Macro Evolutionists...

[darin]

Was just sorta thinking...how did blood 'evolve'? Did the veins and arteries accidentally mutate first, then later blood mutated from other stuff and start flowing? What about the heart? Did it mutate itself to become connected to the blood-highways? When or how would the brain have evolved to know to control a heart, or lungs? When the first small-cellular animals either decided or mutated into larger animals, which parts of the larger animals were among the first anomalies to happen/chance themselves into existence? If we can identify one mutation, say, an ancient animal mutating parts of itself, or having a mutation that was indeed a heart, what kept the heart alive - what tissue worked to ensure the DNA-footprint for a heart passed on to others of its kind? I put this thread in this subforum because macro evolution is most-certainly a religion akin to man-made global warming and what-not.

[Noir]

I'm not sure about the specific answers to your questions But I dare say the answer is wonderful. I'd suggest emailing evolutionary scientists / university labs for a proper answer or guidance to reading matter on the subject.

What I've always thought fascinating is that a creature like the star fish functions with no brain at all, which just seem alien!

[bullypulpit]

Evolution has decades of scientific research to support it. Creation "science" has centuries of religious dogma as its underpinning. Science wins.

[darin]

Evolution has decades of scientific research to support it. Creation "science" has centuries of religious dogma as its underpinning. Science wins.


Macro evolution is too steeped in mysticism/religion for my tastes. Props to you for having WAYYYYYYYYY outside the box thinking and massive-amounts of faith in your chosen religion.

[Noir]

Macro evolution is too steeped in mysticism/religion for my tastes. Props to you for having WAYYYYYYYYY outside the box thinking and massive-amounts of faith in your chosen religion.

The problem someone who doesn't believe in it has, is disproving the evidence in its favour. Like Erogenous Retroviral DNA. (ERVs)

ERVs Show beautifully the link between all life, and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally, and why would a god do that? Makes no sense to me.

[darin]

The problem someone who doesn't believe in it has, is disproving the evidence in its favour. Like Erogenous Retroviral DNA. (ERVs)

ERVs Show beautifully the link between all life, and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally, and why would a god do that? Makes no sense to me.

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

[Noir]

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

Hint - Study ERVs.

[darin]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else. :)

[Missileman]

From a humanistic practical sort of view think of it like this. Ford makes car x. and car y, and car z. All share parts/similarity. The fact life has some similar features and design (DESIGN) screams 'intelligent design' to our systems. You're believing all creation - okay, just take 'mammals' alone - Mammals all just magically, by pure luck designed remarkably-similar reproductive systems/processes (few outlyers notwithstanding). I see how linked life is and think, just like when I see two fords using the same systems of ignition, gear-selection, braking, etc, and just KNOW the chances of these systems happening by pure random chance is so astronomically low as to consider it impossible.

I see the design of life and think the same thing. I have not faith-enough to believe the myriad of different-but-alike biological systems (entities, plants, etc) simply arrived in such close relation through "millions of years of random chance".

The more I study (layman) science and biology the more I'm driven to 'this shit is so complexly awesome and cool, and the probability of random chance or your beloved 'magic' somehow causing it - it MUST be part of a design'.

Macro evolution: Magic. Mystics. No answers.

Intelligent design: Order. Facts. Science. Evidence.

Why would you think it strange that all mammals share common traits when they evolved from a common ancestor?

Complexity is an argument AGAINST design, not for it. Any designer worth a damn makes things work with the least amount of parts possible. An omnipotent designer would be able to make a sentient lump of clay with no need to eat or drink, no need for internal organs, skeletal structure, or nervous system.

[Noir]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else. :)

Sadly i don't have ten million years to spare. But you do have a computer, and google, and the ability to read, meaning you could study ERVs as much as you like. If you don't want to, fair enough, but in not doing so you are resigning yourself to ignorance in an issue that you profess to have interest in (by starting a topic about it) which would be most silly (:

[Missileman]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else. :)


Bigger hint: Place gazillions of single-cell organisms in an ocean...

P.S. No magic required.

[darin]

Why would you think it strange that all mammals share common traits when they evolved from a common ancestor?

Complexity is an argument AGAINST design, not for it. Any designer worth a damn makes things work with the least amount of parts possible. An omnipotent designer would be able to make a sentient lump of clay with no need to eat or drink, no need for internal organs, skeletal structure, or nervous system.


:lol:

[Missileman]

:lol:


Would you buy a car that was designed with pistons made from a million separate parts put together with screws?

[PostmodernProphet]

But I dare say the answer is wonderful.

perhaps even miraculous.....


and the only way it could exist in a creatist view of the world would be if a creator designed all life to look asif it had all evolved naturally



after all, we all know that everything is exactly what it looks like.....
http://cdn.thedesignwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Art-illusion-29.jpg


Hint - Study ERVs.

so tell me, why do you think ERVs lead to a conclusion of macro evolution?......

[darin]

Would you buy a car that was designed with pistons made from a million separate parts put together with screws?

I don't like to buy cars with pistons at all - but when forced to do so, I prefer one designed...according to a plan.

The faith you have in mere coincidence, happenstance, blind-dumb luck, and statistical impossibilities is commendable if confusing to me.

