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
     Basic mistake about evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see a lot of people make the same mistake in their understanding of evolution.  Thought I'd start a new thread about it.

Here are some statements from various threads that demonstrate this basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

in any case... one thing i don't understand about evolution is what science you use to explain the arise of a new species which you require yourself to believe in. i fail to see how any living thing is capable of producing offspring which are of a different species...

After thousands of generations of fruit flies they ended up with all sorts of weird mutated flies that could not survive outside the lab. Not one of them changed in to a different insect let alone something other than an insect.

No where in the theory of evolution does it say a parent organism will give birth to an offspring of a different species.  No where does the theory of evolution say that a fly will give birth to a butterfly.  The problem here is that individual organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve.  So an organism will never give birth to a different species.  But it will give birth to an offspring that is genetically different from the parent!  That's all that's needed for evolution.  Let the discussion begin!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:53 AM on May 7, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i guess i dont understand genetics because that doesn't make any sense to me... i probably wont be making many posts cuz you obviously have it all figured out. as a rule of thumb, however, i dont believe in something until i understand how it works, and evolution makes no sense to me so im still very skeptical.  could you walk me through the correct theory of evolution... i mean, evolution deals with the first living cell right? it doesn't explain how that got there, but what happened after it somehow appeared... is that right? could you summarize what happened after that?


(Edited by Carns 5/7/2005 at 10:28 PM).


-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:26 PM on May 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

could you walk me through the correct theory of evolution... i mean, evolution deals with the first living cell right? it doesn't explain how that got there, but what happened after it somehow appeared... is that right?

Tell you what, I don't want to side track this thread, start a new one and we can discuss your request there.

I created this thread to discuss how evolution works, how individual organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  I'm going to take a stab at it, anyone who understands it better than me or can explain it better than me, I welcome your help.  In my example, I don't claim this is the way it did happen, I'm only using it to show how evolution works.
Let's say we have a population of therapod dinosaurs, they have scales.  Now in this population, many mutations occur, but like most, these mutations are neutral, they don't help or hurt the animals.  But one time a mutation results in primitive feathers.  These primitive feathers give this dino a very slight edge in survival, better camoflage or better insulation or whatever.  Now all the little feathered dino babies it produces will also have this slight survival edge, doesn't have to be a big edge, just enough so over timemore feathered dinos will survive to have more feathered babies while the featherless dinos in the population won't survive quite so much, and they won't have quite so many featherless babies.  After many generations we're going to have a population of feathered dinosaurs, no more featherless ones.  The featherless dinos didn't die out insatantly or because they couldn't breed with the feathered ones, they died out because over many generations, slightly more feathered dinos survived than featherless.  This is called differential reproductive success, and it's the driving force behind evolution.
Now mutations are happening all the time in a population and most are neutral.  The ones that are harmful are weeded out of the population.  Let's say in our population of dinosaurs a mutation crops up that gives the feathers small spines that stick in vegetation so they slow the dino down when it's hunting or evading predators.  Even if the original mutant survives, his offspring will be less able to compete, won't hunt as effectively, won't be able to escape as easily.  Soon, this line of dinos will die out in the population, again, differential reproductive success, less will survive to have offspring, and those few offspring that do survive to have babies, fewer of those babies babies will survive to have more offspring until spine feathered dinos are eliminated from the population.  Please note, whether the mutation is harmful or beneficial is dependent on the environment it manifests itself in.
Now this mutation and selection by nature process is on going, maybe the environment stays relatively the same, so the population of feathered dinosaurs stays relatively the same.  Or maybe it changes a little, gets colder at night, and a mutation that gives them longer feathers for better insulation occurs and this mutation gets fixed in the population after many generations.  Then one day one of our dinos is chasing prey, it leaps for it and reaches for it with it's forearms.  As it does, the feathers that evolved for insulation (or camoflage), catch the wind and cause it's leap to be a little bit longer, a little bit faster. Now the dinos that have arms and feathers that allow them to leap a little faster, a little longer are going to catch more prey than the ones who can't.  After many generations, the ones who can't do this are going to produce less offspring and finally the entire population is going to be able to do this.  Evolution has co-opted an adaptation, feathers for insulation, and used it for something else.  Other adaptions (mutations) will occur and be selected for, stronger arms, restructured arm placement, lighter bones, and after more generations the feathered dinos will now be primitive flying dinos.  Are they the same species as our original population of scaled dinos, no, could they breed with them if they still existed, maybe, but it doesn't matter, they are genetically different and they survived while the scaled dinos did not.  
Now let's go back in our example to when those feathered dinos first started to glide.  Perhaps the gliders covered more area and ranged further out than the ones who only ran after their prey.  Soon, the gliders roamed so far out, the only other dinos from their group that they saw were other gliders, they were the only ones they got to mate with.  Now you have a group effectively cut off from the rest of the group, they are breeding with only other gliders, they are effectively in a new environment that puts new selective pressures on them, the beneficial mutations for them will be different from the slection pressures and beneficial mutations for the runners.  The original feathered group that runs after its prey and the gliders will now be under different selection pressures.  Could they still breed together, maybe, but because they live in different ecological niches, they seldom if ever do.  And the 2 groups will continue to get more and more genetically diverse until they can't breed together.
I hoped this example cleared up some of your misconceptions of evolution.  Species boundries are very fuzzy and that's the way we would expect it if the theory of evolution was true.  Classifications like kingdom, phyla, family, order etc. are man made classifications, at the heart of evolution there is only species.  Individual organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  So we would never see an animal give birth a different species.  Take a look at ring species for a good example of evolution in action.  And don't get humg up on the specifics of my example, I used this as a basic illustration of how evolution works, it's not meant to accurately describe dino to bird evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:42 PM on May 9, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is a very good explanation. It has some tidbits of errors, but you have the main point down. I commend you.

What Demon here has explained is the most common form of natural selection among a population, with a variety of different factors, including adapting to the environment and co-evolution.

Another factor I would like to add to this post is Demon's use of mutations. Mutations are inevitable in a population, but it is not the driving force that makes population select for survival. Let me explain:

Variation! If you can understand variation in a population, any educated evolutionist will praise you. In any population of animals, variation is of vital importance. Mutations do occur, but populations don't wait for a mutation in order to survive. Guess what they already have-- variation. Each family, each gene pool has shares most traits, but not all traits.

Lets say that in a population there are ten families of birds. A drought occurs on the island that the birds inhabit. Let us say that this drought causes all of the soft-seeds on the island to die out, leaving only hard seeds to survive (assume that the only food source for these birds are the seeds). Let us say that 6 of the 10 families of birds die out, because they cannot, for instance, crack open the these "hard seeds." They die.

The remaining 4 families survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. Lets say the 4 surviving families all had big beaks, which allowed them to eat the hard seeds. Now all the birds on the island, in the population, have big beaks. The birds have been naturally selected to survive. Simply because in the population of birds, there was variation.

Another issue some people have is species. What is a species? There are many ways telling how two specimens are different species, my personal favorite is the Biological Species classification method.

It states that two organisms are different species if they mate and cannot physcially produce offspring (When two things of the same species mate and don't produce offspring, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are different species). However, there are exceptions -- a horse can mate with a donkey, and you get a mule. SO.. there is a second part to the definition.

Notice-- When a mule mates with a mule, you don't get a mule. In fact, you don't get anything at all. Mules cannot breed and create fertile offspring. Nothing happens. Their DNA codes are so mixed up that the sperm does not provide the DNA that the egg needs in order to fertilize.

There are other ways of telling the difference between species. One of the easiest is whether or not they look the same, both on the inside and out. That is the morphological method. There are exceptions-- the Verdona (or whatever its called) looks exactly like the Monarch butterfly. Aren't they the same species then? No. In cases like that, other methods, such as the biological species method, is used to explain why they are different species.

I hope that explained something to our audience.

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/10/2005 at 10:04 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:03 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks B.oF., I can use all the help I can get!
Maybe you can help me out here, I understand how traits can become fixed in a population besides being naturally selected, like by sexual selection or genetic drift, but isn't variation ultimately derived from mutation?  In your example, some of the bird families have bigger beaks, why?  Is it just the normal variance in the species?  Yeah, I understand your point, there are small variations all ready present in populations and a change in the environment could cause these variations to be selected for.  I'm just wondering if these small variations are the result of previous, neutral mutations or is there another mechanism I'm missing...
Your comments on species were pretty thorough also.  We can also compare gentic structures to determine specis now a days.
And hey, anything else you can contribute to the discussion will be greatly appreciated!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:12 AM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I thought you might notice that, though I hoped you wouldn't. :--P

Generally speaking, you are correct. Mutations are the cause of variation. However, now that so many mutations have occured (million of years before), variation is its effect. Its wise to explain mutations, but if you exclusively explain mutations, the skeptical ones in your audience will probably digress and ask "So why do we have mutations?" I'm not implying that this question annoys me, but its usually asked when the listener does not really want to know the answer, because they really only wish to see me not be able to answer a question. :--)
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:36 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree 100% with you two. However, if I could make one adjustment to your theory. When you say, that the organisms that do not have the beneficial mutation (adaptation), that line does not die out. As long as mutations occur, there will always be the not feathered dinosaurs, etc...

This explains the fact that many organisms lack organs, die a birth, or whatever genetic problems they have. People just aren't identical. I hope you see this as constructive criticism not as an opposition


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:18 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:53 AM on May 7, 2005 :
I see a lot of people make the same mistake in their understanding of evolution.  Thought I'd start a new thread about it.

Here are some statements from various threads that demonstrate this basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

in any case... one thing i don't understand about evolution is what science you use to explain the arise of a new species which you require yourself to believe in. i fail to see how any living thing is capable of producing offspring which are of a different species...

After thousands of generations of fruit flies they ended up with all sorts of weird mutated flies that could not survive outside the lab. Not one of them changed in to a different insect let alone something other than an insect.

No where in the theory of evolution does it say a parent organism will give birth to an offspring of a different species.  No where does the theory of evolution say that a fly will give birth to a butterfly.  The problem here is that individual organisms don't evolve, populations of organisms evolve.  So an organism will never give birth to a different species.  But it will give birth to an offspring that is genetically different from the parent!  That's all that's needed for evolution.  Let the discussion begin!

I would say your comments indicate your contention that anyone who does not believe in your theory of origins does not understand it. This is not correct.
I have known many atheist that understand the Bible ,but they don't believe it.
It is just as possible that a Creationist understands evolution , in many cases better than you do and still does not believe it. It is your axiom you believe it inspite of the evidence not because of it. You want to believe it , don't you?
Ask yourself honestly if you could fit the evidence to better explain Creation than evolution would you change your mind?
I think not . there is no smoking gun on either side.
They are both matters of faith.

As far as your dispute of the fruit fly evidence it only shows your priori. The experiments went on for decades in hopes of proving macro-evolution , the creation of -new species -kinds -genus -whatever semantics game you are playing today by chance. It was a miserable failure. It provided great evidence that the evolution of one kind of organism into another is impossible. 140 years of unsucessfully searching for the evidence for this and not finding a single solid uncontested trace is hard evidence that it never happened.
You are blinded by your pre-suppositions or you would see this is true.

Evolution theory says that all the bio-diversity on earth started with a magical cell that came together under mathematically absurd odds and evolved . It does not teach that an entire population of these magical proto-cells or what ever you choose to call them spontaneously generated life simultaneously , now does it?

All of the genetic code for every creature that ever lived would had to have been in the first cell. DNA is billions of times more packed with information than anything we can produce but that , my friend , is impossible and so is your theory.
I understand it just fine I just don't believe in fairy tales.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:54 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] Generally speaking, you are correct. Mutations are the cause of variation. However, now that so many mutations have occured (million of years before), variation is its effect. Its wise to explain mutations, but if you exclusively explain mutations, the skeptical ones in your audience will probably digress and ask "So why do we have mutations?" I'm not implying that this question annoys me, but its usually asked when the listener does not really want to know the answer, because they really only wish to see me not be able to answer a question. :--)

Are you saying that variation is only the result of mutation? If not for mutations all humans and animals would be identical. That is absurd.

That is silly beyond words.

Mutations can and do cause changes but overwhelmingly they are either nuetral or fatal. Beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare and do not provide new genetic information to grow wings on a lizard, make his bones hollow, or cause his bellows like lung to dissolve while an avian one grows in it's place.
That is not possible.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:02 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler, the beneficial changes are minute and build on top if each other, no one is trying to claim that a lizard was sudenly born with wings, again you show you don't understand evolution and just make yourself look stupid.
Plus this thread was started to explain evolution, NOT abiogenesis.
We are not saying you don't understand evolution becuase you don't believe it, simpily becuase what you say to disprove it is almost always wrong based on an incorrect understand of evolution.
Plus, I don't twist evidence to prove evolution, to be honest I would much rather creation was right because that would mean there was an afterlife etc. However no matter how much I want it too be true it isn't. In the same way no matter how much I want a girl to  love me, all the evidence points that she doesn't. The evidence points to evolution.
FIND EVIDENCE FOR CREATION THEN YOU CAN BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. and probably win a nobel prize.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:22 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 10:22 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Peddler, the beneficial changes are minute and build on top if each other, no one is trying to claim that a lizard was sudenly born with wings, again you show you don't understand evolution and just make yourself look stupid.
Plus this thread was started to explain evolution, NOT abiogenesis.
We are not saying you don't understand evolution becuase you don't believe it, simpily becuase what you say to disprove it is almost always wrong based on an incorrect understand of evolution.
Plus, I don't twist evidence to prove evolution, to be honest I would much rather creation was right because that would mean there was an afterlife etc. However no matter how much I want it too be true it isn't. In the same way no matter how much I want a girl to  love me, all the evidence points that she doesn't. The evidence points to evolution.
FIND EVIDENCE FOR CREATION THEN YOU CAN BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. and probably win a nobel prize.


What is stupid is this argument that small changes which have never been observed and would surely cause the extinction of the organism unless they happened all at once is the explanation for all the biodiversity on earth. What lizard could survive with a partial wing? He could not fly and he could not run. He would either starve first or get eaten by a predator.

If it happened in an instant or a million years the result would be the same. The organism would become non-viable and natural selection would wipe it out. I understand fine, you are in lala land.

How would the lizard survive if his bones became hollow before his body weight dropped?

How could he breathe during the transformation from a bellows type lung to an avian one?

Call me names if you will but if you believe this garbage you are delusions and calling me stupid is probably a compliment. Someone who believes a lizard with half a wing , half a lung , and hollow bones is viable calling me stupid of no real consequence.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:11 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would say your comments indicate your contention that anyone who does not believe in your theory of origins does not understand it. This is not correct.

No, once again you are wrong.  My comments clearly state my position:
"No where in the theory of evolution does it say a parent organism will give birth to an offspring of a different species."
You said:
"After thousands of generations of fruit flies they ended up with all sorts of weird mutated flies that could not survive outside the lab. Not one of them changed in to a different insect let alone something other than an insect."

This is not what the theory of evolution says.
None of the scientists who conducted these experiments believed they would see a fly change into a different insect.  From here:
FruitFly

"Drosophila is so popular, it would be almost impossible to list the number of things that are being done with it. Originally, it was mostly used in genetics, for instance to discover that genes were related to proteins and to study the rules of genetic inheritance. More recently, it is used mostly in developmental biology, looking to see how a complex organism arises from a relatively simple fertilised egg. Embryonic development is where most of the attention is concentrated, but there is also a great deal of interest in how various adult structures develop in the pupa, mostly focused on the development of the compound eye, but also on the wings, legs and other organs. "

As I said, no one expected a fruit fly to change into another insect.  While many creationists probably understand the theory of evolution, YOU do not.

It is just as possible that a Creationist understands evolution , in many cases better than you do and still does not believe it. It is your axiom you believe it inspite of the evidence not because of it. You want to believe it , don't you?

No, I accept evolution because of the evidence.  There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.  And no, I would much rather believe in an all powerful, benevolent God and I did for a long time, but there is no evidence to support it, and I realized I can't believe in pleasant fairytales just because they're pleasant.  Much more responsible to face reality, no matter what it consists of.

Ask yourself honestly if you could fit the evidence to better explain Creation than evolution would you change your mind?

If there was any evidence for creationism and God, I would grab it and believe it!  But there is no evidence for God, creationism was completely disproven over 200 years ago.  And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  it's as simple as that.

As far as your dispute of the fruit fly evidence it only shows your priori. The experiments went on for decades in hopes of proving macro-evolution , the creation of -new species -kinds -genus -whatever semantics game you are playing today by chance.

Once again, this is simply wrong, 100%.  You know nothing about these experiments and what they achieved and continue to achieve.
You're the one playing games here, here's some of the results gained from experimenting with fruit flys:
FruitFlyI
"Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the foremost zoologists in the United States at the time, proved the Chromosome Theory of Heredity.  In 1908, Morgan began his experiments.  For his experiments he did not use plants but an insect named Drosophila melanogaster.   This insect is commonly known as the fruit fly."

FruitFlyII
"So it is a bit of a comeuppance when a scientific model for one of humanity's most intractable and complicated problems -- drug abuse -- can be created and tested in a fruit fly."

FruitFlyIII
"This tiny fly (Drosophila melanogaster), about three millimeters long, has been used to study classic genetics and mutations since the early twentieth century. It’s still one of the most important and widely used model organisms for genetics and developmental biology."

So no, All the fruit fly experiments were successful.  You have provided nothing but a desperate, unsubstaniated rant to support your claim.  
And just to get off track for one second, macro evolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, speciation events have been observed and verified, so macro evolution is an observed fact.

You are blinded by your pre-suppositions or you would see this is true.

No, you are the one blinded by your dogmatic suppostions, I simply go by what the data says, what the experiments were designed to do, as the examples I provided above show.

Evolution theory says that all the bio-diversity on earth started with a magical cell that came together under mathematically absurd odds and evolved .

Again you are completely wrong!  Evolution started with a population of simple organisms, not one cell!  And I dare you to show how you calculate the odds for it's formation!  Since we see organic molecules arising fairly easily, I think the opposite is true.  But the fact is you CLAIM the odds of life forming from none life is mathematically absurd, but you can't demonstrate this to be true...
Since you claim that an unprovable magic skyman poofed life into existance, you have no room to talk about absurd claims...

It does not teach that an entire population of these magical proto-cells or what ever you choose to call them spontaneously generated life simultaneously , now does it?

Yes it does, and the fact that you don't know this once again shows you don't understand modern scientific theories!

All of the genetic code for every creature that ever lived would had to have been in the first cell.

