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
     What is evolution ?
       Just for creationists.

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

    
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In debate, in science, in most things really, one has to know what they are talking about.

Especially when you deal with a much debated topic like evolution vs creation.. You deal with many online sources that put up a view of their opponents.

These views are not always correct and in many cases I've seen people on both sides of the discussion debating straw men versions of the actual ideas and theory.

So this is a question to creationists here on this forum, or multiple questions really. It can give us an insight and if needed, I at least wouldn't mind explaining what I think creationism is.



Questions:

1. What is evolution. (biological of course)
2. What is the theory of evolution.
3. What is abiogenesis.

Thats it, be as detailed as you like, the more details of course, the more interesting it will become.

The aim of this thread is to deal with any misunderstanding that might exist in the debate.. If one is creationist for example, and one is making arguments against evolution. Then it would only work if the definition of evolution that the person upholds, is correct.


 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 4:13 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. What is evolution. (biological
of course)


The change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  This has been directly observed, both in the lab and in the wild, we have seen new species arise.  So, evolution is a fact, it has been observed.

2. What is the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is an explaination of HOW allele frequencies in a population change over time.  We know a great deal about how they change, but we don't know everything.  This in no way calls into question evolution, only our understanding of it.  Once again, evoluton is an observed fact.

3. What is abiogenesis

The first formation of life.

What scares me is that there are so many people that don't understand that evolution is a fact, all life descended from a common ancestor.  This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Anyone who claims creationism or intelligent design, is resorting to nothing more than primitive superstition and will never understand modern science or how the universe functions.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I grew up taking it for granted that evolution was a fact.  Later on, much later on in my adult life, I sat in on some talk that someone was giving at a Methodist Church.  I was absolutely shocked when the speaker started mocking evolution, and pushed Creationism.  

My reaction was that I felt embarrassed for speaker.  To me it was like someone standing up and telling everyone that the earth was flat.  I thought everyone else in the room must be feeling the same way as me.  I mean, come on, evoluton was so obvious.  Surely everyone must know its true.

Boy, was I naive about the prevalence of Creationism in America!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:05 AM on January 31, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yea. When I was a little boy I had a book filled with stories from the bible. You know, Noahs ark and so forth. But when I went to school I was shocked to find that people acturly believed these stories, not just children but the adult too! It was like someone beliving in Postman Pat or Thomas the Tank Engine.

1. What is evolution. (biological of course)
The gradual change in the DNA of a population.

2. What is the theory of evolution.
That small,random mutations may give an advantage to a creature and so are passed onto the next generation which in turn may have a small mutation.

3. What is abiogenesis.
The origins of life. Where it came from or how it formed is currently unkown.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/31/2009 at 04:07 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:06 AM on January 31, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.Evolution can be divided into micro and macro evolution.
a) "Micro" -The change in allele frequencies over time would be the variation possible within the kind due to changing allele frequencies. I wouldn't even call that microevolution however since no new information results, just rearrangments of existing information and, due to natural selection, some loss of information. There is a lot of scientific evidence for variation within a 'kind' of creature.
b) "Macro" -the mythical belief that over vast periods of time, mutations and natural selection can lead to all the diversity and complexity of the biological world from the beginning up to the present. That has not been scientifically demonstrated.
The only evidence we have for this section is that evidence which shows that it can't happen.

2.The theory of evolution is the 'belief' that given enough time single celled organisms can become human beings and everything else inbetween.

3.Abiogenesis - The hypothesis that life can originate from inanimate matter.

Wonder what Pasteur would have to say about this!


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:49 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.Evolution can be divided into micro and macro evolution.

Only by people who don't understand it.  Micro and macro use the same mechanisms.  real biologists don't use these terms.

b) "Macro" -the mythical belief that over vast periods of time, mutations and natural selection can lead to all the diversity and complexity of the biological world from the beginning up to the present. That has not been scientifically demonstrated.

This is untrue, since we have seen new species arise, both in the wild and in the lab, macro evolution is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution is the 'belief' that given enough time single celled organisms can become human beings and everything else inbetween.

Try again, no it's not.

3.Abiogenesis - The hypothesis that life can originate from inanimate matter.

OK, I'll give you this one.

Wonder what Pasteur would have to say about this!

Nothing since Pastuer never did any experiments on ho life first formed.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:58 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

2.The theory of evolution is the 'belief' that given enough time single celled organisms can become human beings and everything else inbetween.