[Noir]

so tell me, why do you think ERVs lead to a conclusion of macro evolution?......

Because they are a clear, readable genetic pathway, that follows exactly how you would expect from class to class (class being Birds, Reptiles etc) and within species in each class.

Retro-viruses, as their name suggests, work backwards to normal viruses, from an enzyme to RNA to DNA, this leaves a mark on the code if said retro-virus joins a replicating code (like a sperm cell that goes on to infuse with an egg) then that mark will be on the genetic code of all of that creatures descendants.

Obviously the chances of this happing are tiny, amazingly tiny, the chances of the same code getting into different classes of animals, in exactly the same place in a code billions of letters long is just inconceivable.

UNLESS there is a creator who designed all life to look as if it had evolved in a certain way, and luckily enough that certain way that we discovered with the discovery of ERVs just happened to match exactly all our current predictions in all the different fields of biology.

Also, for anyone who'd like to research ERVs more i'd recommend here - http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm it covers all the bases, and breaks down the process into videos, moving diagrams and groups.

[PostmodernProphet]

Obviously the chances of this happing are tiny, amazingly tiny, the chances of the same code getting into different classes of animals, in exactly the same place in a code billions of letters long is just inconceivable.

why would it be inconceivable that the same type of code would not intentionally be in every living thing.....isn't it true that you can find traces of identical computer coding in both supercomputers and toasters.....there's nothing inconceivable about it at all......

you're argument is, "its amazing that what we found matches what would expect" when the fact of the matter is what we "expect" is simply the pattern we've observed.....that doesn't mean the pattern is the result of some random event instead of a plan.......

[Missileman]

I don't like to buy cars with pistons at all - but when forced to do so, I prefer one designed...according to a plan.

The faith you have in mere coincidence, happenstance, blind-dumb luck, and statistical impossibilities is commendable if confusing to me.


You haul out a single shred of evidence of the existence of a plan and you win. You present a single shred of evidence that it was anything other than coincidence, happenstance, or dumb luck that led to life spawning on Earth and you win. BTW, I think you mean to say statstical improbabilities, not impossibilities. The fact we are here means it wasn't impossible.

[bullypulpit]

Macro evolution is too steeped in mysticism/religion for my tastes. Props to you for having WAYYYYYYYYY outside the box thinking and massive-amounts of faith in your chosen religion.

Science has makes fundamental assumptions about a given entity, event or process and sets about the task of proving...or disproving...those assumptions. Religion makes basic assumptions about a a given entity, event or process and uncritically accepts those assumptions, decrying any who would point out the absurdity of such a position as somehow morally and/or spiritually defective for their lack of faith.

[bullypulpit]

Hint: Place a single-cell organism in a dish and let it sit for 10 Million years. Heck, try two of them. They will NEVER magically get better or change into something else. :)

A petri dish is a static and unchanging environment...There is no stimulus for change. Adaptation and evolution do not take place against such a static background. It takes place in response to environmental factors which lead to the extinction of some evolutionary threads while promoting the growth of others. This is known as "natural selection". The existence of this phenomenon has been extensively and exhaustively proven.

[darin]

A petri dish is a static and unchanging environment...There is no stimulus for change. Adaptation and evolution do not take place against such a static background. It takes place in response to environmental factors which lead to the extinction of some evolutionary threads while promoting the growth of others. This is known as "natural selection". The existence of this phenomenon has been extensively and exhaustively proven.

Adaptation and Evolution don't happen 'just magically'. That's the point of the OP.

What element of our digestive system developed first, patiently waiting for enough OTHER mutations to function?

Beyond silly to believe what some secular 'scientists' preach.

[Noir]

why would it be inconceivable that the same type of code would not intentionally be in every living thing.....isn't it true that you can find traces of identical computer coding in both supercomputers and toasters.....there's nothing inconceivable about it at all......

There isn't much other way to say this than this - You obviously don't understand what ERVs are. Please read up on them, they are redundant bits of code, that are in every way totally useless and only their by a biological anomaly.

Why would a god make around 4% of our DNA of totally useless, an not only that, but put such ERVs in all living creatures *and* pattern it in such a way that when studied it looks as if there is a biological link?


you're argument is, "its amazing that what we found matches what would expect" when the fact of the matter is what we "expect" is simply the pattern we've observed.....that doesn't mean the pattern is the result of some random event instead of a plan.......

Maybe it is part of a plan, maybe it isn't, i don't know, however DMP is stating that Macro-Evolution is *not* part of gods plan.

[darin]

Maybe it is part of a plan, maybe it isn't, i don't know, however DMP is stating that Macro-Evolution is *not* part of gods plan.

No, I'm saying biology is designed. The evidence of a designer is overwhelming to people looking at data, facts, and evidence. I'm saying macro-evolution doesn't appear to be even remotely possible because of the gaping holes - like i've illustrated. For our systems to work the way they work, the must have developed at the same time. At once. By design.

At no time did any organism mutate into having veins to carry blood, if there was not yet blood to carry. Conversely, no organism sat around with pools of blood contained therein, wishing it had veins and arteries to carry the blood where it needed to be.

If somebody chooses to have faith in THAT kind of mysticism - the kind that says "We'll just assume everything worked out" they have enough faith to be pope. Probably more.