Why?!?  Gentics plainly shows us that genes can increase in size and create novel new functions and structures, in other words, create new information.  Where in the theory of evolution does it say anything like your assinine statement above?

DNA is billions of times more packed with information than anything we can produce but that , my friend , is impossible and so is your theory.

So what, it's just made up of simple chemicals, We see how a genome can increase in size natrually, we see new information has been added naturally, so it's not only possible, it's observed!  Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:15 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:15 AM on May 28, 2005 :
I would say your comments indicate your contention that anyone who does not believe in your theory of origins does not understand it. This is not correct.

No, once again you are wrong.  My comments clearly state my position:
"No where in the theory of evolution does it say a parent organism will give birth to an offspring of a different species."
No you said an entire population of one species becomes another.Why is that more plausible? What was the first species ?

You said:
"After thousands of generations of fruit flies they ended up with all sorts of weird mutated flies that could not survive outside the lab. Not one of them changed in to a different insect let alone something other than an insect."

This is not what the theory of evolution says.
None of the scientists who conducted these experiments believed they would see a fly change into a different insect.  From here:
FruitFly
I have posted comments that the scientist made themselves. That was the hope. If not it certainly proved it could not happen The experiment should have done something to indicate changing into another species. After all they nuked an ENTIRE POPULATION


"Drosophila is so popular, it would be almost impossible to list the number of things that are being done with it. Originally, it was mostly used in genetics, for instance to discover that genes were related to proteins and to study the rules of genetic inheritance. More recently, it is used mostly in developmental biology, looking to see how a complex organism arises from a relatively simple fertilised egg. Embryonic development is where most of the attention is concentrated, but there is also a great deal of interest in how various adult structures develop in the pupa, mostly focused on the development of the compound eye, but also on the wings, legs and other organs. "
Certainly there were lessons learned but the big lesson, proof that one species will never in 10 billion years become another ,seems to have gone over your head.


As I said, no one expected a fruit fly to change into another insect.  While many creationists probably understand the theory of evolution, YOU do not.
Really. Well Professor are you saying that mutations turn some populations into othere and some do not? Why , if your theory is true, would they not. That was the dream of the fruit fly research .Evolutionist always change the theory to fit the evidence. When it became clear that no amount of mutations would show macro-evolution they just changed the story.
Nature would never come close to the number of mutations forced on the cute little defensless fruit flies .
For instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow.
The theory of evolution is a materialistic senario where new life forms happened by chance mutations and natural selection.
It is absurd.
Land mammals did not become whales. Jack and the Beanstalk is a more sound theory than that. There are beanstalks and Giants. There is no half whale half whatever is there?

[quote

It is just as possible that a Creationist understands evolution , in many cases better than you do and still does not believe it. It is your axiom you believe it inspite of the evidence not because of it. You want to believe it , don't you?

No, I accept evolution because of the evidence.  There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.  And no, I would much rather believe in an all powerful, benevolent God and I did for a long time, but there is no evidence to support it, and I realized I can't believe in pleasant fairytales just because they're pleasant.  Much more responsible to face reality, no matter what it consists of.
Reality? That begs the question, how would you recognize it. There is not one solid chain of transistional form at all period.
You believe in evolution because you choose to.
There is not one shred of evidence one animal -or entire population -of animals became another.
If there was any evidence for creationism and God, I would grab it and believe it!  But there is no evidence for God, creationism was completely disproven over 200 years ago.  And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  it's as simple as that.

No it is not.

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out (see my column of October, 1974). To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.    Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

Evolution is an atheistic religion. Some Christians fell for it , some did not. Nothing was disproved 200 years ago except maybe the myth of human intelligence.



Once again, this is simply wrong, 100%.  You know nothing about these experiments and what they achieved and continue to achieve.
You're the one playing games here, here's some of the results gained from experimenting with fruit flys:
FruitFlyI
"Thomas Hunt Morgan, one of the foremost zoologists in the United States at the time, proved the Chromosome Theory of Heredity.  In 1908, Morgan began his experiments.  For his experiments he did not use plants but an insect named Drosophila melanogaster.   This insect is commonly known as the fruit fly."

FruitFlyII
"So it is a bit of a comeuppance when a scientific model for one of humanity's most intractable and complicated problems -- drug abuse -- can be created and tested in a fruit fly."

FruitFlyIII
"This tiny fly (Drosophila melanogaster), about three millimeters long, has been used to study classic genetics and mutations since the early twentieth century. It’s still one of the most important and widely used model organisms for genetics and developmental biology."

And your point is? Why was there no sign of a new type of creature imerging? After all the world is only 4.5 ba according to you and life did not get started right away. If there was not even a hint in all those generations of new creatures being created by time, chance , and mutations  then compared to slow producers like mammals that can take many years to reproduce your timeline disappears.Flies do it in days not years.
Fruit Flies remain Fruit Flies"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term "species" does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." (Kelly, Kevin [Executive Editor of Wired Magazine], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475). [top]





   "People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale.
   
   In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings."  Darrel Kautz,
The Origin of Living Things, p. 6






So no, All the fruit fly experiments were successful.  You have provided nothing but a desperate, unsubstaniated rant to support your claim.  
And just to get off track for one second, macro evolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, speciation events have been observed and verified, so macro evolution is an observed fact.

[b]You are blinded by your pre-suppositions or you would see this is true.


No, you are the one blinded by your dogmatic suppostions, I simply go by what the data says, what the experiments were designed to do, as the examples I provided above show.

Evolution theory says that all the bio-diversity on earth started with a magical cell that came together under mathematically absurd odds and evolved .

Again you are completely wrong!  Evolution started with a population of simple organisms, not one cell!  And I dare you to show how you calculate the odds for it's formation!  Since we see organic molecules arising fairly easily, I think the opposite is true.  But the fact is you CLAIM the odds of life forming from none life is mathematically absurd, but you can't demonstrate this to be true...
Since you claim that an unprovable magic skyman poofed life into existance, you have no room to talk about absurd claims...

It does not teach that an entire population of these magical proto-cells or what ever you choose to call them spontaneously generated life simultaneously , now does it?

Yes it does, and the fact that you don't know this once again shows you don't understand modern scientific theories!

All of the genetic code for every creature that ever lived would had to have been in the first cell.

Why?!?  Gentics plainly shows us that genes can increase in size and create novel new functions and structures, in other words, create new information.  Where in the theory of evolution does it say anything like your assinine statement above?

DNA is billions of times more packed with information than anything we can produce but that , my friend , is impossible and so is your theory.

So what, it's just made up of simple chemicals, We see how a genome can increase in size natrually, we see new information has been added naturally, so it's not only possible, it's observed!  

Facts don't need explanations. This is circular thinking at it's worst.

"Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it."

That somes up my argument.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:09 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Facts don't need explanations. This is circular thinking at it's worst

Facts don't need explainations?!?  You really don't understand science!  Explain to us how that is circular???  The sky is blue is a fact, why is it blue?  Your point is disproven.

You don't understand how science works or what a scientific theory is.  Here's a good definition of a scientific theory, from here:
Theory
"The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them."

So you are completely wrong, facts DO need explainations.  And science is all about providing those explainations.

"Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it."

Atoms are a fact and the atomic theory explains it.
Gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity explains it.
E=MC2 is a fact and the theory of relativity explains it.
the earth orbits the sun is a fact and the heliocentric theory explains it,
Germs make people sick is a fact and the germ theory of disease explains it.
Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains it.

That somes up my argument.

Yes it does, and it's a pretty poor arguement.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:40 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler said:
No you said an entire population of one species becomes another.Why is that more plausible? What was the first species ?

No, stick to the point, single organisms do not evolve, as you say, populations of organisms evovle.  I clearly stated this and you clearly don't understand it.  
A population is required for evolution because evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population.  This is directly observed, how can you argue against reality?
It's more plausible because it is a fact.  Entire populations can evolve, this is evident in the fossil record, many species have gone extinct.
Or a portion of a population can evolve and the original population can remain when that portion of the population is effectively isolated from the original population, again this is directly observed.  As to what was the first species, what the hell does this mean and how is it relevant to the point?

I have posted comments that the scientist made themselves. That was the hope. If not it certainly proved it could not happen The experiment should have done something to indicate changing into another species.

You have posted NO comments from any scientists that support your point.  I have.
And it is a fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab.  So once again your wrong.

Certainly there were lessons learned but the big lesson, proof that one species will never in 10 billion years become another ,seems to have gone over your
head.


No it hasn't the fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab seems to have escaped you.  From here:
NewSpecies
"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963."
From the same source as above:
"In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation."

From here:
NewSpeciesII
" A host of new species have been created by man since he began
manipulating his environment.  Consider domestic cats, dogs, cows,
pigs, horses, wheat, rice, and corn.  New species of bacteria are
created all the time in response to pressure from antibiotic use."
So you are wrong again, species turning into other species happens, it has been observed in the wild and it has been done in the lab.

Really. Well Professor are you saying that mutations turn some populations into othere and some do not?

Yes I'm saying that!  It's an observed fact!

Why , if your theory is true, would they
not.


Why would some mutations not cause a population to evolve?  Because all mutations are not selected for by the environment!  You seem to have forgotten about the other part of evoltuion, Natural selection!  

That was the dream of the fruit fly
research .


No it wasn't, but artifical selection did produce new species!

Evolutionist always change the theory to fit the evidence.

And that's the power of science, if a theory can't be modified to accomodate new evidence, then the theory is falsified.  In 150 years, evolution has not been falsified!

When it became clear that no amount of mutations would show macro-evolution they just changed the story.

But macroevolution, change at or above the species level, has already been directly observed, it's a fact.

Nature would never come close to the number of mutations forced on the cute little defensless fruit flies .

Given enough time, sure it would!

The theory of evolution is a materialistic senario where new life forms happened by chance mutations and natural selection.

Yes, what's the problem?  Mutations occur all the time, every human has about 100 mutations in there genetic makeup.  Most mutations are neutral, some are beneficial and are selected for by the environment, some are harmful and selected against.  This is differential reproductive success.

It is absurd.

But you can't support this statement....

Land mammals did not become whales.

Of course they did, how else can you explain the evidence!
From here:
Whales

"Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades."

So whale evolution from land mammals is an established fact, what evidence do you have that refutes this fact?

Reality? That begs the question, how would you recognize it. There is not one solid chain of transistional form at all period.

The fact that there are ANY transitional fossils falsifies creationism and supports only evolution.  That being said, there are certainly enough "links in the chain" to make evolution valid.  From here:
TransFossils
"We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out."
Sorry, you're wrong again...

You believe in evolution because you choose to.

Nope, I don't believe evolution, I accept it based on the overwhelming and independently derrived evidence.

There is not one shred of evidence one animal -or entire population -of animals became another.

Already observed fact, wrong again...

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out (see my column of October, 1974). To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.    Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

What does Lyell have to do with modern geology besides being an historical footnote?
Modern geology is clear, all the evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old earth, all the evidence falsifies a global flood.  What people thought was scientific 200 years ago has no bearing on what we know today!

Evolution is an atheistic religion. Some Christians fell for it , some did not. Nothing was disproved 200 years ago except maybe the myth of human intelligence.

You don't even know what "religion" is!
Nothing in evolution is taken on faith, there is no worship or need for a supernatural entity.
And yes, creationism was compoletely disproven 200 years ago.

And your point is? Why was there no sign of a new type of creature imerging?

My point is the experiments were not designed to show new types of creatures emerging, they were designed to show the mechanics of heredity.  In the process, new species DID emerge, new species of fruit fly.

After all the world is only 4.5 ba according to you and life did not get started right away. If there was not even a hint in all those generations of new creatures being created by time, chance , and mutations  then compared to slow producers like mammals that can take many years to reproduce your timeline disappears.

Of course there were hints of new creatures arising, theyre called fossils, and they all support evolution and falsify creationism!

Fruit Flies remain Fruit Flies"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history.

This is plainly a lie, new species of fruit flies came from these experiments, as I documented above.  We create new species of bcteria almost daily.  We have observed new species arising in the wild, check out african cichlids and nylon eating bacteria.  Your refusal to accept reality is due to your utter lack of knowledge of science in general and biology in particular.

Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation.

More lies, I've already shown the data from these experiments where new species of fruit flies DID emerge...

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation.

In other words, we see evolution in action, you're just playing word games, what is variation and how does it differ from the effects of mutation and natural selection?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:01 PM on May 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:01 PM on May 28, 2005 :
Peddler said:
No you said an entire population of one species becomes another.Why is that more plausible? What was the first species ?

No, stick to the point, single organisms do not evolve, as you say, populations of organisms evovle.  I clearly stated this and you clearly don't understand it.
Get to the point. If you can't answer the question you don't trust your own theory. What ENTIRE POPULATION of primitive organisms became what ENTIRE POPULATION of animals? I understand fine. You are playing politics and semantics and attacking me personally because you don't have a clue to the origin of life and your theory is not a theory. It is a giant what if question.
You can't answer my question , can you?
 
A population is required for evolution because evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population.  This is directly observed, how can you argue against reality?
Okay. I will agree to let you decide what evolution is and I will decided what it is not. Fair enough?
First of all I would like to note your circular reasoning that the evidence is required to fit the theory not the theory to fit the evidence.
A population is requires because the theory demands it? Obviously the theory came first and then "evidence " was found to fit the theory. Is that what you call the "scientific method" . Make up stories and then try to explain them?

Just so we are on the same page.
al·lele (-ll)
n.

One member of a pair or series of genes that occupies a specific position on a specific chromosome. Also called allelomorph
Is that an acceptable definition of allele ?

All that says is there is genetic variation so I will accept your definition. Animal and people do vary geneticlly from generation to generation.

Evolution is not one ENTIRE POPULATION of animals becoming a fundementally different type of animal. This has never occured and to say it has been observed is delusional or dishonest. Give me one example in the history of the world where this has been observed.

"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed, without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance. Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp.127- 135, p.129)

It's more plausible because it is a fact.  Entire populations can evolve, this is evident in the fossil record, many species have gone extinct.
Or a portion of a population can evolve and the original population can remain when that portion of the population is effectively isolated from the original population, again this is directly observed.  As to what was the first species, what the hell does this mean and how is it relevant to the point?
The point is you claim evolution is a fact , an observable science. If you can't answer my question you have no case, you are just repeating made up stories.
How is it a fact , because you say so? Prove it.
How could you know an ENTIRE POPULATION of animals can change into another kind of animal? A land  mammal to a whale for example? Show me.
When did you observe this miracle?
How can you know part of a population can change from a fish to an amphibian for example? Where did you witness this? On an acid trip perhaps? What reality were you refering to previously?

You say only entire populations can change into entire populations. Or partial populations into entire populations-I think that is what you meant.
What was the first non-animal population that turned into the first animal population. If evolution is a fact why won't you tell me? You know don't you? It's not just a made up story is it? You would not be afraid to answer would you?


I have posted comments that the scientist made themselves. That was the hope. If not it certainly proved it could not happen The experiment should have done something to indicate changing into another species.

You have posted NO comments from any scientists that support your point.  I have.
And it is a fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab.  So once again your wrong.
We are talking about different types of animals evolving. Name one. You can't , can you? The only one I can thinf of is the 4 winged fly. Since it can't fly you could call it a crawl I guess. Might as well call it bird food as it is not viable outside the lab.

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.

"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."—"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990
If your version of evolution is true we should have seen and entirely new kind of bug, Not just a more colorful one.


Certainly there were lessons learned but the big lesson, proof that one species will never in 10 billion years become another ,seems to have gone over your
head.


No it hasn't the fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab seems to have escaped you.  From here:
NewSpecies
"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963."
From the same source as above:
"In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation."

From here:
NewSpeciesII
" A host of new species have been created by man since he began
manipulating his environment.  Consider domestic cats, dogs, cows,
pigs, horses, wheat, rice, and corn.  New species of bacteria are
created all the time in response to pressure from antibiotic use."
So you are wrong again, species turning into other species happens, it has been observed in the wild and it has been done in the lab.
So what if some no longer interbreed. You claim over time one type of animal turns into another. Some mamaal evolved into a whale for example. Prove it. Don't just keep talking about variations in animals . Man has know that for thousands of years.
You are just babbling and dodging the question because you have no answer.
You claim evolution is a fact but you refuse to give evidence that insignificant variations results in lizards becoming birds etc.


Why would some mutations not cause a population to evolve?  Because all mutations are not selected for by the environment!  You seem to have forgotten about the other part of evoltuion, Natural selection!  
That is the only part of evolution.  Mutations cannot explain one animal changing into another fudementally different animal. That i sa fairy story. Give me one example. Don't babble about species that don't mate anymoe. Show me a shred of proof for  particles to people evololution or just admit it is what you believe, not what you know.
No it wasn't, but artifical selection did produce new species!
Please quit babbling. If your theory is true why in millions of generations subjected to tremendous amounts of mutations did not one new type of bug appear? Show me a bacteria that changed into something other than a bacteria!
You can't because it never happened. Your theory is dead.
Answer the question.

And that's the power of science, if a theory can't be modified to accomodate new evidence, then the theory is falsified.  In 150 years, evolution has not been falsified!

Yes it has . Darwin said that the transistionals would be found . They have not. Fossils that "proved" fish became amphibians were found alive and with none of the imagined features.







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































You can't falsify a Just So story. The fact that instead of missing links we found missing chains falsifies it.


When it became clear that no amount of mutations would show macro-evolution they just changed the story.

But macroevolution, change at or above the species level, has already been directly observed, it's a fact.

Nature would never come close to the number of mutations forced on the cute little defensless fruit flies .

Given enough time, sure it would!
And how did you observe that? You could not have. To say you did is absurd. It is a fairy story.
Long ago and far far away.

The theory of evolution is a materialistic senario where new life forms happened by chance mutations and natural selection.

Yes, what's the problem?  Mutations occur all the time, every human has about 100 mutations in there genetic makeup.  Most mutations are neutral, some are beneficial and are selected for by the environment, some are harmful and selected against.  This is differential reproductive success.

It is absurd.

But you can't support this statement....

Land mammals did not become whales.

Of course they did, how else can you explain the evidence!
From here:
Whales

"Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades."

So whale evolution from land mammals is an established fact, what evidence do you have that refutes this fact?

Reality? That begs the question, how would you recognize it. There is not one solid chain of transistional form at all period.

The fact that there are ANY transitional fossils falsifies creationism and supports only evolution.  That being said, there are certainly enough "links in the chain" to make evolution valid.  From here:
TransFossils
"We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out."
Sorry, you're wrong again...

You believe in evolution because you choose to.

