspiracy against Creationism.  No - it's simply because the evidence does not support it.

It's a sad fact that a good portion of the American population is scientifically illiterate.  Couple that fact with the influence of Christian dogma/tradition in our society and it's no wonder that there are so many people that believe in the Biblical Creation.  But such beliefs have an emotional basis.  They are not based on rationality, reason, and evidence.  That's why Creationism is based solely on faith alone.  

Christian tradition and theology has an enormous emotional impact on the way people feel and think in this country.  Why do you think politicians so often include/invoke God in so many of their speeches.  Presidents almost always end their major speeches/addresses  with ... 'and may God bless America!'  

As though God plays favoritism!  The message is, patriotism and God go hand in hand.  Never mind that a good many of our founding fathers were actually deists.  Today, it would be political suicide for a presidential nominee to admit he was a diest, let alone an atheist.

Wisp - is it that way in Argentina?  Does the president end his speech with '... and God bless Argentina!'        
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:51 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
But such beliefs have an emotional basis.  They are not based on rationality, reason, and evidence.  That's why Creationism is based solely on faith alone.
I'll disagree with you on this particular.

Many different peoples from quite different faiths have reached pretty much the same conclusion: some god/s must have done it.

When i see things that are shared by all cultures my guess is that the best explanation doesn't come from culture.

Like human expressions, for instance:


Likewise, if people from many different faiths reach the same concept, then faith must not be the best explanation.

Creationism is, in my opinion, based on intuition. One of the most important intuitions/instincts in our species:
We look for purpose.
This trait has had an important role in making us what we are, and as an undesirable side effect it produced gods as an explanation for what we see in the world.

Wisp - is it that way in Argentina?  Does the president end his speech with '... and God bless Argentina!'        
We don't have much of that... But yeah, more than i like.
Our president says she's a roman catholic. But meh... It doesn't mean much. And she has said "I too believe in God. But He doesn't make us do things." (or something similar). And no, i don't remember anything like "God bless Argentina".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:26 AM on November 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,

Creationism is, in my opinion, based on intuition. One of the most important intuitions/instincts in our species:
We look for purpose.
This trait has had an important role in making us what we are, and as an undesirable side effect it produced gods as an explanation for what we see in the world.


yes, intuition plays a strong role too.  But intuition isn't always correct, as you well know.  My intuition tells me that the earth is stationary and that the sun revolves around the earth.  The writers of the Bible definitely believed this, and who can blame them!

And intuition may lead people to the conclusion that the world was perfectly designed for them.  And who can blame them for thinking so - for it certainly seems just so.

People also have strong emotional needs to believe that their life has a purpose, that they are special, that they are loved.  I'm no different, I share those needs too.

But evolution, just like earlier realizations about our place in the universe, tosses all this false intuition out the window.  But the emotional needs remain.  And that's why people have such a difficult time accepting evolution.

We're here simply by chance?  It's much more comforting to believe that a loving enity put me here on purpose!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on November 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 09:20 AM on November 7, 2009 :
but he believes in creation and was talking about fossils and how the record is not sufficient to support evolution.


I'm glad you decided to look for information on your own, and not just believe him blindly.  That's an admirable habit.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:54 PM on November 7, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did a little digging concerning the fossil record. There seems to be alot of missing transitional fossils, whereby intermediate forms of fully developed species fail to appear and are lacking. How important is this?



-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 2:23 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 5:23 PM on November 8, 2009 :
I did a little digging concerning the fossil record. There seems to be alot of missing transitional fossils,
Yes. Millions.

In a mathematical segment you have infinite points. You have infinite 'missing' points between any two given points.

In an evolutionary segment not that many, but still.

whereby intermediate forms of fully developed species fail to appear and are lacking.
Fully developed? What would that mean? Is a sea lion "fully developed"? How do you check for fullness of development?

How important is this?
The number, size and frequency of the gaps is important to understand punctuated equilibrium, and the fossilization process. It can tell you some relative things. It can tell you something about how many times some evolutionary lineage underwent rapid change, OR that sometimes the climate didn't favor fossilization, OR that some species moved to a less fossilizing environment, OR that some population was decimated before repopulating... So many things...
Any of the above would produce gaps in the fossil record.

There are several extinct species known only by ONE fossil. We could have easily missed those.

So, in one way, the explanation for gaps is that "we missed that particular fossil, so far". But we could find them at any moment, like we found the Tiktaalik.

Creationists asked for that particular transitional, and now they play dumb.
And what did they ever find?

You can learn some things from the absence (or difficulty in the finding) of things, but you can learn more from their presence.

That is why creationists prefer to talk about the absent fossils (gaps) than present ones.


(Edited by wisp 11/8/2009 at 3:14 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:31 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists do seem to put alot of stock in the fossil record. I guess fossils are the telltale of evolution. But I am stumped too at what is being said about "missing transitionals", such as would we expect to find giraffe's with shorter necks becaause they supposedly grew long necks  to reach higher vegatation, elephants with shorter trunks until they grew long as we see today?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 6:34 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Now what will you jump to? Because that's all you've been doing so far.