[Noir]

No, I'm saying biology is designed. The evidence of a designer is overwhelming to people looking at data, facts, and evidence. I'm saying macro-evolution doesn't appear to be even remotely possible because of the gaping holes - like i've illustrated. For our systems to work the way they work, the must have developed at the same time. At once. By design.

At no time did any organism mutate into having veins to carry blood, if there was not yet blood to carry. Conversely, no organism sat around with pools of blood contained therein, wishing it had veins and arteries to carry the blood where it needed to be.

If somebody chooses to have faith in THAT kind of mysticism - the kind that says "We'll just assume everything worked out" they have enough faith to be pope. Probably more.

But there are creatures with basic types of blood, Sponges are a good example of this, they contain cells that act like blood, (using the process of phagocytics) when you move on to more complex creatures like sea-worms, you find that their blood is a liquid layer held between the spaces between the worms gut and the other skin layer.

Again all i can suggest is you look this stuff up yourself of you submitted written questions to those with expertise in the field to get detailed answers to what are obviously important questions.

[darin]

But there are creatures with basic types of blood, Sponges are a good example of this, they contain cells that act like blood, (using the process of phagocytics) when you move on to more complex creatures like sea-worms, you find that their blood is a liquid layer held between the spaces between the worms gut and the other skin layer.

Again all i can suggest is you look this stuff up yourself of you submitted written questions to those with expertise in the field to get detailed answers to what are obviously important questions.

And you don't find it at least a little bit silly to assume a Sponge could somehow become a shark based on mutation? Sure it could be a different type, size, color - but to think it could somehow, given enough time and a benefit, grow feet. Or flippers.


Noir, I'm VERY glad - most sincerely glad - you were designed to be, and have become the guy you are. You're valuable in my circle of e-friends. Cheers!

[Noir]

And you don't find it at least a little bit silly to assume a Sponge could somehow become a shark based on mutation? Sure it could be a different type, size, color - but to think it could somehow, given enough time and a benefit, grow feet. Or flippers.

Regardless of how i think of things (which flippant comments like sponge to shark exaggerate) has no affect on the facts.

Here's something else i find silly, a galaxy of a hundred billion stars, in a universe of two hundred billion galaxies, over 13 billion years old, and all made just for us? Thats amazingly silly IMO, but all the same that *may* be true, i don't know.

I also find it silly that you can fire a photon of light at a wall with two slits, and the photon will go through one slit, the other slit, both slits and neither slit at the same time. But thats what happens. and thats much more bizarre than macro evolution imo.


Noir, I'm VERY glad - most sincerely glad - you were designed to be, and have become the guy you are. You're valuable in my circle of e-friends. Cheers!

And i'm so very glad that i probably wasn't. ^,^

[darin]

Regardless of how i think of things (which flippant comments like sponge to shark exaggerate) has no affect on the facts.

Here's something else i find silly, a galaxy of a hundred billion stars, in a universe of two hundred billion galaxies, over 13 billion years old, and all made just for us? Thats amazingly silly IMO, but all the same that *may* be true, i don't know.

I also find it silly that you can fire a photon of light at a wall with two slits, and the photon will go through one slit, the other slit, both slits and neither slit at the same time. But thats what happens. and thats much more bizarre than macro evolution imo.


Fine - you look at those facts - out of a hundred billion stars, planets, stars - everything...our planet is uniquely and perfectly positioned to support life as we know it. Our moon system, gravity, etc, is PERFECT for us...our wonderfully-complex bodies/biological systems are complex beyond our understanding...and ALL this...just sorta happened by pure random chance. Take away my example of a sponge becoming a shark - and think about any OTHER simple organism becoming one vastly complex, by pure random chance.

Next time you walk past a store and see a 5000 piece puzzle put-together on display, imagine the pieces being shaken by an earthquake until they align correctly. That's the probability you call 'science'.



And i'm so very glad that i probably wasn't. ^,^

:D :buttkick::beer:

[Noir]

Fine - you look at those facts - out of a hundred billion stars, planets, stars - everything...our planet is uniquely and perfectly positioned to support life as we know it. Our moon system, gravity, etc, is PERFECT for us...our wonderfully-complex bodies/biological systems are complex beyond our understanding...and ALL this...just sorta happened by pure random chance. Take away my example of a sponge becoming a shark - and think about any OTHER simple organism becoming one vastly complex, by pure random chance.

Yet there is almost certainly signs of life on bodies outside of the earth in our own solar system. Nevermind the billions of billions of other potential planets over a timeline of many billions of years in the past (and many more billions in the future)


Next time you walk past a store and see a 5000 piece puzzle put-together on display, imagine the pieces being shaken by an earthquake until they align correctly. That's the probability you call 'science'.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection, but i'm sure you know that.

[fj1200]

Hint - Study ERVs.

Why do you think that disproves a God?

[Noir]

Why do you think that disproves a God?

It doesn't.
Nor did i claim that it did.
kthanks.

[fj1200]

It doesn't.
Nor did i claim that it did.
kthanks.

OK. Good.