Nope, I don't believe evolution, I accept it based on the overwhelming and independently derrived evidence.

There is not one shred of evidence one animal -or entire population -of animals became another.

Already observed fact, wrong again...

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out (see my column of October, 1974). To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.    Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

What does Lyell have to do with modern geology besides being an historical footnote?
Modern geology is clear, all the evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old earth, all the evidence falsifies a global flood.  What people thought was scientific 200 years ago has no bearing on what we know today!

Evolution is an atheistic religion. Some Christians fell for it , some did not. Nothing was disproved 200 years ago except maybe the myth of human intelligence.

You don't even know what "religion" is!
Nothing in evolution is taken on faith, there is no worship or need for a supernatural entity.

"Nothing in evolution is taken on faith" So these tiny changes that happen so slowly they cannot be seen are not taken on faith. So it is not a religion but a fairy tale? I think it is both but I will accept your definition.

Of course there were hints of new creatures arising, theyre called fossils, and they all support evolution and falsify creationism!

Hint's of new creature's arising?
ROFL  Did a little fairy whisper the hint to you?
Fossils prove they died not that they evolved. That's absurd. How do you know if a dead animal has kids ,especially different kids. The fossils that have been found with young were OBSERVED to have kids that were little copies of themselves. Suprised? Fossils don't support or falsify anything. The lack of transistionals puts your theory in the garbage. Only the faith remains.
The Cambrian explosion falsifies Creation? Are you serious, do you really believe this?

Fruit Flies remain Fruit Flies"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history.

This is plainly a lie, new species of fruit flies came from these experiments, as I documented above.  We create new species of bcteria almost daily.  We have observed new species arising in the wild, check out african cichlids and nylon eating bacteria.  Your refusal to accept reality is due to your utter lack of knowledge of science in general and biology in particular.
Your are plainly delusional or lack the reading comprehension skills of a mongoloid child.
Did the fruit flies become bats for instance, hummingbirds? You say it is a lie they remained fruit flies , what are they know? polar bears perhaps?
Your funny.
"DFruit Flies remain Fruit Flies Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the WILDin recorded history.
Refering to fruit flies. If you want to call one fruit fly a species and another one another that's fine. The statement is plain -FRUIT FLIES REMAIN FRUIT FLIES This is the whole point and the one you are unable and afraid to address. Shoe me a fruit fly becoming a cockroach or whatever. It had to happen or your theory is false.

It means little to be called a liar by someone who does not know what IN THE WILD means. Here's a hint Professor organism's considered to be IN THE WILD would in most cases refer to organism's outside. You start calling me a liar by stating what the experiments shows-they were inside I believe.


Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation.

More lies, I've already shown the data from these experiments where new species of fruit flies DID emerge...
I apologize to mongoloid children everywhere.
Maybe this was written before they found a stupid fly that would not breed or his definition of species is a different animal. Both are correct so it does create confusion and there is no clear rule.
To yell liar everytime you disagree on semantics shows your utter lack of character and the bankruptsy of your argument.
Why do we not observe animals changings into other kinds of animals? That is your theory. Time and chance turned random chemicals into humans by chance.
You claim to have observed it. Or is it just in your head?
Answer the question , why are all the fruit flies still fruit flies after millions of generations and millions of mutations while given the incredible advantage of being cared for by humans?
If it did not happen under those conditions it did not happen at all.



In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation.

In other words, we see evolution in action, you're just playing word games, what is variation and how does it differ from the effects of mutation and natural selection?



A mouse becoming a whale is not variation it is imagination.
Answer the question. If no new animals formed in all those experiments what does that tell you about your theory.
Please don't babble about species dying out proving your theory. You can make up a better story than that.



(Edited by peddler8111 5/29/2005 at 02:01 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 01:19 AM on May 29, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 10:01 PM on May 28, 2005 :
Peddler said:
No you said an entire population of one species becomes another.Why is that more plausible? What was the first species ?

No, stick to the point, single organisms do not evolve, as you say, populations of organisms evovle.  I clearly stated this and you clearly don't understand it.
Get to the point. If you can't answer the question you don't trust your own theory. What ENTIRE POPULATION of primitive organisms became what ENTIRE POPULATION of animals? I understand fine. You are playing politics and semantics and attacking me personally because you don't have a clue to the origin of life and your theory is not a theory. It is a giant what if question.
You can't answer my question , can you?
 
A population is required for evolution because evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population.  This is directly observed, how can you argue against reality?
Okay. I will agree to let you decide what evolution is and I will decided what it is not. Fair enough?
First of all I would like to note your circular reasoning that the evidence is required to fit the theory not the theory to fit the evidence.
A population is requires because the theory demands it? Obviously the theory came first and then "evidence " was found to fit the theory. Is that what you call the "scientific method" . Make up stories and then try to explain them?

Just so we are on the same page.
al·lele (-ll)
n.

One member of a pair or series of genes that occupies a specific position on a specific chromosome. Also called allelomorph
Is that an acceptable definition of allele ?

All that says is there is genetic variation so I will accept your definition. Animal and people do vary geneticlly from generation to generation.

Evolution is not one ENTIRE POPULATION of animals becoming a fundementally different type of animal. This has never occured and to say it has been observed is delusional or dishonest. Give me one example in the history of the world where this has been observed.

"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed, without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance. Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp.127- 135, p.129)

It's more plausible because it is a fact.  Entire populations can evolve, this is evident in the fossil record, many species have gone extinct.
Or a portion of a population can evolve and the original population can remain when that portion of the population is effectively isolated from the original population, again this is directly observed.  As to what was the first species, what the hell does this mean and how is it relevant to the point?
The point is you claim evolution is a fact , an observable science. If you can't answer my question you have no case, you are just repeating made up stories.
How is it a fact , because you say so? Prove it.
How could you know an ENTIRE POPULATION of animals can change into another kind of animal? A land  mammal to a whale for example? Show me.
When did you observe this miracle?
How can you know part of a population can change from a fish to an amphibian for example? Where did you witness this? On an acid trip perhaps? What reality were you refering to previously?

You say only entire populations can change into entire populations. Or partial populations into entire populations-I think that is what you meant.
What was the first non-animal population that turned into the first animal population. If evolution is a fact why won't you tell me? You know don't you? It's not just a made up story is it? You would not be afraid to answer would you?


I have posted comments that the scientist made themselves. That was the hope. If not it certainly proved it could not happen The experiment should have done something to indicate changing into another species.

You have posted NO comments from any scientists that support your point.  I have.
And it is a fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab.  So once again your wrong.
We are talking about different types of animals evolving. Name one. You can't , can you? The only one I can thinf of is the 4 winged fly. Since it can't fly you could call it a crawl I guess. Might as well call it bird food as it is not viable outside the lab.

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.

"God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations, God was proven right: A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly."—"Evolutionists Still Looking for a `Good Accident,' " Battle Cry, July-August, 1990
If your version of evolution is true we should have seen and entirely new kind of bug, Not just a more colorful one.


Certainly there were lessons learned but the big lesson, proof that one species will never in 10 billion years become another ,seems to have gone over your
head.


No it hasn't the fact that new species have been artificially generated in the lab seems to have escaped you.  From here:
NewSpecies
"Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963."
From the same source as above:
"In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation."

From here:
NewSpeciesII
" A host of new species have been created by man since he began
manipulating his environment.  Consider domestic cats, dogs, cows,
pigs, horses, wheat, rice, and corn.  New species of bacteria are
created all the time in response to pressure from antibiotic use."
So you are wrong again, species turning into other species happens, it has been observed in the wild and it has been done in the lab.
So what if some no longer interbreed. You claim over time one type of animal turns into another. Some mamaal evolved into a whale for example. Prove it. Don't just keep talking about variations in animals . Man has know that for thousands of years.
You are just babbling and dodging the question because you have no answer.
You claim evolution is a fact but you refuse to give evidence that insignificant variations results in lizards becoming birds etc.


Why would some mutations not cause a population to evolve?  Because all mutations are not selected for by the environment!  You seem to have forgotten about the other part of evoltuion, Natural selection!  
That is the only part of evolution.  Mutations cannot explain one animal changing into another fudementally different animal. That i sa fairy story. Give me one example. Don't babble about species that don't mate anymoe. Show me a shred of proof for  particles to people evololution or just admit it is what you believe, not what you know.
No it wasn't, but artifical selection did produce new species!
Please quit babbling. If your theory is true why in millions of generations subjected to tremendous amounts of mutations did not one new type of bug appear? Show me a bacteria that changed into something other than a bacteria!
You can't because it never happened. Your theory is dead.
Answer the question.

And that's the power of science, if a theory can't be modified to accomodate new evidence, then the theory is falsified.  In 150 years, evolution has not been falsified!

Yes it has . Darwin said that the transistionals would be found . They have not. Fossils that "proved" fish became amphibians were found alive and with none of the imagined features.

You can't falsify a Just So story. The fact that instead of missing links we found missing chains falsifies it.


When it became clear that no amount of mutations would show macro-evolution they just changed the story.

But macroevolution, change at or above the species level, has already been directly observed, it's a fact.

Nature would never come close to the number of mutations forced on the cute little defensless fruit flies .

Given enough time, sure it would!
And how did you observe that? You could not have. To say you did is absurd. It is a fairy story.
Long ago and far far away.

The theory of evolution is a materialistic senario where new life forms happened by chance mutations and natural selection.

Yes, what's the problem?  Mutations occur all the time, every human has about 100 mutations in there genetic makeup.  Most mutations are neutral, some are beneficial and are selected for by the environment, some are harmful and selected against.  This is differential reproductive success.

It is absurd.

But you can't support this statement....

Land mammals did not become whales.

Of course they did, how else can you explain the evidence!
From here:
Whales

"Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades."

So whale evolution from land mammals is an established fact, what evidence do you have that refutes this fact?

Reality? That begs the question, how would you recognize it. There is not one solid chain of transistional form at all period.

The fact that there are ANY transitional fossils falsifies creationism and supports only evolution.  That being said, there are certainly enough "links in the chain" to make evolution valid.  From here:
TransFossils
"We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out."
Sorry, you're wrong again...

You believe in evolution because you choose to.

Nope, I don't believe evolution, I accept it based on the overwhelming and independently derrived evidence.

There is not one shred of evidence one animal -or entire population -of animals became another.

Already observed fact, wrong again...

In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out (see my column of October, 1974). To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.    Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

What does Lyell have to do with modern geology besides being an historical footnote?
Modern geology is clear, all the evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old earth, all the evidence falsifies a global flood.  What people thought was scientific 200 years ago has no bearing on what we know today!

Evolution is an atheistic religion. Some Christians fell for it , some did not. Nothing was disproved 200 years ago except maybe the myth of human intelligence.

You don't even know what "religion" is!
Nothing in evolution is taken on faith, there is no worship or need for a supernatural entity.

"Nothing in evolution is taken on faith" So these tiny changes that happen so slowly they cannot be seen are not taken on faith. So it is not a religion but a fairy tale? I think it is both but I will accept your definition.

Of course there were hints of new creatures arising, theyre called fossils, and they all support evolution and falsify creationism!

Hint's of new creature's arising?
ROFL  Did a little fairy whisper the hint to you?
Fossils prove they died not that they evolved. That's absurd. How do you know if a dead animal has kids ,especially different kids. The fossils that have been found with young were OBSERVED to have kids that were little copies of themselves. Suprised? Fossils don't support or falsify anything. The lack of transistionals puts your theory in the garbage. Only the faith remains.
The Cambrian explosion falsifies Creation? Are you serious, do you really believe this?

Fruit Flies remain Fruit Flies"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history.

This is plainly a lie, new species of fruit flies came from these experiments, as I documented above.  We create new species of bcteria almost daily.  We have observed new species arising in the wild, check out african cichlids and nylon eating bacteria.  Your refusal to accept reality is due to your utter lack of knowledge of science in general and biology in particular.
Your are plainly delusional or lack the reading comprehension skills of a mongoloid child.
Did the fruit flies become bats for instance, hummingbirds? You say it is a lie they remained fruit flies , what are they know? polar bears perhaps?
Your funny.
"DFruit Flies remain Fruit Flies Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the WILDin recorded history.
Refering to fruit flies. If you want to call one fruit fly a species and another one another that's fine. The statement is plain -FRUIT FLIES REMAIN FRUIT FLIES This is the whole point and the one you are unable and afraid to address. Shoe me a fruit fly becoming a cockroach or whatever. It had to happen or your theory is false.

It means little to be called a liar by someone who does not know what IN THE WILD means. Here's a hint Professor organism's considered to be IN THE WILD would in most cases refer to organism's outside. You start calling me a liar by stating what the experiments shows-they were inside I believe.


Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation.

More lies, I've already shown the data from these experiments where new species of fruit flies DID emerge...
I apologize to mongoloid children everywhere.
Maybe this was written before they found a stupid fly that would not breed or his definition of species is a different animal. Both are correct so it does create confusion and there is no clear rule.
To yell liar everytime you disagree on semantics shows your utter lack of character and the bankruptsy of your argument.
Why do we not observe animals changings into other kinds of animals? That is your theory. Time and chance turned random chemicals into humans by chance.
You claim to have observed it. Or is it just in your head?
Answer the question , why are all the fruit flies still fruit flies after millions of generations and millions of mutations while given the incredible advantage of being cared for by humans?
If it did not happen under those conditions it did not happen at all.



In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation.

In other words, we see evolution in action, you're just playing word games, what is variation and how does it differ from the effects of mutation and natural selection?



A mouse becoming a whale is not variation it is imagination.
Answer the question. If no new animals formed in all those experiments what does that tell you about your theory.
Please don't babble about species dying out proving your theory. You can make up a better story than that.



(Edited by peddler8111 5/29/2005 at 02:01 AM).

















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 02:06 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What ENTIRE POPULATION of primitive organisms became what ENTIRE POPULATION of animals?

eukaryote Animalian organisms evolved from single cell organisms in the Prew Cambrian.  And despite all your ranting, you still don't understand evolution, the entire population of single cell organisms did not evolve into higher lifeforms, that's obvious because there are still single cell organisms alive today.
Back to my original point, you still haven't refuted "organisms don't evolve, populations evolve."  You're the only one playing word games here and avoiding the questions.

Okay. I will agree to let you decide what evolution is and I will decided what it is not. Fair enough?

As soon as you agree to let me decide what christianity isn't and you can decide what it is.
That's just silly, evolution is defined by the experts who study it, experiment with it, work with it intimately, not by people who don't understand it!

First of all I would like to note your circular reasoning that the evidence is required to fit the theory not the theory to fit the
evidence.


First of all, that's what creationists do, they all ready have "the truth" and only accept evidence that supports it.  My reasoning isn't circular because I never said the evidence is required to fit the theory, in fact I have said the exact opposite.  Science goes where the evidence leads.  And all the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

A population is requires because the theory demands it?

Maybe I was unclear, sorry about that.  Populations change due to mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift, natural selection.  This fact is explained by the theory of evolution.  It was observed first, the theory was proposed to explain it.

One member of a pair or series of genes that occupies a specific position on a specific chromosome. Also called allelomorph
Is that an acceptable definition of allele ?


Yes.

All that says is there is genetic variation so I will accept your definition. Animal and people do vary geneticlly from generation to generation.

But 'genetic variation' is due to mutation, sexual selection, genetic drift and natural selection.  This is evolution, plain and simple.

Evolution is not one ENTIRE POPULATION of animals becoming a fundementally different type of animal.

You're playing semantics here, how about a portion of a population becoming a fundamentally different type of organism....

This has never occured and to say it has been observed is delusional or dishonest. Give me one example in the history of the world where this has been observed.

From here:
Cichlids
"In the lakes of East Africa, fishes of the family Cichlidae have undergone an extraordinarily rapid and extensive radiation. At least 1500 species of fish have arisen from a common ancestor in the last 10 million years. Within Lake Malawi over 700 species have arisen within just the last 2 MY."

From here:
SpeciationI
"The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise."

From here:
SpeciesII

"Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)"

From here:
SpeciesIII

"Seeley (1986) compared modern specimens of a snail, Littorina obsata, to century-old specimens from a museum. The morphology of the two sets of specimens is radically different. About a century ago, a predatory crab moved into the home range of these snails, which rapidly developed a more durable shell. There are a few snails with pre-crab morphology living in areas isolated from the predator, and these are not prezygotically reproductively isolated from snails with the new, durable shell morphology. There has been no selection for reproductive isolation because the isolated snails have little opportunity to exchange genes with their conspecifics who face predation, but hybrids would be expected to be less fit in either environment."

There's 4 documented examples of speciation, so yes speciation HAS occurred, you are wrong.

The point is you claim evolution is a fact , an observable science. If you can't answer my question you have no case, you are just repeating made up stories.

No, your questions are gibberish.  Evolution is a fact, the fossil record illustrates that life HAS changed over billions of years.  The fossil record is full of thousands of examples of transitional fossils.  Genetics supports evolution.  ERV's support evolution.  Twin nested hierarchies support evolution.  Biogeography supports evolution.  And I provided 4 quick examples of rapid speciation, so evolution is a fact, it has been observed.

How is it a fact , because you say so? Prove it.

It's a fact because it's been observed, not because I say so.  Virtually all biologists say so because of the evidence.  And I've all ready "proved it" by siting observed examples of speciation.

How could you know an ENTIRE POPULATION of animals can change into another kind of animal?

I don't understand what you mean when you emphasis ENTIRE.  But form the evidence, we know that the ENTIRE population of thecodonts died out but a portion of them evolved into dinosaurs.  We know the ENTIRE population of therapsids died out but a portion of them evolved into mammals.  We study the evidence, that's how we know.

A land  mammal to a whale for example? Show me.

You should be doing your own research, but I'll help you out....Start here:
WhaleEvo

When did you observe this miracle?

When we studied the evidence....

How can you know part of a population can change from a fish to an amphibian for example?

Because of the evidence!  When you see fossilized skeletons that over time become less fishlike and more amphibian like, the only explaination is that fish evolved into amphibians.  Look here:
AmphiFish
How else do you explain a transitional like
Acanthostega, a four legged fish with both gills and lungs?

You say only entire populations can change into entire populations.

No, I don't say this...

Or partial populations into entire populations-I think that is what you meant.

Yes, that is more accurate....

What was the first non-animal population that turned into the first animal population. If evolution is a fact why won't you tell me? You know don't you? It's not just a made up story is it? You would not be afraid to answer would you?