Belief?  The scientific evidence supporting the validity of  TOE  far outweighs the scientific evidence supporting any other explanation for species diversification on earth.    More importantly there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that falsifies evolution...Which means there are no fossils that have been discovered  that falsifye evolution...NONE!!!

From a scientific standpoint, a "belief", supported by mountains of evidence, is far more valid than a "belief" that is supported by zero scientific evidence.  


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:29 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38
What scares me is that there are so many people that don't understand that evolution is a fact, all life descended from a common ancestor.  This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.


What scares me, is that despite huge debate over the matter, evolutionists like you still believe that we are the ones believing in fairy tales. Gone are the days when evolution was accepted uncritically. It is now no longer feasible to believe in that tooth fairy. Update yourself on current genetics and find out what the claims are for what mutations and natural selection are actually capable of. Deterioration and loss - in a nutshell.
Stop believing the nonsense propoganda that turns this into a purely religious debate -it is not, it is evidential.  


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:30 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution can be divided into micro and macro evolution.

Only by people who don't understand it.  Micro and macro use the same mechanisms.  real biologists don't use these terms.


Gone are the days when biologists could get away with blending the two meanings. Actually there is neither micro nor macro evolution -both imply an increase in genetic information -there is only reshuffling of available information as well as loss of information due to natural selection.
Mutations are like genetic spelling mistakes -they cause errors. That is why they call it the 'genetic load' rather than the 'genetic upliftment' or something similar. It is why we do not volunteer ourselves up for mutational
x-ray therapies.

we have seen new species arise, both in the wild and in the lab, macro evolution is an observed fact.


What, you mean as in new fruit flies from fruitflies or new bacteria from existing bacteria (with variations of course but no new genetic information). All depends on your definitions. doesn't it.

Nothing since Pastuer never did any experiments on ho life first formed.


No, but he put that old belief that life originated from non-life to rest until evolutionists resurrected it. I know some evolutionists like to distance themselves from this one -I would too if I were them trying to hold on to my credibility; but if naturalism is how it all works, then it's the beginning of their story - you don't get to start in the middle and just keep the bits you like.

Fredguff
The scientific evidence supporting the validity of  TOE  far outweighs the scientific evidence supporting any other explanation for species diversification on earth.


Nothing else is allowed in the universites at this stage. That has to change. It is called an evidential paradigm shift. Throughout history paradigm shifts are resisted by the old guard so it is not easy to uproot deeply entrenched garbage supported by 'consensus'.

More importantly there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that falsifies evolution...


You are parroting evolutionists websites now. They love to say that aggressively but for no particularly good and compelling reason.

Which means there are no fossils that have been discovered  that falsifye evolution...NONE!!!


Except for all the ones in the Cambrian explosion and all the billions of fish of all different kinds that have no intermediate links with their invertebrate so-called ancestors. The list goes on, the mind boggles.

From a scientific standpoint, a "belief", supported by mountains of evidence, is far more valid than a "belief" that is supported by zero scientific evidence.


The evidence clearly supports intelligent design - not evolution -that is why there is so much controversy out there. You need to look at why the other side says what they say - not just at the evolutionists attempts to make everyone believe that everything about intelligent design and creation is refuted, refuted and refuted again.


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:04 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except for all the ones in the Cambrian explosion
Wasn't much of an explosion. It took many million years. More than the 6 days YEC claims.  

and all the billions of fish of all different kinds that have no intermediate links with their invertebrate so-called ancestors.
It's a marvel that we can find vertebrates from that old days. And we can because they had skeletons.

The Ark, on the other hand, was much larger and sturdier than those fossils, and much closer in time. And yet has not been found. Or worse, has ben found in several different locations. xD


(Edited by wisp 2/3/2009 at 3:51 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:38 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing else is allowed in the universites at this stage. That has to change. It is called an evidential paradigm shift. Throughout history paradigm shifts are resisted by the old guard so it is not easy to uproot deeply entrenched garbage supported by 'consensus'.


Here we go with the "University conspiracy rant" again.  

So  you are saying that the the Baptists that run Baylor, the Catholics that run Notre Dame, the Methodists that run SMU and the religious leaders of the hundreds of other non-secular universities with acredited biology departments are party to silencing the evolution dissenters ?!!!  

Sorry your "paradigm shift" theory doesn't fly in this context.  If anybody has VALID scientific evidence that falsifies TOE they would, at the very least, win the Nobel Prize once their evidence passed peer review. Moreover they would garner tens of millions in research grants and other financial gains.  