[darin]

Yet there is almost certainly signs of life on bodies outside of the earth in our own solar system. Nevermind the billions of billions of other potential planets over a timeline of many billions of years in the past (and many more billions in the future)

And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.


This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection, but i'm sure you know that.

That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.

[Noir]

And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.

Except there are signs of life, see Methane plumes released from Mars.
But i see you've already lined your defence up 'if there is something its points to a designed' ugh, at least i have the conceit to suggest that i may be wrong.


That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.

Firstly common sense has no bearing on scientific reality (see Double Slit experiment as already detailed) and secondly you are again (i believe deliberately) missing the point as per your examples.

[Missileman]

Fine - you look at those facts - out of a hundred billion stars, planets, stars - everything...our planet is uniquely and perfectly positioned to support life as we know it. Our moon system, gravity, etc, is PERFECT for us...our wonderfully-complex bodies/biological systems are complex beyond our understanding...and ALL this...just sorta happened by pure random chance. Take away my example of a sponge becoming a shark - and think about any OTHER simple organism becoming one vastly complex, by pure random chance.

Next time you walk past a store and see a 5000 piece puzzle put-together on display, imagine the pieces being shaken by an earthquake until they align correctly. That's the probability you call 'science'.



:D :buttkick::beer:

The sponge didn't turn into a shark or give birth to a shark. You are discounting the millions of stages of minute changes between the two...intentionally I presume.


And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.



That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.


If that were an accurate description of the concept, I wouldn't believe it either.

[PostmodernProphet]

There isn't much other way to say this than this - You obviously don't understand what ERVs are. Please read up on them, they are redundant bits of code, that are in every way totally useless and only their by a biological anomaly.

Why would a god make around 4% of our DNA of totally useless, an not only that, but put such ERVs in all living creatures *and* pattern it in such a way that when studied it looks as if there is a biological link?



Maybe it is part of a plan, maybe it isn't, i don't know, however DMP is stating that Macro-Evolution is *not* part of gods plan.

I understand them perfectly well....I just don't attribute the same metaphysical importance to them that you do.......the fact we haven't yet determined their function doesn't mean they are useless.....one argument is that they function to permit cells to adapt to changing environments....that they are in fact the lubricant of evolution......

I won't speak for DMP, but in my opinion macro-evolution is a myth which I do not share.......I am amused by those who pretend it's actually science.......



Firstly common sense has no bearing on scientific reality

to the contrary....common sense often prevents scientists from making the embarrassing mistake of claiming something foolish is scientific reality.........

[darin]

The sponge didn't turn into a shark or give birth to a shark. You are discounting the millions of stages of minute changes between the two...intentionally I presume.

I'm saying, there is no credibility in a fantasy ANY amount of stages could lead one to turn into the other, simply by adding time and random chance. There is no minute change that will leave a sponge - or similar - with ANY progress towards becoming something entirely different. You have to know that.



If that were an accurate description of the concept, I wouldn't believe it either.

The description captures the essence of your religion.

[bullypulpit]

I have a compromise for those of you supporting the teaching of creation "science" in public schools. Creation "science" can be taught in public schools when evolutionary science can be taught in churches.


Adaptation and Evolution don't happen 'just magically'. That's the point of the OP.

What element of our digestive system developed first, patiently waiting for enough OTHER mutations to function?

Beyond silly to believe what some secular 'scientists' preach.

Preachers are for the faithful. Science is for the rational. But more to the point, evolution is an incremental process in which one successful mutation serves as the foundation of the next. Nothing evolves before the processes exist to support each step of the evolutionary process.

[Missileman]

I'm saying, there is no credibility in a fantasy ANY amount of stages could lead one to turn into the other, simply by adding time and random chance. There is no minute change that will leave a sponge - or similar - with ANY progress towards becoming something entirely different. You have to know that.



The description captures the essence of your religion.

No, it doesn't. There isn't any part of the theory of evolution that purports that all the pieces of a complex animal were floating around in some body of water and drifted together.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have a compromise for those of you supporting the teaching of creation "science" in public schools. Creation "science" can be taught in public schools when evolutionary science can be taught in churches.

actually, we discuss evolution science quite a bit.....


No, it doesn't. There isn't any part of the theory of evolution that purports that all the pieces of a complex animal were floating around in some body of water and drifted together.

lol.....now, if he had said that, you might have a point.....

[pete311]

dmp, we've been through this before. all the questions you ask in this thread highlight your complete lack of understanding of modern evolution theory. i just don't understand why you haven't picked up a book yet. the entire credible scientific community understands that evolution is fact. yet you still ask inane questions like "why doesn't a monkey turn into a whale" or "how can random events in mud just turn into humans". if you read a book you'd find very quickly how stupid and misinformed they are.

Please read this short bit and then read the links linked and then read a whole book. until then you are simply an ignorant child trying to convince his parents that santa exists.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950



I won't speak for DMP, but in my opinion macro-evolution is a myth which I do not share.......I am amused by those who pretend it's actually science.......


You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners? Who the heck are you? and fyi, technically the terms Micro and Macro aren't even used to evolution. You won't find them in modern biology textbooks because scientists don't recognize them are entirely different processes. For the ignorant Macro is the result of long periods of Micro. So if you believe one, you must believe the other. If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners?

only the stupid ones.....