Still don't understand science...If gravity is a fact, explain how it operates.  We can't explain gravity but it's still a fact.  You're talking about explainations for things that happened 2 billion years ago!  We don't have enough fossil evidence YET, but there is evidence.  It looks like the first animals were sponges.  See this link:
Firstanimals
There you go, refute it...

We are talking about different types of animals evolving. Name one. You can't , can you?

Once again, your ignorance is showing!  All that counts in evolution is the species, and since we have seen new species evolve, evolution is verified.  As to what I think you mean by 'different types of animals', look at living transitional animals, like the platypus or the lungfish.  And we can't ignore the fossil record, with all the thousands of documented transitional fossils we have discovered, like the mammal like reptiles (the therapsids), Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega, to name a few.
So I can name quite a few more than one!

The only one I can thinf of is the 4 winged fly.

But you know nothing of biology...

Norman Macbeth, Francis Hitching who was not even a scientist, H. Nilsson,
none of these men ever conducted any experiments with fruit flies, why should we believe them instead of the scientists who actually DID conduct experiments with the fruit flies?

As to your Dobzhansky quote, you do realize that he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."  Don't know where you got that out of context quote from but his work with fruit flies was of major importance in the study of evolution.
from here:
Dobzhansky

"through his lifelong experiments with fruit flies, showed that natural populations of the flies exhibited the same kinds of genetic variations that could be produced artificially by mutation in the laboratory. Moreover, he showed that natural populations included enough heritable variation for natural selection to work. Dobzhansky thus bridged the gap between laboratory experiments and field observation, and his 1937 book Genetics and the Origin of Species was one of the cornerstones of the modern synthesis."

So my point still stands, none of the scientists experimenting with fruit flies expected to see a new insect emerge.  You have provided nothing to contradict this.  

So what if some no longer interbreed.

So what?!?  That is what a species is!  If two groups no longer inerbreed, speciation has begun!  Each group will accumulate different mutations, each group will be subjected to different environmental pressures!  

You claim over time one type of animal turns into another. Some mamaal evolved into a whale for example. Prove it.

I don't claim this, the science of biology does!
And it's all ready proven!  Just because you refuse to look at the evidence doesn't change reality!

You are just babbling and dodging the question because you have no answer.

No, your the one babbling and dodging.  You still haven't explained what 'variation' is.  I've given examples of new species, of transitional fossils and living transitionals, you have given us evidence of nothing.  

You claim evolution is a fact but you refuse to give evidence that insignificant variations results in lizards becoming birds

Nope, I've given substantial evidence that you have failed miserably to refute.

That is the only part of evolution.  Mutations cannot explain one animal changing into another fudementally different animal.

Yes they can.  

That i sa fairy story. Give me one
example.


The evolution of the fish' air bladder, originally used to control buoyancy into lungs.  The evidence for this is in the fossil record and the still living lung fish.

Don't babble about species that don't mate anymoe.

This proves you don't understand evolution!

Show me a shred of proof for  particles to people evololution or just admit it is what you believe, not what you know.

Evolution doesn't explain how life arose from non life, it doesn't have to.  If life arose naturally, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution, if God zapped the first life onto earth, it doesn't affect evolution, if Odin created the first life from the bones of Ymir, it doesn't affect evolution.  

If your theory is true why in millions of generations subjected to tremendous amounts of mutations did not one new type of bug appear?

But new species did appear, I've all ready proved that.

You can't because it never happened. Your theory is dead.
Answer the question.


Nah, the theory of evolution is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth, virtually all biologists agree.
And scientific illiterates like yourself is too lazy or afraid to find answers to his inconsequential questions have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution, one of the strongest, most important theories in all of science.

Yes it has . Darwin said that the transistionals would be found . They have not. Fossils that "proved" fish became amphibians were found alive and with none of the imagined features.

No it hasn't.  Thousands of transitional fossils have been found and more are being found every day.  And how does the discovery of still living descendents of the coelacanth disprove evolution.  You know that modern coelacanths are a completely different genus than the prehistoric variety.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:54 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:36 AM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Get to the point. If you can't answer the question you don't trust your own theory. What ENTIRE POPULATION of primitive organisms became what ENTIRE POPULATION of animals? I understand fine. You are playing politics and semantics and attacking me personally because you don't have a clue to the origin of life and your theory is not a theory. It is a giant what if question.
You can't answer my question , can you?


Peddler he was trying to clear up a misconception, not prove you wrong.

Okay. I will agree to let you decide what evolution is and I will decided what it is not. Fair enough?
First of all I would like to note your circular reasoning that the evidence is required to fit the theory not the theory to fit the evidence.
A population is requires because the theory demands it? Obviously the theory came first and then "evidence " was found to fit the theory. Is that what you call the "scientific method" . Make up stories and then try to explain them?

Just so we are on the same page.
al·lele (-ll)
n.

One member of a pair or series of genes that occupies a specific position on a specific chromosome. Also called allelomorph
Is that an acceptable definition of allele ?

All that says is there is genetic variation so I will accept your definition. Animal and people do vary geneticlly from generation to generation.

Evolution is not one ENTIRE POPULATION of animals becoming a fundementally different type of animal. This has never occured and to say it has been observed is delusional or dishonest. Give me one example in the history of the world where this has been observed.

"Because of the euphoria which attended the triumph of Darwinism, the effect of those experiments on the thinking on evolution was most profound. First, the long-held conjecture that chance alone produced the favourable variations which natural selection preserved was deemed, without any justification, to have been experimentally verified. Then everything that evolved was designated the lucky beneficiary of chance. Enzymes, proteins, and even man himself, were held to be the products of mere chance. In short, the biologists' belief in the creative power of chance soon equalled or surpassed the Christian belief in the creative power of God." (Opadia-Kadima G.Z., "How the Slot Machine Led Biologists Astray," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 124, 1987, pp.127- 135, p.129)


Here, lets backtrack a bit, shall we? I'll give you an example of one species becoming another.

Lets say that in a population there are ten families of birds. A drought occurs on the island that the birds inhabit. Let us say that this drought causes all of the soft-seeds on the island to die out, leaving only hard seeds to survive (assume that the only food source for these birds are the seeds). Let us say that 6 of the 10 families of birds die out, because they cannot, for instance, crack open the these "hard seeds." They die.

The remaining 4 families survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. Lets say the 4 surviving families all had big beaks, which allowed them to eat the hard seeds. Now all the birds on the island, in the population, have big beaks. The birds have been naturally selected to survive. Simply because in the population of birds, there was variation.

Another issue some people have is species. What is a species? There are many ways telling how two specimens are different species, my personal favorite is the Biological Species classification method.

It states that two organisms are different species if they mate and cannot physcially produce offspring (When two things of the same species mate and don't produce offspring, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are different species). However, there are exceptions -- a horse can mate with a donkey, and you get a mule. SO.. there is a second part to the definition.

Notice-- When a mule mates with a mule, you don't get a mule. In fact, you don't get anything at all. Mules cannot breed and create fertile offspring. Nothing happens. Their DNA codes are so mixed up that the sperm does not provide the DNA that the egg needs in order to fertilize.

There are other ways of telling the difference between species. One of the easiest is whether or not they look the same, both on the inside and out. That is the morphological method. There are exceptions-- the Verdona (or whatever its called) looks exactly like the Monarch butterfly. Aren't they the same species then? No. In cases like that, other methods, such as the biological species method, is used to explain why they are different species.

---

There is an old post of mine. Did you note that the birds with big beaks survive? Enough changes like this, or enough selection pressures to change, can make one species change to another. Only problem is it takes a long time, which would explain the old age of the earth.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 12:24 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What ENTIRE POPULATION of primitive organisms became what ENTIRE POPULATION of animals?

eukaryote Animalian organisms evolved from single cell organisms in the Prew Cambrian.  And despite all your ranting, you still don't understand evolution, the entire population of single cell organisms did not evolve into higher lifeforms, that's obvious because there are still single cell organisms alive today.
Back to my original point, you still haven't refuted "organisms don't evolve, populations evolve."  You're the only one playing word games here and avoiding the questions.
I understand it I just don’t buy it. How do you explain vertebrates in what is called Pre-Cambrian sediment.? I don’t buy the whole geological dating scenario for that matter but will go along with it for the sake of arguments. Answer the question. If you are backtracking on ENTIRE POPULATIONS evolving into different critters then show me evidence of your convergent theory or whatever such nonsense. You claim “Evolution is a Fact-The Theory of Evolution Proves It” this is circular reasoning. It is also a definitive statement and requires absolute knowledge.  Enlighten me. Just so stories are not knowledge, there just stories. Give me your proof that single cell organisms became eukaryote animalian organisms . While your out tell which single cell organism it was, after all evolution is a fact. But first tell me what ENTIRE POPULATION of whatever became single celled organisms in the first place and show me you’re the proof you claim exist. Long ago and far far away is not acceptable as evidence in the real world, only in fairy stories.


As soon as you agree to let me decide what christianity isn't and you can decide what it is.

The truth comes out when you get angry doesn’t it? You will “let” me define your RELIGION if I will “let” you define mine.
That is what you are saying but you are so deluded you don’t even realize it.


That's just silly, evolution is defined by the experts who study it, experiment with it, work with it intimately, not by people who don't understand it!

The scientist at the Creation Research Institute http://www.creationresearch.org/   are experts in evolution theory. They understand it completely .I find the statement “work with it intimately” rather amusing. They most certainly understand it , debate them if you are not sure. They define it as a fairy tale so I will accept that, we can agree and go from there.

First of all, that's what creationists do, they all ready have "the truth" and only accept evidence that supports it.  My reasoning isn't circular because I never said the evidence is required to fit the theory, in fact I have said the exact opposite.  Science goes where the evidence leads.  And all the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
You miss the point.
All scientists have pre-suppositions, all humans do. It is impossible to do research without one.  Newton wanted to find out what force held the planets in check and objects to the earth. So he created a what if question, made his pre-supposition, experimented, observed the evidence, and then formed his theory. This is called science; he was the greatest scientist who ever lived by most accounts. His priori was that whatever this force was God created it . If he could have believed that IT DID IT , somehow the laws of nature created themselves for no apparent reason and then made his assumptions , experiments etc. his answer would have been the same regardless of his worldview.
Does that make sense to you?
The origin of life requires an assumption. Creationist assume –believe- that the Bible is true and God spoke the Universe and all life into being and to reproduce after their kind.
Therefore they interpret evidence in that light. It fits just fine. They acknowledge that their beliefs are religious and it requires faith to believe. They don’t claim that Creation itself, how God did it is science. They can only study the creation, not the Creator in the lab.
The majority of the founders of science believe this and the Academic infrastructure that made scientific study possible was 100% Christian. Science as we know it would not exist without them.

Evolutionist assume there are no miracles from God. They make assumptions experiments etc.  Where circular logic comes into play is that they are basing their interpretations on a theory they say is science when it is not. If a species goes extinct according to their interpretation it becomes scientific “proof’ they evolved into a completely different type of animal. That is not science. If the animal. Or plant is found not to be extinct then some change into totally different types of animals. Dating is only accepted if it agrees with the pre-supposition of the age of the fossils in the strata.
It claims to be able to prove scientifically how life begins and then avoids the question of how life began. Read the Origin of the Species-Darwin never really talked about origins he only denied special creation, nothing has changed. So do you.
Long ago and far far away.

Any belief about origins is a faith, not science. Creationist wear their faith proudly, evolutionist hide theirs.





Maybe I was unclear, sorry about that.  Populations change due to mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift, natural selection.  This fact is explained by the theory of evolution.  It was observed first, the theory was proposed to explain it.
That is far from clear. How was it observed that mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift, natural selection caused populations to change?
It was observed that they changed to a degree. Not what caused it. It was never been observed that they change into a different type of animal. You are reasoning in a circle again. It was believed by faith that there was a materialistic explanation so a story was created to explain it


But 'genetic variation' is due to mutation, sexual selection, genetic drift and natural selection.  This is evolution, plain and simple.

Not so simple.  If that was all there was to it there would be no need for children to resemble their parents. They do however.
The point is although these are factors “genetic variation” does not include mammals becoming whales. That has never been observed, it is a fairy tale.



You're playing semantics here, how about a portion of a population becoming a fundamentally different type of organism....

That is a fairy tale as well. Give me an example of it ever happening.

From here:
Cichlids
"In the lakes of East Africa, fishes of the family Cichlidae have undergone an extraordinarily rapid and extensive radiation. At least 1500 species of fish have arisen from a common ancestor in the last 10 million years. Within Lake Malawi over 700 species have arisen within just the last 2 MY."

From here:
SpeciationI
"The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise."

Why do you keep talking about speciation when that is irrelevant? I want your proof that one animal became another type of animal, not that certain animals can no longer breed. You have no answer and are dodging the question.
Admit is is your belief or show me the proof


"Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)"

Why do you keep babbling on ad nauseum about animals that can no longer breed. That is not the question I asked.

From here:
SpeciesIII

"Seeley (1986) compared modern specimens of a snail, Littorina obsata, to century-old specimens from a museum. The morphology of the two sets of specimens is radically different. About a century ago, a predatory crab moved into the home range of these snails, which rapidly developed a more durable shell. There are a few snails with pre-crab morphology living in areas isolated from the predator, and these are not prezygotically reproductively isolated from snails with the new, durable shell morphology. There has been no selection for reproductive isolation because the isolated snails have little opportunity to exchange genes with their conspecifics who face predation, but hybrids would be expected to be less fit in either environment."

There's 4 documented examples of speciation, so yes speciation HAS occurred, you are wrong.

I don’t care that was not the question, please answer the question.
You just proved you are an expert in dodging questions that you have no answer for. Did the crabs become rats? I want your proof of an animal changing into another fundamentally different type.


No, your questions are gibberish.  Evolution is a fact, the fossil record illustrates that life HAS changed over billions of years.  The fossil record is full of thousands of examples of transitional fossils.  Genetics supports evolution.  ERV's support evolution.  Twin nested hierarchies support evolution.  Biogeography supports evolution.  And I provided 4 quick examples of rapid speciation, so evolution is a fact, it has been observed.
There is no fossil record only a lot of fossils . No missing link has ever been found , only missing chains.



It's a fact because it's been observed, not because I say so.  Virtually all biologists say so because of the evidence.  And I've all ready "proved it" by siting observed examples of speciation.

Who observed which animal becoming a different type of animal? What were the animals and please provide some pics, I can’t wait to see them.
I want proof that one certain animal became another. I want to know how the first cell formed and how and why it became a multi-celled organism and so on until it became a human. All you talk about is animals that can no longer breed. Again I did not request that information.

I don't understand what you mean when you emphasis ENTIRE.  But form the evidence, we know that the ENTIRE population of thecodonts died out but a portion of them evolved into dinosaurs.  We know the ENTIRE population of therapsids died out but a portion of them evolved into mammals.  We study the evidence, that's how we know.

You have a short memory, don’t you? You called me a liar an an idiot incapable of understanding evolution because I said that evolution teaches that one type of animal becomes another. You said Entire Populations of one kind of animal become another. I asked what Entire POPULATION of organism’s became the first Entire Population animals. You don’t know but you say it is a fact.  

So some dinosaurs died out. That proves they died out. For every example of some evolutionist’s interpretation of morphology I will find you another evolutionists that disagrees. Facts are facts, all you quote, as facts are opinions. Give me observable evidence that one particular dinosaur became something other that a dinosaur. You say it is a fact! Prove it!




You should be doing your own research, but I'll help you out....Start here:
WhaleEvo
Give me an example. Which population or partial population of land mammals became whales? This is a fact so say so be specific.


Because of the evidence!  When you see fossilized skeletons that over time become less fishlike and more amphibian like, the only explaination is that fish evolved into amphibians.  Look here:
AmphiFish
How else do you explain a transitional like
Acanthostega, a four legged fish with both gills and lungs?

It was created that way.

The fatal blow to the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis has been the realization that the Devonian tetrapods were predominantly aquatic in habit. New ichthyostegid material, including a well-preserved and articulated hind limb, collected by an expedition to East Greenland in 1987, revealed that Ichthyostega was polydactylous, with seven digits on the hind limb (Figure 1).44 This was a very surprising discovery because pentadactyly had been assumed to be the normal condition in ‘early’ tetrapods. Furthermore, the flattened bones and inflexible ankle of the hind limb suggests that it was more like the paddle of an elephant seal than the leg of a terrestrial animal.45 It appears that the earliest reconstruction of Ichthyostega as a creature at home in the water was more accurate than later ones portraying it on land.


Still don't understand science...If gravity is a fact, explain how it operates.  We can't explain gravity but it's still a fact.  You're talking about explainations for things that happened 2 billion years ago!  We don't have enough fossil evidence YET, but there is evidence.  It looks like the first animals were sponges.  See this link:
Firstanimals
There you go, refute it...
Facts don’t need more evidence. How could you know it was a fact without enough evidence!  A fact is a fact is a fact. Admit it is an unproven opinion based on your favorite interpretation of the evidence. You are only fooling yourself.


Once again, your ignorance is showing!  All that counts in evolution is the species, and since we have seen new species evolve, evolution is verified.  As to what I think you mean by 'different types of animals', look at living transitional animals, like the platypus or the lungfish.  And we can't ignore the fossil record, with all the thousands of documented transitional fossils we have discovered, like the mammal like reptiles (the therapsids), Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega, to name a few.
So I can name quite a few more than one!

My ignorance is showing? Are you saying that these interpretations are facts? Ever heard of Feduccia , or Olsan ?
Is Colin Patterson a liar and an idiot?

“There is not a single shred of observational evidence showing that natural selection has ever caused any living thing to evolve. A noted evolutionist, British paleontologist Colin Patterson confesses this fact:

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question”

But you know nothing of biology...
Really.



As to your Dobzhansky quote, you do realize that he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."  Don't know where you got that out of context quote from but his work with fruit flies was of major importance in the study of evolution.
from here:
Dobzhansky

"through his lifelong experiments with fruit flies, showed that natural populations of the flies exhibited the same kinds of genetic variations that could be produced artificially by mutation in the laboratory. Moreover, he showed that natural populations included enough heritable variation for natural selection to work. Dobzhansky thus bridged the gap between laboratory experiments and field observation, and his 1937 book Genetics and the Origin of Species was one of the cornerstones of the modern synthesis."
There is no debate over natural selection existing , only if it can turn fish to amphibians etc. Dobzhansky  unwittingly proved it cannot happen. Are you saying it did? Are you awake?

So my point still stands, none of the scientists experimenting with fruit flies expected to see a new insect emerge.  You have provided nothing to contradict this.  
Why did it not happen? If your theory is true it would have.
.