As it stands, no religious-based university or college in North America, with an accredited science department, teaches an alternative to evolution to explain species diversification...NONE!!!

You are parroting evolutionists websites now. They love to say that aggressively but for no particularly good and compelling reason.


Ok...How about presenting some evidence.  Talk is cheap....Show me the evidence.

Except for all the ones in the Cambrian explosion and all the billions of fish of all different kinds that have no intermediate links with their invertebrate so-called ancestors. The list goes on, the mind boggles.


Which fossils from the cambrian era falsify evolution?  Why do these fossils falsify evolution?  Also which particular fish fossils falsify evolution?

The evidence clearly supports intelligent design - not evolution -that is why there is so much controversy out there. You need to look at why the other side says what they say - not just at the evolutionists attempts to make everyone believe that everything about intelligent design and creation is refuted, refuted and refuted again.


Please present some scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.  Please explain why it supports ID.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:48 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By Lester10:
Throughout history paradigm shifts are resisted by the old guard so it is not easy to uproot deeply entrenched garbage supported by 'consensus'.
Yeap. The paradigm shift was towards Evolution. And you're the old guard, full of garbage. I bet you're a part of the same group of people who never stopped resisting.

It's not like the TOE is new. It's more like your resistance is very old.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:10 PM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fredguff
Which fossils from the cambrian era falsify evolution?  Why do these fossils falsify evolution?  Also which particular fish fossils falsify evolution?


All the many and varied ones that popped up with no visible precursors. Supposed to be a branching tree remember not a sudden profusion of most phyla appearing at the very bottom. There's nothing linking the ones that are there either. Precambrian unicellular organisms don't make the grade -the jump is immense.

Also which particular fish fossils falsify evolution?


The billions all over the world that have no precursors. Where did they come from? Why so many billions preserved but their precursors that show us how they came to be somehow all managed to escape fossilization.

Please present some scientific evidence supporting intelligent design.


Take an objective look at the fossil record. Our data is all the same.It's our interpretation of the data that differs -ours makes more sense. Your evolutionary interpretation needs to explain the data away.

Here we go with the "University conspiracy rant" again.


Not quite a conspiracy, just a worn out old paradigm that fails to explain advances of the 21st century. It used to look feasible but it no longer does. I understand why you believe it, I used to believe it too.

As it stands, no religious-based university or college in North America, with an accredited science department, teaches an alternative to evolution to explain species diversification...NONE!!!


It takes a while for failing paradigms to lose their grip - it's only a matter of time. In the meantime, the old paradigm is hanging on with grim determination.


(Edited by admin 2/4/2009 at 07:16 AM).


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:33 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello Wisp,
Yeap. The paradigm shift was towards Evolution.


That was true over a hundred years ago. Things have progressed since then.

And you're the old guard, full of garbage.


No 'fraid not -you're the old guard now, time to wake up!

It's not like the TOE is new.


Well at least we have agreement there.


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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:41 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ouch! Please, edit your post.

And check "Yes" in the "Preview before posting?" part down there, when you post.

Open quote, close quote. You should be fine.

So yeah, we agree on TOE being old now. But not nearly as old as creationism (no matter how many upgrades it undergoes).

Paradigms shift. They don't usually swing back and forth.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:27 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What scares me, is that despite huge debate over the matter, evolutionists like you still believe that we are the ones believing in fairy tales.

There is no debate in biology about evolution, the experts all agree, it's a fact.  Only religious zealots who deny reality debate it.

Gone are the days when evolution was accepted uncritically.

Those days never existed.

It is now no longer feasible to believe in that tooth fairy.

Which is what a belief in God is...

Update yourself on current genetics and find out what the claims are for what mutations and natural selection are actually capable of.

Already know, they fully suport the theory of evolution.

Deterioration and loss - in a nutshell.

Dead wrong and you and all your creationist friends are unable to support this claim.

Stop believing the nonsense propoganda that turns this into a purely religious debate -it is not, it is evidential.

If it's evidential, then you would know that we don't "believe"in the theory of evolution, we accept it based on the evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:50 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gone are the days when biologists could get away with blending the two meanings. Actually there is neither micro nor macro evolution -both imply an increase in genetic information -there is only reshuffling of available information as well as loss of information due to natural selection.