If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.

butterflies.....butterflies are illogical under the parameters of macro-evolution......are they flying creatures who were evolving into crawling creatures because it enabled them to survive, but then forgot to finish the job or were they crawling creatures who were evolving into flying creatures because it enabled them to survive, but forgot to finish the job.......

[pete311]

butterflies.....butterflies are illogical under the parameters of macro-evolution......are they flying creatures who were evolving into crawling creatures because it enabled them to survive, but then forgot to finish the job or were they crawling creatures who were evolving into flying creatures because it enabled them to survive, but forgot to finish the job.......

The butterfly is a flying insect. The caterpillar happens to be the larva life stage of the butterfly.

No mysteries here. Read for yourself. This is biology 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhopalocera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

btw, speaking of butterflies, this is a really neat article, "Butterfly unlocks evolution secret"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

[bullypulpit]

actually, we discuss evolution science quite a bit.....

Ummm no, you don't. You discuss the ideologically distorted view of evolutionary science as taught by creationists.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ummm no, you don't. You discuss the ideologically distorted view of evolutionary science as taught by creationists.

lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......


The butterfly is a flying insect. The caterpillar happens to be the larva life stage of the butterfly.

No mysteries here. Read for yourself. This is biology 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhopalocera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

btw, speaking of butterflies, this is a really neat article, "Butterfly unlocks evolution secret"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....


but often the larval stage has evolved secondarily, as in insects

the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

[darin]

dmp, we've been through this before. all the questions you ask in this thread highlight your complete lack of understanding of modern evolution theory. i just don't understand why you haven't picked up a book yet. the entire credible scientific community understands that evolution is fact. yet you still ask inane questions like "why doesn't a monkey turn into a whale" or "how can random events in mud just turn into humans". if you read a book you'd find very quickly how stupid and misinformed they are.

Please read this short bit and then read the links linked and then read a whole book. until then you are simply an ignorant child trying to convince his parents that santa exists.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950


You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity. Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.



Think for ten seconds about your religion - I'm NOT here to convince you you're wrong, by the way - the Faith you have in your god, and the circumstances around your religion are nobody's business but your own. You make your peace with your faith and how you live your life. But think for TEN seconds and ask yourself "Does it pass ANY common sense test for something to magically, randomly, accidentally, 'better' its condition given nothing but time and probability?




You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners? Who the heck are you? and fyi, technically the terms Micro and Macro aren't even used to evolution. You won't find them in modern biology textbooks because scientists don't recognize them are entirely different processes. For the ignorant Macro is the result of long periods of Micro. So if you believe one, you must believe the other. If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.


Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

[Missileman]

You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity. Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.



Think for ten seconds about your religion - I'm NOT here to convince you you're wrong, by the way - the Faith you have in your god, and the circumstances around your religion are nobody's business but your own. You make your peace with your faith and how you live your life. But think for TEN seconds and ask yourself "Does it pass ANY common sense test for something to magically, randomly, accidentally, 'better' its condition given nothing but time and probability?






Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

There is nothing more ironic than someone trying to discredit evolution by calling it a religion. ROFLMAO

BTW, when was the last time a CH47 gave birth to an offspring where a variation might occur?

[pete311]

lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.




I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....

Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.



the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such lengths of time.


You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity.

The irony is overwhelming.



Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.
I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.



You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.

As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!?



Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.



Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

Evolution is a theory of living creatures, a helicopter is not biologically active, you are so confused.


lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.




I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....

Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.



the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. Not every creature is destined to evolve to survive. Humans certainly won't evolve from their own stupidity. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such great lengths of time.


You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity.

The irony is overwhelming.



Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.
I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.



You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.

As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. It's not hard to imagine a primitive system mutating over millions of years. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!? It takes time man! Scientists spend decades learning this stuff and you want to be convinced on an internet forum in one statement. It ain't gonna happen.



Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.



Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.

Evolution is a theory of living creatures, you are so confused.

[jimnyc]

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[pete311]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution


jimmy you are better than this, did you even read it? look at the "misuse" header. furthermore, i said you don't find it in biology textbooks or peer reviewed journal studies. wiki is not a resource scientists use.

[jimnyc]

jimmy you are better than this, did you even read it?

Glanced mostly. I've heard the terms for years, so when you said it was made up, I did a quick search to see if it were true, and that was the first link that came back. Seems the origin of "macroevolution" goes back to a Russian scientist. I would then think his work on the subject would make him a "macro evolutionist". No? I'm sure you'll correct me and I'll take your word - this is one subject I honestly don't know anything about.

[pete311]

Glanced mostly. I've heard the terms for years, so when you said it was made up, I did a quick search to see if it were true, and that was the first link that came back. Seems the origin of "macroevolution" goes back to a Russian scientist. I would then think his work on the subject would make him a "macro evolutionist". No? I'm sure you'll correct me and I'll take your word - this is one subject I honestly don't know anything about.

In respect, I will correct my statement. The term is not made up (at least not within this thread), but the "misuse" section does explain what I was talking about.

[jimnyc]

In respect, I will correct my statement. The term is not made up (at least not within this thread), but the "misuse" section does explain what I was talking about.