So what?!?  That is what a species is!  If two groups no longer inerbreed, speciation has begun!  Each group will accumulate different mutations, each group will be subjected to different environmental pressures!  
Give me an example of it turning a mammal into a whale! Give me this observational evidence you say exists.
How do you know the inability to interbreed turns fish into frogs? You are so dishonest with your answers it is beyond belief!

I don't claim this, the science of biology does!
And it's all ready proven!  Just because you refuse to look at the evidence doesn't change reality!
What evidence? –what have I refused to look at? You are making up stories. Don’t tell me biology proves ,it give me the observational evidence. Tell me how the first cell formed, what it was , and how it turned into an animal or admit this is not science!

No, your the one babbling and dodging.  You still haven't explained what 'variation' is.  I've given examples of new species, of transitional fossils and living transitionals, you have given us evidence of nothing.  
Variation is self-explanatory. Some people have blue eyes some green. Some tall , some short. Are you really that dense? The only variation that has ever been observed to be genetically caused is between birds and birds, cows and cows , people and people. There is no cat/dog! Birds are not born to lizards. If they were –long ago and far far away why did they stop?


The evolution of the fish' air bladder, originally used to control buoyancy into lungs.  The evidence for this is in the fossil record and the still living lung fish.
Prove it was not created that way!
[quote/

Evolution doesn't explain how life arose from non life, it doesn't have to.  If life arose naturally, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution, if God zapped the first life onto earth, it doesn't affect evolution, if Odin created the first life from the bones of Ymir, it doesn't affect evolution.  

It is a fairy story.  If you have to say that life just happened but you have no clue how or why then saying evolution is a fact is a boldfaced lie!
So there is change and variation. You are saying blind random mutations are capable of creating different type of animals and it has been observed. That is not true.
Either admit this is all conjecture , not fact or tell me how life formed.




But new species did appear, I've all ready proved that.
That is an intellectually profound statement. There are animals so they must have appeared.
Brilliant!

Nah, the theory of evolution is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth, virtually all biologists agree.
And scientific illiterates like yourself is too lazy or afraid to find answers to his inconsequential questions have no bearing on the veracity of the theory of evolution, one of the strongest, most important theories in all of science.

It is the only humanist/atheistic explanation. All of you arguments ignore facts and eventually come back to most scientist agree.
If that was a good thing doctors would still wash their hands after surgery .
It is a childish , argument.
“And scientific illiterates like yourself is too lazy” Read that again please. It is funny don’t you think?

If you are such a genius what mammal became whales?
What ‘s the matter ? Is you too lazy?
Why is it important? If you believe God created the world would you not see bacteria mutate ? Exactly what does believing in nothing do to help you find oil and gas.? My Father found plenty and he believed it was deposited there by Noah’s Flood.
If you believe God created great whales would it mean that the law of inertia would change.
Please list anything that a person who believed in God creating all life by speaking it into existence could not do.



No it hasn't.  Thousands of transitional fossils have been found and more are being found every day.  And how does the discovery of still living descendents of the coelacanth disprove evolution.  You know that modern coelacanths are a completely different genus than the prehistoric variety.
That is not true. There are APPARENTLY extinct species of coelacanth ,s what . Are you so devoid of character as to say the living ‘fossil” coelacanth’s are not represented in the fossils and were not previously toted as proof of evolution and used to date rocks?
Have you no shame at all?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:02 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 5:02 PM on May 29, 2005 :
If you believe God created great whales would it mean that the law of inertia would change.
Please list anything that a person who believed in God creating all life by speaking it into existence could not do.


What... did I miss something... did you just get more stupid?

how are whales and inertia similar? Do you even know what inertia is? Have you ever seen a whale? How does this contibute to the argument?

O.K. back on track.

Peddler, you say genetic mutations/nondisjunction don't exist, but you have no evidence to back up these ridiculous lies. Of course they exist. I assume you know how chromosomes double and how that can lead to many problems in creating amino acids. Genetic mistakes are the result of Down's Syndrome. Also, I think we've already mentioned genteic variation in the human population due to the fact humans have such an advanced civilization that the weak survive as well but the fact is that you have at least once in your life come across a person who was bigger, stronger, and smarter than you. I assume due to that edge you would be defeated if locked in combat with him. I also happened to catch the word genetic drift and of course that is a contibutor to immediate limiting factors that make evolution happen at a quickened pace... that is all for now.

Also, stop quoting everything everone says, we're not mentally handicapped... I know what we're talking about from the last post. Don't be stupid. (this is to everyone) (I've also demonstrated the correct use of the quote tool, you see the short and concise object of my rant also it gets confusing reading the quote of a quote of a quote of a quote. Thank you)



-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand it I just don’t buy it. How do you explain vertebrates in what is called Pre-Cambrian sediment.?

You don't buy it?  Why not?  What evidence do you have to refute the observed fact that organisms don't evolve, populations do?
Vertabrates in the Pre-Cambrian?  What's the problem with that?  Vertebrates in Pre Cambrian sediment is quite easily explained, they evolved late in the Pre Cambrian era. Again, how does vertebrate fossils in the Pre Cambrian falsify evolution?

Answer the question. If you are backtracking on ENTIRE POPULATIONS evolving into different critters then show me evidence of your convergent theory or whatever such nonsense.

I already answered the question.  We see groups of organisms that no longer exist, dinosaurs, trilobites, thecodonts.  Yet we see closely related groups of animals still surviving.
What happened to the ENTIRE population of therapsids?  Why do the oldest fossils of therapsids closely resemble reptiles while the youngest fossils of therapsids resemble mammals?  The best explaination is that therapsids evovled into mammals.  Now show me evidence of your alternate theory of why life changed on earth...

You claim “Evolution is a Fact-The Theory of Evolution Proves It” this is circular
reasoning.


It's no more circular than "Gravity is a fact-theory and the theory of gravity proves it.  A theory explains a number of interrelated facts, evolution is a fact, allele frequencies in populations change over time, this is due to mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift and natural selection, these are the observed facts, supported by biology, paleontology, genetics, and the theory of evolution was proposed to explain these observed facts.  You still haven't explained how this is circular!

It is also a definitive statement and requires absolute knowledge.

No it's not, it's a statement based on an examination of all the empirical evidence.  Like everything in science it is only tenatively true as long as it's supported by the evidence, it requires no absolute knowledge.  As soon as someone provides evidence to refute it and a theory that BETTER explains the new evidence and all past evidence, science will reject evolution.  The problem (for you) is no evidence has been found yet that falsifies evolution.  Until that time evolution will remain the best conclusion we can draw from the evidence.

Enlighten me. Just so stories are not knowledge, there just stories.

Correct, the Bible is a "just so" story, it purports already disproven myths as reality.

Give me your proof that single cell organisms became eukaryote animalian organisms . While your out tell which single cell organism it was, after all evolution is a
fact.


Yes, evolution is a fact, we directly observe it.
The first single celled organism?  From the evidence so far, looks like it was some form of archaea.  From here:
Archaea
"Since their discovery in the Messel shales, isoprene compounds indicative of ancient Archaea have been found in numerous other localities (Hahn & Haug, 1986), including Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Precambrian sediments. Their chemical traces have even been found in sediments from the Isua district of west Greenland, the oldest known sediments on Earth at about 3.8 billion years old. This means that the Archaea (and life in general) appeared on Earth within one billion years of the planet's formation, and at a time when conditions were still quite inhospitable for life as we usually think of it."

The truth comes out when you get angry doesn’t it? You will “let” me define your RELIGION if I will “let” you define mine.

Hey, it was your idea, I was just shwoing you how stupid it was.  Yeah, your idea to decide what evolution is not, was pretty moronic, glad you agree with me!

The scientist at the Creation Research Institute http://www.creationresearch.org/   are experts in evolution theory. They understand it completely

Don't be ridiculous!  A quick look at their "selected articles" shows they have no scientific integrity, they're only another buncj\h of disgruntled creationists pretending to do science and ignoring all the evidence that contracicts there "truth".  They are in no way scientists.

I find the statement “work with it intimately” rather amusing.

Well, no wonder, you have no understanding of the scientific method or biology.

They most certainly understand it , debate them if you are not sure.

Better men than me already have and shredded their ignorant ramblings.

They define it as a fairy tale so I will accept that, we can agree and go from there.

Sure I will agree they call it a fairytale, but creation "scientists" do no research, they ignore evidence, have a habit of misquoting real scientists to make a point and are generally dishonest.

You miss the point.
All scientists have pre-suppositions, all humans do. It is impossible to do research without one.


No I don't miss the point.  I know all humans have presuppositions.  But creationists incorporate this gigantic bias into everything they do, all evidence MUST support creationism or it is ignored.  real scientists, on the other hand, strive to be completely objective, remeber "go where the evidence leads", and while all humans are biased to some degree the scientific method Is the most objective method we have to examine the natural world.  The peer review process is designed to prevent dogmatic conclusions from being accepted.  If the conclusions from experiments and observations can't be independently recreated or observed, an hypothesis will not be verified.  And scientists look to rip apart new theories and old.  they continually test them.  The biologist who falsifies the theory of evolution will become world famous!  The scientific method tries to eliminate bias, the creationist can't seperate himself from his presuppositions.

Newton wanted to find out what force held the planets in check and objects to the earth. So he created a what if question, made his pre-supposition, experimented, observed the evidence, and then formed his theory.

Yes and at no time did his theory mention the supernatural intervention of God.

His priori was that whatever this force was God created it .

Where did Newton provide any evidence that God created gravity...

If he could have believed that IT DID IT , somehow the laws of nature created themselves for no apparent reason and then made his assumptions , experiments etc. his answer would have been the same regardless of his worldview.

Newton's work said nothing about divine intervention and so it really has no bearing on this debate.  Newton described naturalistic forces in empirical terms and nowhere did he calculate the effect of God on these forces.

The origin of life requires an assumption. Creationist assume –believe- that the Bible is true and God spoke the Universe and all life into being and to reproduce after their kind.

But how do you reconcile that with all the instances of the Bible being wrong?

Therefore they interpret evidence in that light. It fits just fine.

No it doesn't because it's obvious that life has changed over billions of years, as supported by the fossil record.

They acknowledge that their beliefs are religious and it requires faith to believe. They don’t claim that Creation itself, how God did it is science.

That's all well and good, but why are fanatic creationists trying to force public schools to teach creationism as an alternative in science classes?  You want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, despite the evidence, fine, you want to believe in an impossible world wide flood, fine, you want to not believe in evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence, fine, but don't force your primitive myths down the throats of impressionable children, that only leads to a new age of ignorance.

The majority of the founders of science believe this and the Academic infrastructure that made scientific study possible was 100% Christian. Science as we know it would not exist without them.

But the majority of them didn't know about quantum theory, does that invalidate it?
The majority of them didn't know about the atomic theory, does that mean we can't really harness atomic power.  The majority of them didn't know rocket engines, does that mean we can't really explore space?  Other cultures had their share of scientific triumphs, Christianity isn't the sole creator of science.  and just because these men didn't know about evolution, doesn't mean they rejected it.  200 years ago creationism was the accepted scientific theory.  But Christian geologists were brave enough to resist their dogmatic views and prove that creationism was invalid.

Evolutionist assume there are no miracles from God.

First, there is no evidence for any miracles from God, so science can't study them.
Miracles are by definition supernatural and that puts them beyond Science's ability to study.

Where circular logic comes into play is that they are basing their interpretations on a theory they say is science when it is not.

This is a lie.  The theory of evolution is based on empirical observations and experiments and of course the TOE is science.

If a species goes extinct according to their interpretation it becomes scientific “proof’ they evolved into a completely different type of animal.

Once again, this is untrue.  They don't say every species that went extinct evolved into a different type of animal.  Scientists don't just see a species going extinct and assume it evolved into something else, they look at the evidence and draw the best suppoted conclusion from that evidence.  you simplify things to an absurd level.  Take my previous example of the therapsids.  the earliest therapsid fossilswere clearly reptilian.  But the younger the fossils sere the more they came to resemble mammals.  the clearly reptilian jaw joints of the earliest fossils had 4 bones in them, but as they got younger you can actually see three of these bones grow smaller and migrate upward to become the mammilian inner ear, while the jaw joint progressively becomes a mammilian jaw joint.
The best explaination for this, the only one that fits the evidence, is that therapsids evolved nto mammals.  you continue to ignore the evidence and manufacture your own erroneous scenarios and try to use them as evidence against evolution.  No one is buying it.

Dating is only accepted if it agrees with the pre-supposition of the age of the fossils in the strata.

This is an outright lie and I'd love to see how you defend it.  The fact is all dating methods concur.  There are 44 different radiometric dating techniques using different isotopes.  If radiometric dating was flawed, none of these methods would concur, but they all do.  if radiometric dating was flawed, none of these different methods would give us the same date ranges but they do.  Radiomteric dating is validated by ice core dating, lake varves, relative dating, dendrochronology.  Please demonstrate why all these methods are wrong and then explain why all these methods are wrong and give us the same date ranges.

It claims to be able to prove scientifically how life begins and then avoids the question of how life began.

If by "it" you mean the theory of evolution, it does not try to prove this. If you mean science, it makes no such claims. And biochemists do NOT avoid the question, they are studying the origins of life even as we speak.  You ignore my comments on proteinoids and the RNA world, very dishonest of you!

Read the Origin of the Species-Darwin never really talked about origins he only denied special creation, nothing has
changed.


Right, the book was called "Origin of the Species", not the "Origin of Life".  Once again, you can;t grasp the simple concept that evolution has nothing to do with the begining of life, only what happens after life exists.  If God poofed the first life onto a primitive earth, it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.  the processes that formed the first life were completely different and unrelated to the processesthat drive evolution.  this is a typical creationist tactic to lump all the science they don't understand and dogmatically reject under the same heading.  Sorry, it;s not going to work.

Long ago and far far away.

In the begining God created...

Any belief about origins is a faith, not science. Creationist wear their faith proudly, evolutionist hide theirs.

Nope, creationists revel in their ignorance, scientists say we don't know yet, but we're investigating.

How was it observed that mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift, natural selection caused populations to change?

By observing and testing wild populations, by conducting extensive experiments on organisms like the fruit fly and comparing the data.  By studying thefossil record.  basic scientific method.

It was observed that they changed to a degree. Not what caused it.

Nope, wrong again, with the advent of gene mapping and studying genetic clocks, we can see when a mutation occurred and what effect it had on the phenotype of the organism.  So yes, they can see when it occurred and what caused it.  Don't you do ANY research?!?!?!

It was never been observed that they change into a different type of animal.

You still don't understand evolution!  All it does is evolve new species, not a different type of animal.  But with enough changes, different species can be dramatically different.
Speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab, evolution has been confirmed, it is a fact.  That we have living transitional organisms alive today and thousands of transitional fossils, along with independent evidence from genetics, supports overwhelmingly the theory of evolution and completely falsifies creationism.

It was believed by faith that there was a materialistic explanation so a story was created to explain it

Nope, it was empirically observed and tested, no faith involved at all.

Not so simple.  If that was all there was to it there would be no need for children to resemble their parents. They do
however.


What?!?  Of course it's simple, haven't you ever heard of heredity??  Are you going to try and tell us Mendel was wrong also?  That is all there is to "geneitic variation", mutation, sexual selection, genetic drift and natrual selection.  Children resemble their parents because of genetics, most traits are inherited.
I asked you what else drives "genetic variation", looks like you've dodged the question AGAIN.

The point is although these are factors “genetic variation” does not include mammals becoming whales. That has never been observed, it is a fairy tale.

And again, you are wrong.  The evidence is overwhelming, the successive fossils show conclusively that whales evolved from land animals.  The vestigial structures in modern whales show they evolved from land animals, the fact that whales, totally aquatic organisms, have lungs and need to breath air shows that whales evovled from land animals,
the fact that whales get the bends shows that they evolved from land animals.  I mean, what kind of "intelligent designer" makes an organism that lives in water but must breath air?!?  How stupid isthat?  Or an animal like the sperm whale that must dive thousands of feet below the surface to hunt for food gets the bends?  Let's face it, this design is best explained by UNintelligent, nonrandom  design
and that's just what evolution is.

That is a fairy tale as well. Give me an example of it ever happening.

no it's not, it's the best supported conclusion.  As for an example, the therapsids.

Why do you keep talking about speciation when that is irrelevant?

Because speciation IS macro evolution and it's the ONLY thing relevant in the theory of evolution.  All evolution does is evolve new species.  But with enough distance, those new species can be vastly diferent from the orignal ancestor.  Your failure to grasp the importance of speciation shows you just don't understand evolution or biology.

I want your proof that one animal became another type of animal, not that certain animals can no longer breed. You have no answer and are dodging the question.

Of course I'm not dodging the question, I've already mentioned the platypus and the lungfisn as examples of one animal turning into a different animal.  And I've mentioned numerous fossils that are clearly transitional.  Let me list them AGAIN. Archaeoptyrix, Acanthostega, the entire line of therapsids, just to name few.

Why do you keep babbling on ad nauseum about animals that can no longer breed. That is not the question I asked.

Geez, still don't understand evolution...You're the only one babbling here.

There is no fossil record only a lot of fossils . No missing link has ever been found , only missing chains.

of course there is a fossil record, go to any museum to see part of it.  Plenty of transitionals found, thousands of them actually.  Plenty of chains of fossil evidence found, all you have to do is look.  Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?!?!

Who observed which animal becoming a different type of animal? What were the animals and please provide some pics, I can’t wait to see them.

I allready gave you plenty of examples, do your own research now!  And by the way, I defy you to show me God poofing an animal into existance!  Go ahead, until you that, I and all the world's biologists will accept evolution.

You have a short memory, don’t you? You called me a liar an an idiot incapable of understanding evolution because I said that evolution teaches that one type of animal becomes another. You said Entire Populations of one kind of animal become another. I asked what Entire POPULATION of organism’s became the first Entire Population animals. You don’t know but you say it is a fact.

You are an idiot!  I said populations evolve, not single organisms, I didn't say ENTIRE populations, you shoehorned that into the discussion and it's totally irrelevant!  We can say all life descended from a common ancestor for a number of reasons, why don't you look them up and when you get a clue, come back and discuss it...I refuse to do all your research for you.

So some dinosaurs died out. That proves they died out. For every example of some evolutionist’s interpretation of morphology I will find you another evolutionists that disagrees.

but you will find NO evolutionist that disagrees that they did evolve.  the evidence is overwhelming, they did evolve, what the exact lineage is will become more clear as more fossils are found and better technology utilized to study them.  The point is, all the evidence supports evolution, all the evidence falsifies creatinism.