Dead wrong, again.  From here:
inforIncrease
"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995) "

Here's an example o new information arising:
InfoIncrease

"Over a span of 1,500 generations, the percentage of mutant strains inside the fermentor ebbed and flowed as the single-celled microbes competed for dominance. Eventually, one strain squeezed out almost all the competition by virtue of its ability to most efficiently metabolize food at high temperature.

The metabolic protein required to thrive at high temperature could only be made in one genetic region of the bacteria’s DNA, meaning the researchers had only to characterize that small region of the genome for each new strain to measure evolutionary progress.

The researchers sampled the fermentor for new strains every other day. Though millions of mutations in the target gene are believed to have occurred, only about 700 of those were capable of creating a new variant of the target gene. In all, the researchers identified 343 unique strains, each of which contained one of just six variants of the critical gene."

What, you mean as in new fruit flies from fruitflies or new bacteria from existing bacteria (with variations of course but no new genetic information). All depends on your definitions. doesn't it.

As show abouve we've seen many many instances of new genetic information arise.  You can't dispute the above example, so you are, once again, wrong.

No, but he put that old belief that life originated from non-life to rest until evolutionists resurrected it.

Perhaps you can explain how he did this, since that's not what he was trying to prove.

but if naturalism is how it all works, then it's the beginning of their story - you don't get to start in the middle and just keep the bits you like.

Well, you're the one doing that.  You're ignoring what Pastuer was really doing in that
experiment and trying to shoehorn your own fairytales into it.  Pastuer was trying to show that complex life does not arise full blown, maggots on rotting meat, he used real soup for his germ experiments and unless you're claiming that the primordial soup was chicken noodle, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Nothing else is allowed in the universites at this stage. That has to change. It is called an evidential paradigm shift. Throughout history paradigm shifts are resisted by the old guard so it is not easy to uproot deeply entrenched garbage supported by 'consensus'.

Ha HA, big talk!  Yet no creationist can provide even on iota of evidence to disprove evolution.  All the experts say that evoluton is a fact and the theory of evolutoin is stronger than ever.  You got nothing to counter thm!

You are parroting evolutionists websites now. They love to say that aggressively but for no particularly good and compelling
reason.


Nope, just stating a fact.  Evolution is an observed fact, creationism is just a myth.

Except for all the ones in the Cambrian explosion and all the billions of fish of all different kinds that have no intermediate links with their invertebrate so-called ancestors. The list goes on, the mind boggles.

Sorry, no.  The Cambrian explosion fully supports evolution.  There are millions of fish fossils that are intermediate, you creationists deny them all the time!  From here:
Cambrian

"For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria, plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change. First, there was the rise and fall of mysterious creatures of the Ediacaran fauna, named for the fossil site in Australia where they were first discovered. Some of these animals may have belonged to groups that survive today, but others don't seem at all related to animals we know.

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years."

Once again, all the experts agree, teh Cambrian explosion is best explained by the theory of evolution.

The evidence clearly supports intelligent design - not evolution
Only in the minds of the religoius fanatics, not in the real world.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:13 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no debate in biology about evolution, the experts all agree, it's a fact.


As they have historically all agreed over things that were very wrong. Consensus is not science.

The metabolic protein required to thrive at high temperature could only be made in one genetic region of the bacteria’s DNA, meaning the researchers had only to characterize that small region of the genome for each new strain to measure evolutionary progress.


Bacteria have the ability to adapt in various ways but bacteria they remain. Imagining that they could eventually turn into elephants however, is guesswork not based on evidence.

As show abouve we've seen many many instances of new genetic information arise.  You can't dispute the above example, so you are, once again, wrong.


Like I said -and bacteria remain bacteria and there is no good reason to suppose anything else could ever happen.

There are millions of fish fossils that are intermediate


If they are already fish, then they are fish not intermediates, just lots of varieties. We need the missing billions between invertebrates and vertebrates that show us how invertebrates changed into vertebrates.

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today.


This reads like a bedtime story for the easily befuddled. The burst of diversification is only guessed at not observed. No invertebrates, then suddenly very many new and original invertebrates bearing NO ressemblance to anything that went before. Yes practically all the phyla pitched at once but that is not what evolution predicts -there's supposed to be a branching tree of increasing complexity not a sudden burst of every major phylum originating from absolutely nothing.

All the experts say that evoluton is a fact and the theory of evolutoin is stronger than ever.