I did go back and read the "misuse" section after you pointed it out, and see what you're saying. I'll defer to those of you that know a LOT more than me on this subject, which is very little. :)

[PostmodernProphet]

There are is no such thing as a macro-evolutionist. It's made up. No one in the scientific community uses Macro and Micro in their research. The terms are abused by creationists.




Evolution is not a philosophy, it doesn't deal in "why" something exists or not.



How are you sooooooo sure? You fail to account for the millions of species have gone extinct over the past billion years. The problem is your brain has only been functioning for maybe 30-40 years? Humans have a hard time imaging such lengths of time.



The irony is overwhelming.


I hold any scientist as credible if they are published in a peer reviewed journal or textbook.



As if you've actually tried to research, gimmie a break. You are lost in your own head. Anything you can't figure out on your own, must end up with a witch doctor explanation. Do you even know how to use google? All these questions have resources you can read about in seconds using this neat tool called Google. Don't you think its weird that most of the animals in this world have VERY similar biological processes? From the smallest mouse to the largest elephant, they all have circulatory systems and guess what, they range in complexity! You can go further smaller and older and see how primitive systems work. dmp your refusal to read anything is sad. I don't know if you are really dumb or what. how many times can I say it, read read read read read read read read. do you know how to read? why don't you do it!?



You refute something you don't understand. Even you must see that is a problem.



Evolution is a theory of living creatures, a helicopter is not biologically active, you are so confused.

???....I'm sorry, pete.....I honestly can't see anything here worth responding to....everything I said in the last post still stands.......

[pete311]

???....I'm sorry, pete.....I honestly can't see anything here worth responding to....everything I said in the last post still stands.......
Only on broken legs

[PostmodernProphet]

Only on broken legs

not until you show something's broken......so far you haven't even tried......all you gave me was a denial you've already backtracked on, a refusal to answer the ultimate question and a personal insult......

[darin]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought. When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.

I applaud you guys for your faith in magic/random chance/ANYTHING but a 'Designer'. Your faith is admirable - but the sad part is, you won't ever seek 'truth' when 'truth' disagrees with you. The concept of intelligent design bothers you mostly because it points out your willing, adamant ignorance.

[Missileman]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought. When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.

I applaud you guys for your faith in magic/random chance/ANYTHING but a 'Designer'. Your faith is admirable - but the sad part is, you won't ever seek 'truth' when 'truth' disagrees with you. The concept of intelligent design bothers you mostly because it points out your willing, adamant ignorance.

Why do you continually insist on comparing animate and inanimate objects? You have to realize it's nothing more than a giant strawman.

Still waiting for you to produce a pregnant helicopter.

[pete311]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought.

Says the man who lives by an ancient book.



When confronted by the facts, he repeats what he's said earlier. Furthermore, there are a few folks in here who have enough faith to look at a cake and assume it was formed through random chance, magic, alignment of the elements etc. There are reasonable people here, too, who look at the cake and conclude it MUST have a baker.


It's now crystal clear you have a mental impairment. Either that or you are a malfunctioning robot because you just keep repeating the same stupid lines. You really have nothing to say. After all this time you still think Evolution Theory has something to do with the origin of life. You'd know that if you had done 1 minute of research. Yes, if I see a cake, I'd conclude it was made by a baker. What is your point?



Still waiting for you to produce a pregnant helicopter.

Or a pregnant cake

[PostmodernProphet]

What's clear is this: Pete can't create any original thought.

score......if he can't find something to paste that responds to your question, he pastes something that doesn't respond to your question and pretends he did......

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do you continually insist on comparing animate and inanimate objects?

like organic chemicals and one celled organisms?.....

[pete311]

score......if he can't find something to paste that responds to your question, he pastes something that doesn't respond to your question and pretends he did......

Im sorry I didn't realize dmp was the inventor of the "design requires a designer" statement. How neat is that! Hypocrites...

like organic chemicals and one celled organisms?.....

You two are so dense. How many time must I state that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. It's how creatures change over time, that is all.

[ConHog]

I don't like to buy cars with pistons at all - but when forced to do so, I prefer one designed...according to a plan.

The faith you have in mere coincidence, happenstance, blind-dumb luck, and statistical impossibilities is commendable if confusing to me.

LOL guess he didn't realize you're a fan of the silly ass Wankel rotary engine.

I'm with you, who could look around and say nope this is all coincidental. No design at all.

[pete311]

LOL guess he didn't realize you're a fan of the silly ass Wankel rotary engine.

I'm with you, who could look around and say nope this is all coincidental. No design at all.
Nature is the designer. if you don't trust the scientific process then why aren't you visiting a shaman when you get sick? You're throwing in with ignorant cultures who didn't understand thunder and lightening so they attributed it to zeus.

[ConHog]

Nature is the designer. if you don't trust the scientific process then why aren't you visiting a shaman when you get sick? You're throwing in with ignorant cultures who didn't understand thunder and lightening so they attributed it to zeus.

Nature isn't an intelligence that could design ANYTHING. Either you believe something was created by an intelligence or you believe it was pure happenstance.

[pete311]

Nature isn't an intelligence that could design ANYTHING. Either you believe something was created by an intelligence or you believe it was pure happenstance.