Give me an example. Which population or partial population of land mammals became whales? This is a fact so say so be specific.

From here:
FirstWhale
"Pakicetids were the first cetaceans, and they are more primitive than other whales in most respects.  In fact, they did not look like whales at all, and did not live in the sea.  Instead they lived on land, and may have fed while wading in shallow streams.  Fossils of pakicetids are only found in Pakistan and Northwestern India, and it is likely that cetaceans originated there."
Now your turn, show me evidence of God magically poofing a whale into existance, be specific, I'll need names of witnesses, the coroborating evidence, and a picture of Him actually doing it would be appreciated, if you can't do this, then you'll have to admit that whales evolved from land anmals...

It was created that way.

Prove it.

It appears that the earliest reconstruction of Ichthyostega as a creature at home in the water was more accurate than later ones portraying it on land.

Then why did Ichtyostega have both lungs and gills?  Why was it part fish and part amphibian?  Why isn't evolution the best explaination?

Facts don’t need more evidence. How could you know it was a fact without enough evidence!  A fact is a fact is a fact. Admit it is an unproven opinion based on your favorite interpretation of the evidence. You are only fooling yourself.

Answer the question, gravity is fact, the theory of gravity explainsit, how is this different from evolution? your the one who doesn't understand what a fact is, moron!
I never said facts need evidence, facts ARE evidence!  facts need explanations.  TheFACT of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution!

My ignorance is showing? Are you saying that these interpretations are facts? Ever heard of Feduccia , or Olsan ?
Is Colin Patterson a liar and an idiot?


No the only idiot here is you!  I'm saying that all my examples ARE transitional fossils, that you don't know what a transitional fossil is.
Feduccia, Olsan and Patterson all agree with me, species is the only meaningful concept in evolution.  They also agree that all my examples ARE transitional fossils.  Show me any evidence that they would disagree!  Yes, I know Feduccia and Olsan's view on bird evolution, but according to biology Archeaopteryx IS a transitional fossil, it has both avian characteristicsw and dinosaurian characteristics.  Whether it is directly ancestral between dinos and birds doesn't matter, it's sitll transitional and Feduccia, Olsan and Patterson would all agree.  So the only one I'm calling a liar and idiot is YOU!

“There is not a single shred of observational evidence showing that natural selection has ever caused any living thing to evolve. A noted evolutionist, British paleontologist Colin Patterson confesses this fact:

Ahyes, this dishonest misquote of Dr. Pattersons.  Let's see what he had to say about this:
From here:
Patterson
"I decided to get to the bottom of the matter. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.). My first step was to read the book. (I believe it is now out of print, but most university libraries should have a copy.) Anyone who has actually read the book can hardly say that Patterson believed in the absence of transitional forms. For example (p131-133):


"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ." "
Read the whole page, you'll see that Patterson in no way agres with the insipid misquote you printed.  You and your sources are dishonest liars.

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection

Of course not, they were controlled experiments, new species were produced by artificially mimicking natural selection!  but new species were produced, you are again proven wrong!

There is no debate over natural selection existing , only if it can turn fish to amphibians etc. Dobzhansky  unwittingly proved it cannot happen. Are you saying it did?
Are you awake?


Are you on drugs?!?!  His experiments showed that natural selection worked, that new pecies were produced, this only confirms evolution!  He wasn't trying to demonstrate fish turning into amphibians, this is shown clearly in the fossil record.  

Why did it not happen? If your theory is true it would have.

you don't understand the theory of evolution, so you can't determine what makes it true or not.  These experiments demonstrated the mechanics of heredity, just what they were intended to do, new species did arise, evolution is verified.

How do you know the inability to interbreed turns fish into frogs?

Empirical observations.

What evidence? –what have I refused to look at? You are making up stories. Don’t tell me biology proves ,it give me the observational evidence.

Already have numerous times, you refuse to look at it.
There are none so blind...

Tell me how the first cell formed, what it was , and how it turned into an animal or admit this is not science!

Tell me how God created the earth, give me evidence that he magically poofed everything into existance or admit that your religion is just a silly myth amd your a moron for following it.

Variation is self-explanatory. Some people have blue eyes some green. Some tall , some short. Are you really that dense?

No your the one who is stupid!  yes, some people have blue eyes, some green, etc...  But WHY!  What causes it?  What causes this "variation", you keep babbling on but you refuse to answer the question!

Prove it was not created that way!

First we see fish with swim bladders and no lungs, then we see fish with something inbetween a swim bladder and a lung in the same place the swim bladder was in, then we see fish with no swim bladder and only a lung in the same l\place the swim bladder was in.
We see a progression.  now prove it was created, list the evidence to support your claim...

It is a fairy story.

You keep saying that about evolution, but you haven't been able to refute any of the evidence supporting evolution.  After all this time you still demonstrate you don't even understand evolution.  Your only response to the evidence is "thats absurd".  Not only that, you have no evidence to support your own personal theory of creation, not one scrap of evidence to support divine itnervention, not even one scrapofevidence to support the esixtance of God...you're losing ground rapidly.

If you have to say that life just happened but you have no clue how or why then saying evolution is a fact is a boldfaced lie!

Why moron!  What do the chemical reactions that triggered organic molecules to organize into self replicating molecules then to organize into life have to do with the processes of evolution???  You still can't answer that.  the only one lieing here is you!

So there is change and variation. You are saying blind random mutations are capable of creating different type of animals and it has been observed. That is not true.

random mutations selected by the environment...and yes it is true,  your dogmatic refusal to accept the evidence doesn't change reality.

Either admit this is all conjecture , not fact or tell me how life formed.

Once again, how life formed has nothing to do with evolution.

That is an intellectually profound statement. There are animals so they must have appeared.
Brilliant!


you said no new species have ever been formed, I proved youwrong by showing examples of new species being observed to arise.  Thank you for calling that simple bit of research brilliant!

It is the only humanist/atheistic explanation. All of you arguments ignore facts and eventually come back to most scientist agree.

Liar,  evolutin ignores no facts, it is supported by all the evidence and 99.9% of the biologists in the U.S.A. accept evolution.  It is the basis for modern biology,nothing in biology makes sense unlessviewed through evolution.  Evolution is successfully used in industry, agriculture, animal husbandry and is the cornerstone of modern medicine.

If you are such a genius what mammal became whales?

Pakicetus

What ‘s the matter ? Is you too lazy?

No, but you are...

Why is it important? If you believe God created the world would you not see bacteria mutate ? Exactly what does believing in nothing do to help you find oil and gas.?

Interesting you mention oil and gas, they are found using anti creationist concepts.  So yes, disbelieving in the bible does help us find oilo and gas!

That is not true. There are APPARENTLY extinct species of coelacanth ,s what . Are you so devoid of character as to say the living ‘fossil” coelacanth’s are not represented in the fossils and were not previously toted as proof of evolution and used to date rocks?
Have you no shame at all?


your the one with no shame orinteligence!  The modern coelacanth is not the same as the coelacanths found in the fossil record.  True, we thought all coelacanths had died out but that's because the ones alive today live in very remote, inaccessable locations.  But the fact remains, looking at the fossil remains of coelacanths and the modern ones living today, they have EVOLVED!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:36 PM on May 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Lord Iorek at 6:47 PM on May 29,

What... did I miss something... did you just get more stupid?

how are whales and inertia similar? Do you even know what inertia is? Have you ever seen a whale? How does this contibute to the argument?

You are the one that claims a belief in creation makes it impossible to study science.
By your logic Airplanes don't really fly beacuse Wilber and Orville were creationist.
Yes I have seen a whale. Have you ever seen another kind of animal morph into one?

Peddler, you say genetic mutations/nondisjunction don't exist, but you have no evidence to back up these ridiculous lies. Of course they exist. I assume you know how chromosomes double and how that can lead to many problems in creating amino acids. Genetic mistakes are the result of Down's Syndrome. Also, I think we've already mentioned genteic variation in the human population due to the fact humans have such an advanced civilization that the weak survive as well but the fact is that you have at least once in your life come across a person who was bigger, stronger, and smarter than you. I assume due to that edge you would be defeated if locked in combat with him. I also happened to catch the word genetic drift and of course that is a contibutor to immediate limiting factors that make evolution happen at a quickened pace... that is all for now.

Mutations exist , evidence they cause transmutation of species does not. Natural selection exist but evidence it causes trans-mutation of species does not.
Long ago and far far away is a fairy tale not science.




(Edited by peddler8111 5/30/2005 at 01:02 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:59 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes long ago and far far away don't make up science.
Such that long ago far far away in the garden of eden... get where I'm going with this?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:18 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 08:18 AM on May 30, 2005 :
Yes long ago and far far away don't make up science.
Such that long ago far far away in the garden of eden... get where I'm going with this?

The Garden of Eden is part of a religious belief, long ago and far far away animals trans-mutated is also.
I am proud of my religion, you deny yours.
Get where I am going with this?




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:02 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 12:24 PM on May 29, 2005 :

Peddler he was trying to clear up a misconception, not prove you wrong.

Perhaps you have the misconception that I don't know the story. The point is evolution was designed from the beginning as an alternative to Christianity, the belief in a Creator God. This is evident from simply reading the preface of Origin's. Darwin boldly states that special creation s eroneous . That is a religious belief , not science. Science has no way to know that. It can look at bones and form an opinion [s] as to how they came about but that is all. No one was there in the distant past to observe, at least not any humans. I choose to believe the Bible tells the true history of the event and science has in no way disproved that. It cannot .
By the same token science cannot prove it either.
Any "theory" of human origins is speculation , however real it seems to you, not scientific knowledge.
I have heard so many different versions of the evolution story it gives me a headache. The one I was taught in school is no longer recognisable.
When evolution came under fire from within as well as from the Creationist they did a masterful job of dodging the issue of origins because it is their achilles heel, as Darwin obviously knew since he never talked about them. He denied the existence of a Creator God but never really gave an alternative, just a scenario for what happened later and let the reader fill in the blanks. He was a master politcian and knew that a direct challenge to Christianity would be unwise.
Nothing has changed. Evolutionist court the church and say science is nuetral about the existence of God. Science maybe but scientist are not. Evolution -particles to people  evolution- is not science and absolutely denies the existence of a Creator God , the God of the Bible.

My basic question is this. What organism , partial population of organisms , or entire population of animals became the first animal , the first population of animals or the first partial population of animals. I don't care if you  believe in an original population of single celled organisms or a single one , take you pick, I don't care.
If you can't answer the question of how life began or where the first animal [s] came from you how can honestly claim this is science? It is a personal belief , a faith.
I interpret the fossil evidence as proof of God's existence and I don't claim the act of Creation is a scientific fact. Evolutionst interpret the fossils as proof of slow gradulal change, although it display's the exact opposite, and then claim  their version of creation is a scientific fact. Then they refuse to talk about it.
Tell me about your religion and I will tell you about my religion.


"Here, lets backtrack a bit, shall we? I'll give you an example of one species becoming another.

Lets say that in a population there are ten families of birds. A drought occurs on the island that the birds inhabit. Let us say that this drought causes all of the soft-seeds on the island to die out, leaving only hard seeds to survive (assume that the only food source for these birds are the seeds). Let us say that 6 of the 10 families of birds die out, because they cannot, for instance, crack open the these "hard seeds." They die.

The remaining 4 families survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. Lets say the 4 surviving families all had big beaks, which allowed them to eat the hard seeds. Now all the birds on the island, in the population, have big beaks. The birds have been naturally selected to survive. Simply because in the population of birds, there was variation.

If you are refering to the Galapogos Island finches you are terribly misinformed. During dry years the Finches became dominate and in the wet years the small beaked one became dominate. This has been observed for a very long time back and forth. The difference in beek size ranges to about 10 mm . This proves the genetic variability is in the DNA of all the Finches or Natural Selection would have wiped out all the small beeked birds long ago.
The fact that interbreed must have escaped you as well.


Another issue some people have is species. What is a species? There are many ways telling how two specimens are different species, my personal favorite is the Biological Species classification method.

It states that two organisms are different species if they mate and cannot physcially produce offspring (When two things of the same species mate and don't produce offspring, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are different species). However, there are exceptions -- a horse can mate with a donkey, and you get a mule. SO.. there is a second part to the definition.
I will agree to accept your favorite definition of species if you will accept my definition of kinds. For example a dog and a wolf are the same kind of animal -by your definition the same species in this case because they can interbred- A Zebra and a Horse are the same kind of animal as well. We both know what the other means and if we are honest that is all that matters , is it not? No one has all the answers. There are animals I can't say if they are the same kind or not , their are species you can't say for sure about either.

Notice-- When a mule mates with a mule, you don't get a mule. In fact, you don't get anything at all. Mules cannot breed and create fertile offspring. Nothing happens. Their DNA codes are so mixed up that the sperm does not provide the DNA that the egg needs in order to fertilize.
I live on a farm, enough said.

There are other ways of telling the difference between species. One of the easiest is whether or not they look the same, both on the inside and out. That is the morphological method. There are exceptions-- the Verdona (or whatever its called) looks exactly like the Monarch butterfly. Aren't they the same species then? No. In cases like that, other methods, such as the biological species method, is used to explain why they are different species.
Like I said no one has all the answers, I have no problem with your definition , do you have a problem with mine?
I did pass 8th grade biology .


There is an old post of mine. Did you note that the birds with big beaks survive? Enough changes like this, or enough selection pressures to change, can make one species change to another. Only problem is it takes a long time, which would explain the old age of the earth.

I am very familiar with the Finches on the Galapogos , it is you who are misinformed. Please read what the scientist who actually study the birds say.
"
The two scholars, Drs. Peter and Rosemary Grant observed how, under drought conditions, birds with larger beaks were better adapted than others, thus their percentage increased. But this trend reversed when the cyclical conditions reversed. Furthermore, in times of drought, the normally separate species were observed to cross-breed."

How can even in your wildest imagination come to the conclusion that this proves the Earth is old?

I believe you are listening to talk/origins and the National Center for Selling Evolution instead of reading the scientific information .
Your statements make no sense scientifically, they are political/religious.
What the study has proven is that Natural Selection does not create new life forms . It does seem to help preserve them but the genetic variability that God implanted in these Creatures at the moment of creation is what it acts on.
By your definition the finches are all the same species.
By mine they are all the same kind.
At last a point of agreement , I think.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:28 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you have the misconception that I don't know the story. The point is evolution was designed from the beginning as an alternative to Christianity, the belief in a Creator God.

This is a lie.

This is evident from simply reading the preface of Origin's. Darwin boldly states that special creation s eroneous .

Looking at the evidence, special  creation is erroneous.

That is a religious belief , not science.

How is drawing conclusions from empirical evidence a religious belief?!?

Science has no way to know that. It can look at bones and form an opinion [s] as to how they came about but that is all.

Bones and fossils are empirical evidence.  Much can be determined from studying them. If we find fossils that have characteristics of different classes of animals, transitional fossils,
clearly special creation is wrong.   Since we HAVE found transitional fossils, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and dinosaurs, between dinosaurs and birds, between reptiles and mammals, the logical, best supported conclusion is evolution.  What evidence do you have for special creation?!?

No one was there in the distant past to observe, at least not any humans.

Most phenomenon in science can't be observed.  The eye witness account is the least reliable anyway.  We must always rely on the evidence because it doesn't change.  

I choose to believe the Bible tells the true history of the event and science has in no way disproved that.

you chose to be ignorant.  But science has disproven creationism, not creation, but the failed scientific theory called creationism.

By the same token science cannot prove it either.

Here is another example of your ignorance of science.  Science proves nothing!  Theories in science are either supported by the evidence or falsified by it.  Evolution is completely supported by all the evidence found to date in multiple fields of science.  Creationism has been totally falsified.  If you knew anything about science, you would know this.

Any "theory" of human origins is speculation

If it's a scientific theory, then it's not speculation.  human origins are not speculation, they are based on multiple lines of evidence and are therefore quite valid.

I have heard so many different versions of the evolution story it gives me a headache

From dishonest, inaccurate and scientifically ignorant creationist sources, no wonder you have a headache!

When evolution came under fire from within as well as from the Creationist they did a masterful job of dodging the issue of origins because it is their achilles heel,

You never could explain how abiogenesis is related to evolution, you just continue to lie through your teeth and dodge the question.

Evolution -particles to people  evolution- is not science

You're right, it's not science, it's a made up ignorant rant and creationists like you pretend it descibes evolution but you're not fooling anyone.  Evolution does not describe "particles to people".

and absolutely denies the existence of a Creator God , the God of the Bible.

Then why do the majority of the world's christians accept evolution?

My basic question is this. What organism , partial population of organisms , or entire population of animals became the first animal , the first population of animals or the first partial population of animals.

How does your lack of knowledge falsify the theory of evolution?  Do a little research!

If you can't answer the question of how life began or where the first animal [s] came from you how can honestly claim this is science?

Looking at the fossil record, looking at genetics, looking at twin nested hierarchies, looking at biogeography, looking at ERV's, how can you honestly deny evolution?  

It is a personal belief , a faith.

Nope, it's a scientific theory empirically supported by multiple lines of evidence form many disciplines of science.  Your ignorance does nothing to falsify it.

interpret the fossil evidence as proof of God's existence

What are your qualifications to do this, what knowledge of fossils do you posses?  Have your interpretations been subjected to the peer review processes?  Why should we even care what your interpretations are?

Evolutionst interpret the fossils as proof of slow gradulal change, although it display's the exact opposite

Put up or shut up, the fossil record IS evidence of change through time, what evidence do you have that it's not?  You never are able to support your stupid claims with any evidence, why is that?

Then they refuse to talk about it.

Another lie, I'm talking about it right now, you can't provide any evidence to support your claim, I have shown numerous clearly transitional fossils and lines of fossils that obviously show change, you have given us nothing but your incredulity as evidence.

If you are refering to the Galapogos Island finches you are terribly misinformed. During dry years the Finches became dominate and in the wet years the small beaked one became dominate.

Sorry, as you've continually proven to us, you are the one misinformed.  You still don't know how evolution works.

I will agree to accept your favorite definition of species if you will accept my definition of kinds

No dice, kinds is a meaningless, worthless description and has no place in any scientific discussions.

You keep ignoring the evidence, you don't understand science and evolution, and you use this as your only evidence.  Guess what,
your ignorance proves only one thing, YOUR IGNORANT!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:02 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Evolution does not denie God. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. NOTHING MORE! Evolution is not out to explain the begining of life, as far as evolution is concerned, god may have created the first life. hence the majority of christians belive evolution. Now abiogenesis is what explains the origins of life and has much more evidence than special creation.