Well whoopee for the 'experts' -guess what, lots of experts don't agree and those are on the increase. Time for your 'experts' to really start waking up rather than just making up bedtime stories that are supposed to pass for fact. Evolution is weaker than ever and dying -don't stick your head in the sand.




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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:07 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I find it to be very telling that this thread has once again deteriorated into interpretation of evidence rather than definition of terms.

If you evolutionists are so certain that your interpretation is the right one than why did you immediately jump into this thread, which began as a request for creationists to define their terms, and start inserting your own opinions?

One would think that if the ground you stand on is so firm you could be secure enough to allow the definition of terms to support themselves.




 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:08 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the many and varied ones that popped up with no visible precursors. Supposed to be a branching tree remember not a sudden profusion of most phyla appearing at the very bottom. There's nothing linking the ones that are there either. Precambrian unicellular organisms don't make the grade -the jump is immense.


I think you are confused about the “controversies” surrounding the Cambrian explosion.  While there are competing theories about which variables actually allowed the “explosion” to take place, NO Scientist has demonstrated that the phyla that “suddenly” appeared could not have evolved from pre-Cambrian fauna over a time period of 10-30 million years (the time-frame of the explosion).  

Let me repeat…NO Scientist has demonstrated that the phyla that “suddenly” appeared could not have evolved from pre-Cambrian fauna over a time period of 10-30 million years (the time-frame of the explosion).

The billions all over the world that have no precursors. Where did they come from? Why so many billions preserved but their precursors that show us how they came to be somehow all managed to escape fossilization.

Huh?!!! There are approximately 1.5 million known species of living animals and plants. There could be as many as 3 million more species that we don’t know about. In contrast, we only know about 250,000 fossil species. The fact that the number of fossil species is so small suggests that the preservation of organisms as fossils is extremely rare. It has been estimated that fewer than 10% of the animal species living today are likely to be preserved as fossils.
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/historical_lab/preservationlab.php

Take an objective look at the fossil record. Our data is all the same.It's our interpretation of the data that differs -ours makes more sense. Your evolutionary interpretation needs to explain the data away.


Whoa…I’m not explaining anything away.  I have stated that no fossil ever discovered has invalidated TOE.  By “no” I mean, “bupkis”, “zero”, “nada”, “zip”, “the empty set”...You, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate that my claim is incorrect.  All you have presented is your unsubstantiated opinion.

Not quite a conspiracy, just a worn out old paradigm that fails to explain advances of the 21st century. It used to look feasible but it no longer does. I understand why you believe it, I used to believe it too.


If what you say is true, then the Catholic, Baptist and United Methodist churches are complicit in allowing this “old paradigm” to continue…which is ridiculous.   Sorry, I’m going to go “occam's razor” on you and say your “old paradigm” explanation doesn’t fly.   Fly?!!!, Heck, it doesn’t even breathe!!!

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:36 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As they have historically all agreed over things that were very wrong. Consensus is not science.

Once again, you ignore the facts that destroy your claim.  It's not only conbsensus that supports evolution, it's the thousAnds of successful predictions the TOE makes and the fact that it is practically, successfully applied in medicine, industry, agriculture, animal husbandry.  It our understanding of the TOE was wrong, we couldn't successfully apply it.

Bacteria have the ability to adapt in various ways but bacteria they remain. Imagining that they could eventually turn into elephants however, is guesswork not based on
evidence.


If you had bothered to fully read the example I posted you would have seen that the bacteria evolved, not adapted.  Here, let me point out your mistake, from here:
Evoled

"The first of the six, called “Q199R,” arose almost immediately and was the dominant strain through the 500th generation. Around 62 degrees Celsius, Q199R was unable to further cope with the rising temperature, and a new round of mutations occurred. Five new varieties — themselves mutant forms of Q199R — vied for final domination of the fermentor. Three of the five were driven to extinction within a couple of days, and the final two fought it out over the remaining three weeks of the test."

Notice where it said where new mutations were formed and where it said 3 of the 5 strains were driven to extinction, that's evolution, populations of organisms producing mutations and the ones that are most capable of surviving their evironment survive while the ones that aren't die off.  That's evolution not adaption, you need to learn what evolution is.

Like I said -and bacteria remain bacteria and there is no good reason to suppose anything else could ever happen.

But you ignore the fact that the bacteria evolve, and show an increase in information, the exact things you say can't happen.  When you are confronted by these facts, you ignore them and make another ridiculous claim instead of defending your first claim.