Fine, i'll concede on the definition of "designer".

Creatures change over time, that is well proven, well documented. What you guys keep arguing against is to the origins of life. Evolution does not describe how life got started. If you want to attribute God, then fine, I don't care, because I admit we don't know for sure how life was started.

[ConHog]

Fine, i'll concede on the definition of "designer".

Creatures change over time, that is well proven, well documented. What you guys keep arguing against is to the origins of life. Evolution does not describe how life got started. If you want to attribute God, then fine, I don't care, because I admit we, and scientists don't know for sure how life was started.

Just because I am sick of arguing over proven facts, I'm interested in how you handle to obvious question of "who designed the designer". If there is a cake, there must be a baker. Who made the baker?

We can agree that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

As for who created the baker. That is the faith part of religion. There was nothing before God, so there was nothing to create Him.

[pete311]

As for who created the baker. That is the faith part of religion. There was nothing before God, so there was nothing to create Him.

What is disturbing is that every day you live in a world that is seething with the products of science and technology but yet still find the Book of Genesis to be the best explanation for the origins of life. Again, we don't know for sure, I am ready to admit that, but I am not ready to throw in the towel considering when I look back in history and see how far we've come from the dark ages.

[ConHog]

What is disturbing is that every day you live in a world that is seething with the products of science and technology but yet still find the Book of Genesis to be the best explanation for the origins of life. Again, we don't know for sure, I am ready to admit that, but I am not ready to throw in the towel considering when I look back in history and see how far we've come from the dark ages.

How is my leap of faith any greater than yours? You take it on faith that we evolved from a monkey (or whatever.) I take it on faith that we were created essentially just as we are today. Sure a few changes due to various reasons, but essentially the same.

How can anyone look at the beauty of our world (for the most part) and not agree that someone or something designed it?

[pete311]

How is my leap of faith any greater than yours? You take it on faith that we evolved from a monkey (or whatever.) I take it on faith that we were created essentially just as we are today. Sure a few changes due to various reasons, but essentially the same.

How can anyone look at the beauty of our world (for the most part) and not agree that someone or something designed it?

Because science doesn't work on faith. We didn't pray one night and all of sudden advanced antibiotics arrived on our doorsteps. Science follows a defined method of prediction, experimentation and confirmation. These aren't people just day dreaming. We are descendants of apes. That is testable and verifiable. The bible is not.

The world is absolutely magically, i've been to over 50 countries and seen incredible beauty and world wonders, but that wonder and ultimately ignorance of how things work doesn't have to result immediately in thinking "God must of did it". That is not how we got out of the dark ages. For some reason there are thousands of other scientific theories you do accept. Why do you accept Relativity Theories? Those have pretty far out ramifications! But they work, if they didn't, our GPS and TV satellites would not operate.

Again, you can have your faith, you can believe in God, I don't care. I already said I don't mind if you think God sparked the life force on earth, because we don't really know, but what happened after that spark, we have testable and verifiable evidence and we see it live at work in labs all the time.

Remember the Bible was written by man, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Genesis was one of them.

[ConHog]

Because science doesn't work on faith. We didn't pray one night and all of sudden advanced antibiotics arrived on our doorsteps. Science follows a defined method of prediction, experimentation and confirmation. These aren't people just day dreaming. We are descendants of apes. That is testable and verifiable. The bible is not.

The world is absolutely magically, i've been to over 50 countries and seen incredible beauty and world wonders, but that wonder and ultimately ignorance of how things work doesn't have to result immediately in thinking "God must of did it". That is not how we got out of the dark ages. For some reason there are thousands of other scientific theories you do accept. Why do you accept Relativity Theories? Those have pretty far out ramifications! But they work, if they didn't, our GPS and TV satellites would not operate.

Again, you can have your faith, you can believe in God, I don't care. I already said I don't mind if you think God sparked the life force on earth, because we don't really know, but what happened after that spark, we have testable and verifiable evidence and we see it live at work in labs all the time.

Remember the Bible was written by man, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Genesis was one of them.

At some science DOES work on faith when you're dealing with the origins of life. There is no proof either way.

[fj1200]

At some science DOES work on faith when you're dealing with the origins of life. There is no proof either way.

At the moment science doesn't claim any definitive facts one way or the other on the origins of life. The model science is working on is called abiogenesis, but no one would claim it as fact. Like I said, at this point I don't have a problem with people saying the spark of life was from God.


We can agree that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive.

This bears repeating.


Remember the Bible was written by man, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Genesis was one of them.

Francis Collins may disagree with you.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence _for_Belief)

[revelarts]

Because science doesn't work on faith. We didn't pray one night and all of sudden advanced antibiotics arrived on our doorsteps. Science follows a defined method of prediction, experimentation and confirmation. That is fruat with the pit falls of human nature. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis FOUGHT with scientist and lost trying to prove the germ theory of disease when the evidence was proven in front of them. the prevailing idea always get the benifit of the doubt and information that's disproves the prevailing theory is given at best differential rigor, and usually scorned outright and often not allowed in "peer reviewed" journals until the evidence has beatin everyone over the head thoroughly. And not until "there's something "to replace" the prevailing idea.