2. Evolution is not simply out there to disprove christianity. Charles Darwin was a christian! He kept his research secret for years because it went against the bible.

3. Instead of failing to disprove evolution, why don't you try proving creation. You seem to presume if evolution is wrong then christian creation is correct. This however is not the case, if evidence arises that disproves evolution (doesn't look like itys going to happen) there will be a surge of scientists working on a knew theory. And even if this came up with nothing, what is to prove that christian creation is correct, rather than hindu or muslim creation.

4. You say noone was there to witness the distant past... Did someone witness special creation?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 1:23 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:02 PM on May 30, 2005 :
Perhaps you have the misconception that I don't know the story. The point is evolution was designed from the beginning as an alternative to Christianity, the belief in a Creator God.

This is a lie.
Are you saying Darwin did not say special creation was erroneous in the preface of origins or is calling me a liar the most intelligent response you can muster?
I will show you since you are apparently so ignorant of your own fairy tale that a "stupid " creationist must teach it to you.
" I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained--namely, that each species has been independently created--is erroneous

http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/lifesciences/OntheOriginoftheSpecies/chap1.html

Actually it is in the introduction , not the preface. But of course according to you that was a lie to, not a mistake.

You owe me an apology for calling me a liar. Darwin did say that a Creator God does not exist. Here is the proof. Check for yourself.
If you call me a liar again it will only prove you have no honor and no character whatsoever.
I may be  wrong but I do not lie.
I am not wrong in this case, you are in the dark as to what Darwin thought because you have not read him . Or if you have you need to do so again.


Looking at the evidence, special  creation is erroneous.
You just got through calling me a liar for saying Darwin said that. You are a sorry excuse for a human being.
It may seem erroneous to you looking through the glasses of an atheist. Darwin admitted that life appeared designed.
Opinions are not fact.
You can't see the difference.



How is drawing conclusions from empirical evidence a religious belief?
First of all the theory was formed long before there was much evidence. Secondly most of it was misinterpreted and has been completely reworked.
There is no empirical evidence for trans-mutation of species. At best it is an opinion. To state it as fact is a religious belief not science.
Evolutionist don't even agree on most of it.
You quote it as gospel .Any evidence that contradicts it you attack the messenger and call them a liar. Science welcomes challenges  you won't allow them.

Bones and fossils are empirical evidence.  Much can be determined from studying them. If we find fossils that have characteristics of different classes of animals, transitional fossils,
clearly special creation is wrong.   Since we HAVE found transitional fossils, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and dinosaurs, between dinosaurs and birds, between reptiles and mammals, the logical, best supported conclusion is evolution.  What evidence do you have for special creation?!?
The same evidence you say is for evolution. If you cannot understand that evidence does not speak for itself you will be doomed to be told what to think . not how to.
Creation says that animals will produce after their kind. In the history of the world that is exactly what has been observed.
Animals appear suddenly with no fossil ancestors.  

You can look at bones and make up stories but if evolution was true the evidence would be  overwhelming. It is not. All the bones that "prove" human evolution would fit in a sailors duffle bag.
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802




"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part ofscience, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma,

Master Books 1988, p89)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ...
is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"We have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the views of conservative creationists." (Evolutionist

Edmund Ambrose)


Most phenomenon in science can't be observed.  The eye witness account is the least reliable anyway.  We must always rely on the evidence because it doesn't change.  
Evidence does not speak for itself. Why would we need detectives if that was the case? Why would we need courts? That should be easy enough for a child to grasp, why can't you?

you chose to be ignorant.  But science has disproven creationism, not creation, but the failed scientific theory called creationism.
There is no scientific theory called creationism. There are scientist that start with the assumtion that Genesis is history and those who don't. There are many many scientist who adhere to naturalism/humanism . Is there a scienctific theory called humanism? Is naturalism scientific?
Evolution is the anti-thesis of Christianity. Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ was the Creator of the Universe. If special creation is erroneous as you say then according to you creation , and Christianity have been falsified.
If that is your posistion just go with it.


Here is another example of your ignorance of science.  Science proves nothing!  Theories in science are either supported by the evidence or falsified by it.  Evolution is completely supported by all the evidence found to date in multiple fields of science.  Creationism has been totally falsified.  If you knew anything about science, you would know this.

Again you are saying Creation is falsified. If you knew anything about reality you would realize what you are saying.
You say evolution is fact . If it is a fact it does not need support. Evidence is not proof. You say science does not prove anything and then say it has disproved creation and proved evolution.
Are you aware of what you say?
It's funny how disingenuous evolutionist are. If I say geology , astronomy etc, the big bang etc. are part of evolution theory because the long ago and far far away story must jive I am an idiot and don't undrstand science. You say evolution has been proved by multiple fields of science.
And you constantly call me a liar. You have the mind of a child .

If it's a scientific theory, then it's not speculation.  human origins are not speculation, they are based on multiple lines of evidence and are therefore quite valid.
A pile of bone fragments that would not cover a billiard table?
It is pure speculation. It is called a theory but you are correct, it is not.

From dishonest, inaccurate and scientifically ignorant creationist sources, no wonder you have a headache!
No from evolutionist themselves. No one could be more dishonest than you. All you do is attack people and call them liars. You have no class.
I am constantly told that evolution is a better theory because it change s with new evidence. Now you tell me it dosen't. I am amazed you can remember to breathe.

You never could explain how abiogenesis is related to evolution, you just continue to lie through your teeth and dodge the question.
If there is no Creator God then spontaneous generation is the only alternitive. There , I explained it. You called me a liar again. I really have nothing else to say to you. You are a miserable excuse for a human being.


You're right, it's not science, it's a made up ignorant rant and creationists like you pretend it descibes evolution but you're not fooling anyone.  Evolution does not describe "particles to people".

How did life begin? Tell me or I have every right to thing of you as a worthless excuse for a human being.
You attack me because you have no answer. Nothing cannot evolve! Dead things cannot evolve!

Then why do the majority of the world's christians accept evolution?

Because they prefer to base their faith on unproven science that has gone so far as to murder inoccent human being for museum displays and create fakes like the piltdown man and the "piltdown' bird.
Just because you sit in a chicken house for an hour on sunday dosen't make your a chicken.
The Gate to Hell is Wide. Go thru the Narrow  Gate.
If you deny what the Bible says. That Jesus Christ was the Creator of the Universe then you are not a Christian. Christ means Messiah , God on Earth, you can't call Him a liar and then say you worship hip as your Savior. Maybe you can be  a Jesus freak. They have created their own god to appease the atheist scientist.
The same reason 75% of children lose their faith the first year of college.
I refuse to debate theology with you , I refuse to debate anymore with someone who's best argument is Liar Liar Pant's on Fire .


How does your lack of knowledge falsify the theory of evolution?  Do a little research!
Iask you a direct question and this is your response. And you have the gall to call me a liar. What was the first organism and what animal did it become?-or population if you like. If you cannot answer your theory is a fairy tale, not science. It's like saying you understand nuclear power but how the reaction starts is not part of the science.
Like saying you are a computer scientist but have no clue what a boot sequence is.
It is absurd.

Looking at the fossil record, looking at genetics, looking at twin nested hierarchies, looking at biogeography, looking at ERV's, how can you honestly deny evolution?  

Because the fossils appear suddenly not in slow gradual changes.
How can you dent reality. Well I guess that is easy for someone eho thinks reality had a beginning.



Nope, it's a scientific theory empirically supported by multiple lines of evidence form many disciplines of science.  Your ignorance does nothing to falsify it.

Ignorance is believing you can look at a bone and state with absolute authority that it has turned into another form of life and that explains it's extinction. It is hearing an echo when you think.

What are your qualifications to do this, what knowledge of fossils do you posses?  Have your interpretations been subjected to the peer review processes?  Why should we even care what your interpretations are?

if you are trying to say you are a peer revieved  scientist I say you are a delusional retard.

[Put up or shut up, the fossil record IS evidence of change through time, what evidence do you have that it's not?  You never are able to support your stupid claims with any evidence, why is that?
the coleocanth idiot , The cambrian explosion. It is up to you to prove your fact of evolution. All you do is name a fossil and say there , they ar extinct that proves it. Or we can look at bones and if I say they are transistionals they are. If some qualified evolutionist disagree with you they are idiots.
The truth is relative to you , to me it's an absolute.

Another lie, I'm talking about it right now, you can't provide any evidence to support your claim, I have shown numerous clearly transitional fossils and lines of fossils that obviously show change, you have given us nothing but your incredulity as evidence.

That is it . The question was what was the first organism and you call me a liar again .
You cannot answer the question so you call me a liar. It is the best you can do .




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:57 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 1:23 PM on May 30, 2005 :
1. Evolution does not denie God. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. NOTHING MORE! Evolution is not out to explain the begining of life, as far as evolution is concerned, god may have created the first life. hence the majority of christians belive evolution. Now abiogenesis is what explains the origins of life and has much more evidence than special creation.
Jesus Christ is God. He is the creator of all things.
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2  The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3  All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.
To say that evolution does not deny God is a political statement , not fact. it worships cronos and chaos , time and chance. It chategoriclly denies the existence of the God of the Bible. Read the introduction to Origins , this is not new. If it denies creation it denies the existence of a creator God.
Evolutionist are deceitful with the use of words. Here is the dictionaries definition of religion.

re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You cannot tell me that evolution does not deny my religion, the creator God.You  can create your own god to agree with atheistic naturalism does nothing to change that fact.



2. Evolution is not simply out there to disprove christianity. Charles Darwin was a christian! He kept his research secret for years because it went against the bible.
He "was" a Christian so "were" Hitler , Stalin , Marks , Engles , and Haeckel. So what does that prove? Ir proves they all became atheist after accepting evolution and that is the purpose of evolution. I cannot imagine why you used that analogy, it is absurd to the highest degree.

3. Instead of failing to disprove evolution, why don't you try proving creation. You seem to presume if evolution is wrong then christian creation is correct. This however is not the case, if evidence arises that disproves evolution (doesn't look like itys going to happen) there will be a surge of scientists working on a knew theory. And even if this came up with nothing, what is to prove that christian creation is correct, rather than hindu or muslim creation.
Muslim creation is quite similar . As far as the Hindus they are welcome to present their case. However it is not something that science can prove. How God created life is something only He knows. Science has to interpet evidence . Atheist see evolution , Christians see creation. Many "christians" are led around by the atheist and believe ehat their told to believe.
There is no third theory.
It is absurd to say that science would create a new theory. How circular can you think. I doubt many scientist who believe in evolution would say that. I can quote several that say the opposite, very famous respected ones. And they mean that,
Only politicians talk about a third theory.
Either evolution is true or the bible is true.
The Bible is a religious book. The burden of proof is on you.

4. You say noone was there to witness the distant past... Did someone witness special creation?
No human was there then I believe is what I said. The creator was there. He left us a book telling us how He did it. You should read it sometime.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 7:33 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. No it goes against the bible, not god!

2. Yes he "was" a christian, but now he is dead, he remained a christian until he died.

3. A third theroy would apear becuase if the evidence disproved evolution it would surgest somthing else, somthing we have not considered, however this is unlikly because all the evidence found so far suport evolution. We have proved evolution, you just choose to be ignourant and ignour it.

4. No MAN wrote the bible later, NOT GOD, but which one of the many religious books is his true book? Oh and I have read the bible, or at least most of it, and its pritty much complete unsuported outdated rubish, although the "morals" are a good way of controling society.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:00 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whoa, Peter, you just said what I've said multiple times. Especially the fourth point.

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:59 AM on May 30, 2005 :
[b]Quote from Lord Iorek at 6:47 PM on May 29,

What... did I miss something... did you just get more stupid?

how are whales and inertia similar? Do you even know what inertia is? Have you ever seen a whale? How does this contibute to the argument?

You are the one that claims a belief in creation makes it impossible to study science.
By your logic Airplanes don't really fly beacuse Wilber and Orville were creationist.
Yes I have seen a whale. Have you ever seen another kind of animal morph into one?

Peddler, you say genetic mutations/nondisjunction don't exist, but you have no evidence to back up these ridiculous lies. Of course they exist. I assume you know how chromosomes double and how that can lead to many problems in creating amino acids. Genetic mistakes are the result of Down's Syndrome. Also, I think we've already mentioned genteic variation in the human population due to the fact humans have such an advanced civilization that the weak survive as well but the fact is that you have at least once in your life come across a person who was bigger, stronger, and smarter than you. I assume due to that edge you would be defeated if locked in combat with him. I also happened to catch the word genetic drift and of course that is a contibutor to immediate limiting factors that make evolution happen at a quickened pace... that is all for now.

Mutations exist , evidence they cause transmutation of species does not. Natural selection exist but evidence it causes trans-mutation of species does not.
Long ago and far far away is a fairy tale not science.




(Edited by peddler8111 5/30/2005 at 01:02 AM).



I never said crwationist couldn't study science I just said that evolution has cold hard proof/evidence/observations of Evolution of which you tend to ignore (and not understand).

"By my logic"... what are you smoking? an airplane is not a living organism, it is not pure organic matter and yes the Wright Bros made it and there is definite proof that they made. They flew it, there were witnesses. However, no human was around to see if there is an intelligent creator and therefore you cannot say you are more right than we. The bible also has no proof it was written by god, oh wait that's right it says so in the Bible it must be true (see Fox's circular logic patter).

But no you fall short again, you forget that humans have an imagination and the ability to have occasional hallucinations especially in the HOT weather such as a desert (there weren't deserts in the Bible were there?[sarcasm alert])

And if he was so involved then, why doesn't he crush a city like Soddom and Gamorah (too lazy to find the correct spelling) or some other spectacle of his. I mean  you really believe in the prophets Isaiah, etc... then ifwhy do you not take modernday "prophets" found on street corners trying to deliever God's message? Oh wait that's right They're CRAZY!


Trans- mutations of species.(you mean evolution?)

Natural selection and its link to the appearance of adaptation are highly possible and make the most sense. I believe the theory of Evolution clearly defines the linkage of all these points.

And if fairy tales aren't science, then niether is religion...

(Edited by Lord Iorek 5/30/2005 at 11:06 PM).


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 10:42 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



I never said crwationist couldn't study science I just said that evolution has cold hard proof/evidence/observations of Evolution of which you tend to ignore (and not understand).
To understand is to believe in your reality.

"By my logic"... what are you smoking? an airplane is not a living organism, it is not pure organic matter and yes the Wright Bros made it and there is definite proof that they made. They flew it, there were witnesses. However, no human was around to see if there is an intelligent creator and therefore you cannot say you are more right than we. The bible also has no proof it was written by god, oh wait that's right it says so in the Bible it must be true (see Fox's circular logic patter).
No there is no definate proof that God made it. There is however absolute proof that it was made. When the Rosetta Stone was found it provided absolute proof it was created , presumably by a human. Now that we understand enough about DNA it is much more compelling evidence than the Rosetta Stone. The information it contains is independent of the media that carries it.
Random mutations cannot write the new information into the media [DNA} required for transmutation. It was designed. Books don't write themselves. Books are a joke compared to the genetic information carried by DNA.
There is no materialistic explanation for this. RM+NS does not write code, no way.

But no you fall short again, you forget that humans have an imagination and the ability to have occasional hallucinations especially in the HOT weather such as a desert (there weren't deserts in the Bible were there?[sarcasm alert])
I believe hallucinations are part of your everyday life.

And if he was so involved then, why doesn't he crush a city like Soddom and Gamorah (too lazy to find the correct spelling) or some other spectacle of his. I mean  you really believe in the prophets Isaiah, etc... then ifwhy do you not take modernday "prophets" found on street corners trying to deliever God's message? Oh wait that's right They're CRAZY!
How do you know He dosen't? Why God chooses to one thing or another is pretty much His business I think.
Because Jesus Christ and many of His followers willingly suffered and died . People don't do that for no reason. He did not mention any future prophets or Virgin Mary cheese sandwiches if I recall.
BTW there is a defense fund for the poor slob that got arrested for defacing the Virgin Mary stain near Chicago. Give tell it hurts.
There are religious nuts. what's your point?
There are always 2 ways to view the world at least. One guy says ghost don't exist because only crazy people see them. The other says they do exist but they only reveal themselves to crazy people.
Some people would argue that half empty glass of nerve gas is actually half full.



Trans- mutations of species.(you mean evolution?)
Unlike some I say what I mean and say what I mean. One type of animal becoming another. A lizard becoming a bird for example

Natural selection and its link to the appearance of adaptation are highly possible and make the most sense. I believe the theory of Evolution clearly defines the linkage of all these points.
It's a free country you can believe in the tooth fairy if you like. Doesnt  make it true.

And if fairy tales aren't science, then niether is religion...
I never said it was . One can study evidence and make a scientific case that life was created. Who created everything is a matter of faith.
So is evolution.

To believe the cell arose by chance takes faith I cannot fathom. You really have to want to believe that!








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:43 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 10:43 PM on May 31, 2005 :


I never said crwationist couldn't study science I just said that evolution has cold hard proof/evidence/observations of Evolution of which you tend to ignore (and not understand).
To understand is to believe in your reality.

"By my logic"... what are you smoking? an airplane is not a living organism, it is not pure organic matter and yes the Wright Bros made it and there is definite proof that they made. They flew it, there were witnesses. However, no human was around to see if there is an intelligent creator and therefore you cannot say you are more right than we. The bible also has no proof it was written by god, oh wait that's right it says so in the Bible it must be true (see Fox's circular logic patter).
No there is no definate proof that God made it. There is however absolute proof that it was made. When the Rosetta Stone was found it provided absolute proof it was created , presumably by a human. Now that we understand enough about DNA it is much more compelling evidence than the Rosetta Stone. The information it contains is independent of the media that carries it.
Random mutations cannot write the new information into the media [DNA} required for transmutation. It was designed. Books don't write themselves. Books are a joke compared to the genetic information carried by DNA.
There is no materialistic explanation for this. RM+NS does not write code, no way.

But no you fall short again, you forget that humans have an imagination and the ability to have occasional hallucinations especially in the HOT weather such as a desert (there weren't deserts in the Bible were there?[sarcasm alert])
I believe hallucinations are part of your everyday life.