If they are already fish, then they are fish not intermediates, just lots of varieties.

fish intermediate, from here:
FossilFish

"The discovery of strange fragments of what may be the earliest fossil fish will spark a debate about how we recognise the most primitive fossil representatives of any living animal group. The minute, 510-million-year-old bone-like fragments come from Queensland in Australia, and are described in the 31 October 1996 Nature by Dr Gavin Young and colleagues.

The fragments appear to be part of the external skeleton of jawless fishes called ostracoderms, distantly related to modern lampreys, as well as to modern vertebrates with jaws (including all modern fish, and land vertebrates such as ourselves).

Ostracoderms were the earliest known true vertebrates and have been known since Darwin's day, but because the internal backbone of ostracoderms was made of cartilage and fossilizes poorly, the external skeleton is all we have. There have been debates about the status of the earliest undisputed ostracoderm, Anatolepis, known for twenty years from fragmentary fossils from North America, Greenland and Spitzbergen, in the Arctic Ocean. Anatolepis fossils come from rocks a few million years younger than those bearing the newly found Australian fossils. The fishy nature of Anatolepis has been much disputed, with some researchers suggesting that the fragments belonged to a crustacean, and not to a fish-like vertebrate. Earlier this year, new techniques in microscopy allowed researchers to resolve the issue, confirming that Anatolepis was indeed a vertebrate. "

Doesn't sound like any modern fish to me.

This reads like a bedtime story for the easily befuddled.

Until you look at the evidence, the experts, unlike you, are not so easily befuddled.

Well whoopee for the 'experts' -guess what, lots of experts don't agree and those are on the increase.

Nope your claim is simply untrue, lots of experts DON'T agree, and those are NOT on the increase.  Each year, the eviden ce for the theory of evoluton becomes even more established.  and stll, no one has any evidence that disproves it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:46 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm going to have to say that this topic is a failure because the basic idea was for creationists to give an explenation of what they understand evolution and the theory of evolution to mean.

As a bit of a pointer to see where they stand in the discussion, which then could be used as a starting point, because I believe that they don't understand the theory of evolution and evolution itself. Thats only an assumption I'm making right now based on the discussion going on here, and thats what the poll is for.

The point of this question was simple.

The definition as used in science is the one thats being fought against by creationists, but many make a so called "straw man" argument, stating that something represents the theory of evolution while in reality it doesn't.

This makes the argument void. Automatically.

Now, this doesn't only apply on creationists of course, this applies on everyone.

To avoid this though, everyone must be taught what the scientific standard for evolution and evolutionary theory actually is and what it actually means, and from that point on we can discuss.

This doesn't mean that we should look for a "consensus" between creationists and evolutionists on what the theory is and means.. This doesn't work, if you want to debate the theory of evolution, the facts are what count, and if anyone doesn't know about the facts correctly, they are fighting for or against a straw man.




(Edited by Zucadragon 2/3/2009 at 5:31 PM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:23 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon,
I agree with you 100%. The debate in general continues to be bogged down in semantics. I would like to point out that the misunderstanding is on both sides.


Main Entry:
   evolution
Pronunciation:
   \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function:
   noun
Etymology:
   Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date:
   1622

1: one of a set of prescribed movements2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved3: the process of working out or developing4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
— evo·lu·tion·ari·ly  \-shə-ˌner-ə-lē\ adverb
— evo·lu·tion·ary  \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
— evo·lu·tion·ism \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
— evo·lu·tion·ist  \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective

Judging by this dictionary definition,
from Demon38
Notice where it said where new mutations were formed and where it said 3 of the 5 strains were driven to extinction, that's evolution, populations of organisms producing mutations and the ones that are most capable of surviving their evironment survive while the ones that aren't die off.  That's evolution not adaption, you need to learn what evolution is.

Demon38 could benefit from a correct understanding of terminology. These bacteria represent the same type of bacteria, not a new type. One may be a "poodle" and the other a "yorkie".

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:16 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10, please, fix this. Reporting is an ugly thing to do.

Lester10
Consensus is not science.
Indeed it's not.

But you're getting confused. It's not consensus what makes the facts. The facts (that you're ignoring) makes us consent.

Bacteria have the ability to adapt in various ways but bacteria they remain.
When are you going to stop using that word? We're talking about Evolution here.

Imagining that they could eventually turn into elephants however, is guesswork not based on
evidence.
You can see an elephant as an individual, or as a huge specialized bacterial colony. Sad but true.