(Edited by wisp 11/8/2009 at 6:57 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:56 PM on November 8, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

huh?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 5:10 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Okapi, a short necked giraffe.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:36 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That kinda looks like a photoshopped job.
But I guess they're real. Does cross breeding lead to new species?

(Edited by Pharoah 11/9/2009 at 7:05 PM).


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 6:56 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think that's very common, but yes, that can happen (it has).

There are some lizards that, upon crossbreeding, have produced species with an amazing (but harmful in the long run) trait: parthenogenesis.

They now reproduce asexually. They only have females. Only daughters. Perfect clones of the mother (except from some mutations here and there).

They can be easily wiped out by a climate change or a disease.

Diseases are like keys. Individuals are like keyholes. In species made by clones, if the disease fits a keyhole, it fits every keyhole. That's the danger of asexual reproduction.


(Edited by wisp 11/9/2009 at 7:24 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:18 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sir, are you a PHD in these matters, professor or such?



-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 7:37 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, sir. Nothing of the sort.

About parthenogenesis, only Zeus knows how many accidentally parthenogenetic species have appeared and been driven to extinction.

The more isolated two species (or subspecies) have been, the more fucked up their offspring can be (i think).

Imagine that a wolf and a cow could interbreed. What would the offspring eat? How many stomaches would it have? Average intestine length would be good for nothing. If it happens to be short so as to digest meat, well it better have sharp teeth to go with it too. And hunting instincts!

The spermatozoa of the offspring could suffer from the same unharmonious combination of instructions.

I don't know why interbred offspring are often sterile, but if i had to guess i'd say it's because of what i said.

Everyone likes music. Some like classical music, some like country music. If you mix those two probably nobody will find the result appealing.

This is an extreme, of course. And, of course, cows and wolves can't interbreed, but still. A gene is not good or bad in itself, but when they are good at collaborating with the rest of the genes in the same individual (or in the same population). That's why interbreeding can produce a poor collaboration between genes.
That's my humble explanation of interbreeding problems.

Edit: If i had to guess i'd say that hybrids with lower fertility that breed among themselves could overcome fertility problems very rapidly. Lower fertility is a very unstable situation.


(Edited by wisp 11/9/2009 at 8:49 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:16 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Turns out i ended up really liking your question.

These are the processes of speciation that i knew (i had imagined them, and i found the graphic yesterday).


Graphically, the process you ask about would look like this:


It's really interesting.

Why would you do such a good question?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:58 PM on November 9, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am asking quests because I believe in evolution but my friend is very adamant and well read on the subject it seems...

If you are not a PHD in this, how is it you are so quick with your informative responses and data?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:57 PM on November 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Spending a few years on these forums can teach one a lot of biology, no matter what their background.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:14 PM on November 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed.

Besides, data isn't everything. Data is inert before you understand the process.
Once you do, the tiniest bit of data becomes alive, and gets very informative.

Besides i give Evolution some thought every day.

Here you can download The Selfish Gene, which i highly recommend.

Haha! I said "do" a question! xD

My English needs some serious polish...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:14 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pharoah
I am asking quests because I believe in evolution
I really thought you didn't. Because of your way of forgetting about answers and jumping to "But what about this other thing?".

Good for you. Anyway, when you get to understand Evolution, you don't need to believe anymore. You can now explain and predict.

but my friend is very adamant and well read on the subject it seems...
If he can stay cool even when i point out the uselessness of his words, invite him. =D

If you are not a PHD in this, how is it you are so quick with your informative responses and data?
A good part of my quickness has to do with an addon i have for Firefox that checks every 7 minutes and makes a sound when someone posts


(Edited by wisp 11/11/2009 at 06:33 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:27 AM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:14 PM on November 10, 2009 :
Spending a few years on these forums can teach one a lot of biology, no matter what their background.


So true. Just to reinforce what Apoapsis said, I started lurking on forums with nothing but a high school education coupled with curiosity, and I learned quite a bit just from reading some of the more informative posts.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:04 PM on November 11, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok , here's the latest from what I got from my friend. It has to do with DNA being a code::
I do not know enough to process all that is stated, I know you will though.


DNA language not the same as DNA molecule.  The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier.  Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding
conclusions-namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry
information, but they are not the same as  information itself.

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book-the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of
transporting it


For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10
billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters-far from it.

A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a  mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step-say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black
Box



-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:52 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Information" is a classic creationist red herring.

They don't mean anything by that. Go to the thread "Information" and check it out.

We don't know what they're talking about, and they don't either.

"Information" only exists when there's an intellect that looks into it. Either that, or everything is information, and the word loses its meaning.

"A radio" is something that we deem useful. Thus, the instructions to make it, will be considered "information" by us.

I asked them a lot of questions that went unanswered, except for one single creationist that answered something that implied that no purpose needs to be involved, and that everything has information (so the word loses its meaning).

Please, ask your friend this:
Does a stone contain information?
How much information does the DNA contain? Can it be measured? How?

He'll shut right up.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:16 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 19 20 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.