And if he was so involved then, why doesn't he crush a city like Soddom and Gamorah (too lazy to find the correct spelling) or some other spectacle of his. I mean  you really believe in the prophets Isaiah, etc... then ifwhy do you not take modernday "prophets" found on street corners trying to deliever God's message? Oh wait that's right They're CRAZY!
How do you know He dosen't? Why God chooses to one thing or another is pretty much His business I think.
Because Jesus Christ and many of His followers willingly suffered and died . People don't do that for no reason. He did not mention any future prophets or Virgin Mary cheese sandwiches if I recall.
BTW there is a defense fund for the poor slob that got arrested for defacing the Virgin Mary stain near Chicago. Give tell it hurts.
There are religious nuts. what's your point?
There are always 2 ways to view the world at least. One guy says ghost don't exist because only crazy people see them. The other says they do exist but they only reveal themselves to crazy people.
Some people would argue that half empty glass of nerve gas is actually half full.



Trans- mutations of species.(you mean evolution?)
Unlike some I say what I mean and say what I mean. One type of animal becoming another. A lizard becoming a bird for example

Natural selection and its link to the appearance of adaptation are highly possible and make the most sense. I believe the theory of Evolution clearly defines the linkage of all these points.
It's a free country you can believe in the tooth fairy if you like. Doesnt  make it true.

And if fairy tales aren't science, then niether is religion...
I never said it was . One can study evidence and make a scientific case that life was created. Who created everything is a matter of faith.
So is evolution.

To believe the cell arose by chance takes faith I cannot fathom. You really have to want to believe that!




I'll do the Demon thing and pick apart this statement.

"To understand is to believe in your reality."

Um, well, yeah, it helps to know what you're talking about...

"When the Rosetta Stone was found it provided absolute proof it was created , presumably by a human."

Um, I hate to break this to you but the rosetta stonehas hardly anything to do with Bible. It was used to finally crack the Hieroglyphic code of the egyptians. The Rosetta  Stone is a slate tablet with an inscription in three different languages, Latin, Greek, and Egyptian. It was the obsidian stone (real name escapes my mind, but this will do) that gave somewhat some proof of one of the wars in Judges...

"I believe hallucinations are part of your everyday life."

That was actually funny. I gave a chuckle. But I'm afraid I'm laughing at the absurdity of someone who puts their faith in a 5000 (old testiment included) year old book calling someone who puts their faith in modern technology a hallucinatory person. Once again I state, after spending quite a while in the desert, your brain tends to play tricks on your mind. (much like the Catholic church, that was a zinger) What's that term for when you see something in the distance and it turns out to be an illusion? Oh yeah a mirage...

"It was designed. Books don't write themselves. Books are a joke compared to the genetic information carried by DNA.
There is no materialistic explanation for this. RM+NS does not write code, no way."

I'm afraid the only thing getting 'no way'-ed is your analogy. A book doesn't have the caracteristics of a living organism. (if you don't know what these are, go crack open your a biology text book and I guarantee it has it) Cells do. Cells reproduce, books do not...(next we'll learn the difference between big and small)


"Unlike some I say what I mean and say what I mean. One type of animal becoming another. A lizard becoming a bird for example"

I just put this in for laughs. After these few days I've known you, you still do not grasp the idea of Evolution. At this point of evolution on Earth, A certain species cannot change class like that. To have a member of Class Reptilia (reptiles) switch to Class Aves (birds) Otherwise the whole classification system is shot and we'll go by Adam and Eve names that are often misleading. I'm losing track, anyway to finish up my point, species can't even switch genuses unless given a few million years.

"I never said it was ."

You are a bad liar. And like I said previously, who said you were right if I am wrong?

"To believe the cell arose by chance takes faith I cannot fathom. You really have to want to believe that!"

Oh please, Oh please, don't make me say it. I won't say it even though it makes my eyes bleed to read that last statement. Oh well, if chance takes faith you cannot fathom what are the chances of an intelligent creator.(maybe another race of aliens created us and not God?)



(Edited by Lord Iorek 5/31/2005 at 11:40 PM).


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 11:35 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I'll do the Demon thing and pick apart this statement.

"To understand is to believe in your reality."

Um, well, yeah, it helps to know what you're talking about...

"When the Rosetta Stone was found it provided absolute proof it was created , presumably by a human."

Um, I hate to break this to you but the rosetta stonehas hardly anything to do with Bible. It was used to finally crack the Hieroglyphic code of the egyptians. The Rosetta  Stone is a slate tablet with an inscription in three different languages, Latin, Greek, and Egyptian. It was the obsidian stone (real name escapes my mind, but this will do) that gave somewhat some proof of one of the wars in Judges...

Are you really as stupid as you seem? The Rosetta Stone was found by the French in the latter part of the 17th century. How did you figure I was talking about the Bible? I was giving an example of finding information. The only possible conclusion is that an intelligent mind created it.
It would be infinitaley more plasible that the information on the Rosetta Stone was caused by natural forces than the information carried by DNA.

That was actually funny. I gave a chuckle. But I'm afraid I'm laughing at the absurdity of someone who puts their faith in a 5000 (old testiment included) year old book calling someone who puts their faith in modern technology a hallucinatory person. Once again I state, after spending quite a while in the desert, your brain tends to play tricks on your mind. (much like the Catholic church, that was a zinger) What's that term for when you see something in the distance and it turns out to be an illusion? Oh yeah a mirage...
Perhaps you are trying to contradict my one contribution to evolution theory. That the common sense gene and the humor gene cannot co-exist. My proof is so few evolutionist have a sense of humor , it is rare here.


I'm afraid the only thing getting 'no way'-ed is your analogy. A book doesn't have the caracteristics of a living organism. (if you don't know what these are, go crack open your a biology text book and I guarantee it has it) Cells do. Cells reproduce, books do not...(next we'll learn the difference between big and small)
You funny.
There is one characteristic between shared by a book and a living organism. They both contain information. Information is a non- material entity .
In the book it is carried by the medium of paper and ink, in living organisms DNA.
neither one can write itself.

I just put this in for laughs. After these few days I've known you, you still do not grasp the idea of Evolution. At this point of evolution on Earth, A certain species cannot change class like that. To have a member of Class Reptilia (reptiles) switch to Class Aves (birds) Otherwise the whole classification system is shot and we'll go by Adam and Eve names that are often misleading. I'm losing track, anyway to finish up my point, species can't even switch genuses unless given a few million years.

Why should lizards stop turning into birds? Or maybe something else ? There should be some lizards with half a wing and half a lung somewhere. Or maybe a few cat dogs or a cow whale or pig with wings or maybe a snunk that is the size of a whale and attacks cruise ships.


You are a bad liar. And like I said previously, who said you were right if I am wrong?
The evolutionist most intellectual argument . Liar Liar pants on fire. I am impressed.
There is no third theory.

[/quoe]Oh please, Oh please, don't make me say it. I won't say it even though it makes my eyes bleed to read that last statement. Oh well, if chance takes faith you cannot fathom what are the chances of an intelligent creator.(maybe another race of aliens created us and not God?)

Can you send me a pic of yours eyes bleeding? It makes my day just to imagine it. :}
That begs the question:
Who created the aliens?
Long ago in a Galaxy far far away. you getting farther out.



(Edited by Lord Iorek 5/31/2005 at 11:40 PM).






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:11 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lord Iorek Wrote: >>"By my logic"... what are you smoking? an airplane is not a living organism, it is not pure organic matter and yes the Wright Bros made it and there is definite proof that they made. They flew it, there were witnesses. However, no human was around to see if there is an intelligent creator and therefore you cannot say you are more right than we.<<

I don't think you are following a logical pattern, Lord Iorek.  The question of whether something was created by intelligence does not rest simply whether there was someone there to see it being created, but rather the existance of intelligence is shown by what was created.  

For example, let us hypothesize an isolated island which scientists believed from their research to have only been populated with humans a thousand years ago.  Then, one day, a scientist discovered a written language on on a rock.   No-let us make this more applicable to the question of life-let us suppose that the researcher discoverd an ingenious device, capable of moving, interacting with the surrounding environment, feeding itself, cleaning itself, teaching itself, the ability to obtain knowledge, the ability to repair itself when damaged, and with a built in factory inside itself which gave it the ability to create more machines like itself.  However, the machine was dated to have appeared on the island about 2000 years ago.  

Now, what should the scientist believe?  Should he believe that the machine he discovered gave evidence towards the existance of intelligence on the planet before the tim previously known, or should he, because there was no evidence of intelligence on the planet before 1000 years ago, (irony alert) should he conclude that the machine appeared by unintelligent means.  Personally, I would choose the former option.  

Of course this isn't a rebuttal of evolution, but simply of your apparent thought process.  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:02 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"No there is no definate proof that God made it. There is however absolute proof that it was made. When the Rosetta Stone was found it provided absolute proof it was created , presumably by a human. "

Just by the wording of this statement I'm under the impression that you associated the rosetta stone with the bible... but now I know what you were really trying to say.

Now, to Canuck. Yes I agree, the machine must have been made by someone intelligent before humans. Of course, but the question remains who? Was it god or another extinct race of intelligent beings that inhabitted the island (aliens aren't out of the question)?

If it is so isolated, how could humans have gotten there when modern technology could only recently enable scientists to make this discovery?

Did the humans evolve on the island or did they travel there?

I just want to clear up any ambiguities about your scenario.

Also, sure forget Evolution, let's talk creationism. Who made us then?


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:04 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lord Iorek Wrote:>>Now, to Canuck. Yes I agree, the machine must have been made by someone intelligent before humans. Of course, but the question remains who? Was it god or another extinct race of intelligent beings that inhabitted the island (aliens aren't out of the question)?

If it is so isolated, how could humans have gotten there when modern technology could only recently enable scientists to make this discovery?

Did the humans evolve on the island or did they travel there?

I just want to clear up any ambiguities about your scenario.<<

I'm glad you're asking these questions, but the point of the exercise was really just to confront your original oppinion, which was: >>However, no human was around to see if there is an intelligent creator and therefore you cannot say you are more right than we.<<  In the real world, in reference to life, people should be asking questions such as the ones you posed, instead of simply continually claiming that life appeared by natural and intelligent means.  

>>Also, sure forget Evolution, let's talk creationism. Who made us then?<<
My oppinion is that humans, and all life for that matter, were created by by the God described in the Christian Bible.  I have this view for various reasons.  I am enthralled by the cohesiveness of the Jewish Old Testament with the Messiah, and the prophetic nature of the Bible, among other things.  

In more comprehensive terms, I believe that the Bible is far superior than any other religious work in pretty much every area.  

In reply to your query about aliens, Alien involvement doesn't remove the necessity of God in the creation of life, but simply removes it to another place and time.  In fact, if there was alien involvement in the placement of life on earth, it would, in my oppinion, strengthen further the evidence for God.

What is your oppinion?  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 6:44 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 6:44 PM
In reply to your query about aliens, Alien involvement doesn't remove the necessity of God in the creation of life, but simply removes it to another place and time.  In fact, if there was alien involvement in the placement of life on earth, it would, in my oppinion, strengthen further the evidence for God.

I don't think the existence of aliens would make any difference. As you stated it only sets back the clock. The issue is the same. Did they evolve or were they created.
Considering the unimaginably remote chance that another planet has similar conditions to earth the subject is best left to science fiction writers.

Of course the evolutionist/atheist will argue there are so many planets that one would have to be the same. There are no two snowfakes alike.
The odds that a planet like earth exist are beyond comprehension. Of course so are the odds that the genetic code was caused by random mutations.


What is your oppinion?  






-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:05 PM on June 2, 2005 |
IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:05 PM on June 2, 2005 :
[b]Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 6:44 PM
In reply to your query about aliens, Alien involvement doesn't remove the necessity of God in the creation of life, but simply removes it to another place and time.  In fact, if there was alien involvement in the placement of life on earth, it would, in my oppinion, strengthen further the evidence for God.

I don't think the existence of aliens would make any difference. As you stated it only sets back the clock. The issue is the same. Did they evolve or were they created.
Considering the unimaginably remote chance that another planet has similar conditions to earth the subject is best left to science fiction writers.

Of course the evolutionist/atheist will argue there are so many planets that one would have to be the same. There are no two snowfakes alike.
The odds that a planet like earth exist are beyond comprehension. Of course so are the odds that the genetic code was caused by random mutations.


What is your oppinion?  




Oops, I submitted before I made by reply...

Anyway, I believe the possibility of even one planet having all the necessary elements to support life is infitely small.  

This webpage tries to calculate it:  

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml

>>Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388

dependency factors estimate ≈ 10-96

longevity requirements estimate ≈ 1014

Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-304

Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.<<


(Edited by Cpatain Canuck 6/2/2005 at 1:36 PM).

P.S. Watch for the exponentional factors-they don't show up here.  

(Edited by Cpatain Canuck 6/2/2005 at 1:38 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:32 PM on June 2, 2005 |
IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 1:32 PM on June 2, 2005 :


Anyway, I believe the possibility of even one planet having all the necessary elements to support life is infitely small.  


Even the following erroneous calculation proves that not to be true.


This webpage tries to calculate it:  

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml

>>Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388


Let's just stop right there, I don't believe that most of those parameter have anything to do with formation of life, so the calculation is bogus.  Why don't you go through it point by point and justify each one?

Garbage in, garbage out.




-------
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: 10:53 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Apoapsis at 10:53 AM on June

Let's just stop right there, I don't believe that most of those parameter have anything to do with formation of life, so the calculation is bogus.  Why don't you go through it point by point and justify each one?

Garbage in, garbage out.

What do you mean by garbage in garbage out. Are you suggesting a reace of Aliens genetically similar enough to humans to "seed" the earth came from a planet substantially different?
Could humans live on a planet substantially different.
It seems to me you would have to take this stance because you must have an alternative, not because of the evidence.









-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:21 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please explain how the total mass and mass distribution of Kuiper Belt objects should be a significant factor in the development of life.

Be explicit.


-------
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: 11:41 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:41 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Please explain how the total mass and mass distribution of Kuiper Belt objects should be a significant factor in the development of life.

Be explicit.

I am at a bit of a loss to give a satisfactory explanation of what an imaginary thing has to do with anything.
If it did exist I suppose it would help explain long ages, that why it was imagined, like the Ort Cloud.
I see no direct link between fairy tales and life.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:46 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:46 PM on June 3, 2005 :

I am at a bit of a loss to give a satisfactory explanation of what an imaginary thing has to do with anything.
If it did exist I suppose it would help explain long ages, that why it was imagined, like the Ort Cloud.
I see no direct link between fairy tales and life.


Kuiper belt objects are hardly imaginary, there are nearly a thousand of them observed enough to be cataloged with more coming weekly.  A spacecraft that is nearly completed will be visiting one in a few years.  Calling them fairy tales does nothing for your credibility.




Pluto-Kuiper Express

(Edited by Apoapsis 6/3/2005 at 1:18 PM).


-------
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: 1:07 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oops -pleae delete

(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 2:20 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:08 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 2:08 PM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 1:07 PM on June

Kuiper belt objects are hardly imaginary, there are nearly a thousand of them observed enough to be cataloged with more coming weekly.  A spacecraft that is nearly completed will be visiting one in a few years.  Calling them fairy tales does nothing for your credibility.
If I told you rocks were heavy you would have to check so I am not impressed with your opinion of my credibility.
The so called Kuiper Belt would have to consist of [b]Billions of objects , not thousands. Yes there are Trans-Plutonion objects . Or as I would prefer to put it Trans- Neptunian objects.
Pluto has more in common with the bodies beyond it than the ones closer to the sun. Many of these so called Kuiper Belt object are binary systems .

The existence of the Kupier Belt was proposed in 1951 ,I think ,by Gerald Kupier. He predicted we would find billions of Trans-Neptunian objects to explain the existence of comets with short life spans in a very old [supposedly] solar system.

Recent studies have shown the "belt" cannot be much larger that the mass of one earth which does not explain the comets.
Guess what ? They are working on a new theory based on the disappointment this discovery has been to this one.
This yet unnamed belt was formed Longer Ago and Much Much Farther away than the Ort Cloud or the Kupier Belt which were formed Long ago and Far Far away.

This example numer 1034 of the circularity of evolution theory. We know itis true the Universe is billions of years old and comets cannot exist that long . There is a source. We know this is fact. Just because the Ort Cloud faded and the Kupier Belt is a sad story we have hope for our yet unnamed theory. We have absolute confidence we will never run out of theories even if we never find any evidence!
How can we be wrong? It's not possible! Can't you see that?




(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 2:14 PM).






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:17 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:53 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 1:32 PM on June 2, 2005 :


Anyway, I believe the possibility of even one planet having all the necessary elements to support life is infitely small.  


Even the following erroneous calculation proves that not to be true.


This webpage tries to calculate it:  

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200404_probabilities_for_life_on_earth.shtml

>>Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-388


Let's just stop right there, I don't believe that most of those parameter have anything to do with formation of life, so the calculation is bogus.  Why don't you go through it point by point and justify each one?

Garbage in, garbage out.


You're right-they have nothing to do with the formation of life, but with the ability of a earth or any other planet to support life.  

I'm afraid no valid list of parimeters dealing with the formation of life exists, as there exists no viable, explicit scientific theory which explains how life could have formulated.  However, I expect there are many, many bits and pieces of one, as science advances.  

Please explain how the total mass and mass distribution of Kuiper Belt objects should be a significant factor in the development of life.

Be explicit.


In reference to "The Probability Estimate  for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body"  I'm afraid I have no idea.  However, if you are genuinely concerned with this, I suggest you refer to reference #: 118

>>S. Alan Stern, “Implications Regarding the Energetics of the Collisional Formation of Kuiper Belt Satellites,” Astronomical Journal, 124 (2002), pp. 2300-2304.<<
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:58 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Cpatain Canuck at 2:58 PM on June 3, 2005 :

You're right-they have nothing to do with the formation of life, but with the ability of a earth or any other planet to support life.  

I'm afraid no valid list of parimeters dealing with the formation of life exists, as there exists no viable, explicit scientific theory which explains how life could have formulated.  However, I expect there are many, many bits and pieces of one, as science advances.  
Please explain how the total mass and mass distribution of Kuiper Belt objects should be a significant factor in the development of life.

Be explicit.


In reference to "The Probability Estimate  for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body"  I'm afraid I have no idea.  However, if you are genuinely concerned with this, I suggest you refer to reference #: 118

>>S. Alan Stern, “Implications Regarding the Energetics of the Collisional Formation of Kuiper Belt Satellites,” Astronomical Journal, 124 (2002), pp. 2300-2304.<<


I looked at it, it is about collisional formation of Kuiper belt object satellites.

Basically, this calculation is garbage because all of these parameters are being bookkept as independant variables where in fact  a large group of them collapse down into one number which is a planetary collision rate.

Multiplying them together is simply incorrect.




-------
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: 4:13 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.