Ok, not sad. Only true.

Like I said -and bacteria remain bacteria and there is no good reason to suppose anything else could ever happen.
I see bacterial colonies hunting, driving cars, and a lot of other things. I think that's a good enough reason.

If they are already fish, then they are fish not intermediates, just lots of varieties.
Yeah, and the Tiktaalik is just a Tiktaalik.


By lardhat



Leave the reptile and fish resemblances to God's mysterious ways, and keep trying to discuss science.

timbrx, when discussing science, dictionary definitions are pretty useless. For instance they treat "theories" as "hypothesis", and "evolution" as "adaptation".

The dictionary definition of "Evolution" could imply "advance", something not stated by the TOE, which keeps confusing creationists (and Demon38 patiently keeps explaining over and over again).



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:16 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:16 PM on February 3, 2009 :
Zucadragon,
I agree with you 100%. The debate in general continues to be bogged down in semantics. I would like to point out that the misunderstanding is on both sides.


Main Entry:
   evolution
Pronunciation:
   \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function:
   noun
Etymology:
   Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date:
   1622

1: one of a set of prescribed movements2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved3: the process of working out or developing4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory5: the extraction of a mathematical root6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
— evo·lu·tion·ari·ly  \-shə-ˌner-ə-lē\ adverb
— evo·lu·tion·ary  \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
— evo·lu·tion·ism \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
— evo·lu·tion·ist  \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective

Judging by this dictionary definition,
from Demon38
Notice where it said where new mutations were formed and where it said 3 of the 5 strains were driven to extinction, that's evolution, populations of organisms producing mutations and the ones that are most capable of surviving their evironment survive while the ones that aren't die off.  That's evolution not adaption, you need to learn what evolution is.

Demon38 could benefit from a correct understanding of terminology. These bacteria represent the same type of bacteria, not a new type. One may be a "poodle" and the other a "yorkie".




I would like to know the source of that quote really and I disagree, this is not the scientific term of biological evolution as we were talking about..

How about a one on one about this ?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 01:07 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it's interesting to point out that i once lost a bet because a dictionary definition.

I said that Paradise and Eden were different things. The dictionary said they were the same. I had to pay.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:27 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 could benefit from a correct understanding of terminology. These bacteria represent the same type of bacteria, not a new type. One may be a "poodle" and the other a "yorkie".

No they are not.  First of all, unlike dogs, bacteria are asexual, so gthey aren't " bred" like dogs.  Second of all, they are seperate species, unlike yorkies and poodles.  Third, they evolved new information, exactly what Lester said they could NOT do.  fourth, no matter how many times creationists keep calling it "adaption", my example was clearly a case of evolution.  No one has been able to show us why it isn't.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:50 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How much do bacteria have to mutate for creationists to call it a different species?

I'll repost this image:
One such study is of Myxococcus xanthus, top, which lash their tails together and hunt in a pack. If they starve, they form a ball, above.

Here you can find conclusive evidence of the common ancestry that binds us to the rest of the apes:
http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/1120372/4082659


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:34 AM on February 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darwin made the following observations:

i)  Individuals within a species vary.
ii) Environmental factors can favour one variant or another.
iii) Geographically isolated groups of the same species can vary significantly.

Point iii) is crucial to establishing speciation (ie sufficient divergence to form new species)

Any discussion of evolution must include discussion of these three prerequisites. ie  Variation, Selection & Isolation.



Darwin was also an accomplished geologist and recognised that geological strata represented a kind of timeline of the history of the earth. He saw enough to convince him that different plants and animals existed at different times.  This fact alone raises challenges for a belief in creation as described in Genesis.

There are people for whom evolution is a tenet of faith. That is a mistake for a scientist.

Good science requires a high degree of objectivity. This means that the theories and hypotheses of science must be independent of the attributes of the 'scientist'. Creation depends on the beliefs of its proponents ie the belief that there is a God capable of creating matter. Since the theory depends heavily on this belief it fails the objectivity test and therefore can be discarded as a scientific theory.  That does not necessarily make it untrue.

Note that evolution does not require any particular view on the question of God. Evolution does not depend on belief or disbelief in God. It does satisfy the requirement of objectivity to a much higher degree than creation. This does not make evolution 'true', just a much better theory.







(Edited by waterboy 2/14/2009 at 01:52 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:48 AM on February 14, 2009 | 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.