These aren't people just day dreaming. We are descendants of apes. That is testable and verifiable. Testable and verifiable? umm no it's not. it's an assumption based on theory. there is no way to repaet the supposed decent in a lab and no way to confirm the hypothisis. there are HUGE gaps and the "science" keeps changing it's postions on Whats and ansetor and whats not, if was "verifiable" there'd be no need to change. it would be settled. If it were completely test able we could repeat it scientifically but we can't. It is a theory based on arrangeing facts in a certain order that APPEARS logical. but hte holes are so MASSIVE that one has to assume the theory is correct to mentally allow for the fantastic leaps.



The bible is not.
On creation the bible is not verifiable but if it were a complete fairy tale it could be dismissed like the earth being on the back of a turtle story of one culture. However to date there nothing in genesis outside of special creation that is outside the range of scientific possibility.
And the thread was started not about Creation but the poor science of Evolution. again folks Asking for a replacement before one admits that the theory of evolution is completely insufficient scientific explanation for what we see around us.



The world is absolutely magically, i've been to over 50 countries and seen incredible beauty and world wonders, but that wonder and ultimately ignorance of how things work doesn't have to result immediately in thinking "God must of did it". That is not how we got out of the dark ages. For some reason there are thousands of other scientific theories you do accept. Why do you accept Relativity Theories? Those have pretty far out ramifications! But they work, if they didn't, our GPS and TV satellites would not operate.

Again, you can have your faith, you can believe in God, I don't care. I already said I don't mind if you think God sparked the life force on earth, because we don't really know, but what happened after that spark, we have testable and verifiable evidence and we see it live at work in labs all the time.

Remember the Bible was written by man, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Genesis was one of them.

its like saying wow look at this car I can take it apart and tell you how it works, I'm a mechanic, but i don't want to talk about the manufacture. all I need to know I can figure out by my examination and that's all there really is to know. Other mechanic Agree. Your fantasy Detroit and Chevrolet owners manual is fine but I've traveled the length of the car and looked at it's engine it's wonderful and i can't say where it came from but believe what you will. We mechanics will get the engine running even better as time goes on.
You assume that your examinations and tinkering are enough to bring you to the orgin when it may not be enough to get the whole story.

[pete311]

That is fruat with the pit falls of human nature.

Perhaps, but look at history man, it's worked pretty damn well. In any case, the Bible was written by a number of different men, it should be under the influence of the same pitfalls.



Testable and verifiable? umm no it's not.


Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees. I think that is close enough!



it's an assumption based on theory.

"A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."


there is no way to repaet the supposed decent in a lab
and no way to confirm the hypothisis.

You don't need to "watch" in a lab to put the puzzle pieces together. Of course you won't read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution



there are HUGE gaps and the "science" keeps changing it's postions on Whats and ansetor and whats not, if was "verifiable" there'd be no need to change. it would be settled. If it were completely test able we could repeat it scientifically but we can't. It is a theory based on arrangeing facts in a certain order that APPEARS logical. but hte holes are so MASSIVE that one has to assume the theory is correct to mentally allow for the fantastic leaps.


When in modern times has it flipped flopped? If anything we can getting a clearer and clearer picture overtime. The picture is not changing.



And the thread was started not about Creation but the poor science of Evolution. again folks Asking for a replacement before one admits that the theory of evolution is completely insufficient scientific explanation for what we see around us.

How can it be poor if it explains vast amounts of progression. Again, I think you are in the boat as someone who hasn't researched much. I doubt you have much of a biology education. It's frustrating talking to people who haven't. The theory is really quite amazing. Science has loads of data and amazing findings. All you have is a short fairy tale. I don't get how Genesis is a better explanation. The difference in depth is astounding. I'll state again that Evolution does not attempt to explain life's origins.



its like saying wow look at this car I can take it apart and tell you how it works, I'm a mechanic, but i don't want to talk about the manufacture. all I need to know I can figure out by my examination and that's all there really is to know. Other mechanic Agree. Your fantasy Detroit and Chevrolet owners manual is fine but I've traveled the length of the car and looked at it's engine it's wonderful and i can't say where it came from but believe what you will. We mechanics will get the engine running even better as time goes on.
You assume that your examinations and tinkering are enough to bring you to the orgin when it may not be enough to get the whole story.

Not really sure what you are talking about. There are many tools of science, dissection is just one.

[logroller]

Why? :thinking5:

Some wish to explain; some wish to believe. I happen to believe in God; not to explain that which I cannot, but rather, that which I care not to.

In a way I fashion God to reverent ignorance; as the more I learn, the more I question. I cannot know everything; yet I remain pragmatic in my pursuit of truth despite this. At some point, on some things, I must concede intellectual defeat. This, to me, is to know God.

[Missileman]

Francis Collins may disagree with you.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence _for_Belief)



Do you think so? I haven't read the book, but the premises listed at the link would be at odds with several parts of the Bible's version of genesis...Eve made from Adam's rib,e.g.

[PostmodernProphet]

Im sorry I didn't realize dmp was the inventor of the "design requires a designer" statement. How neat is that! Hypocrites...


You two are so dense. How many time must I state that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. It's how creatures change over time, that is all.

and are you the only person in the world?.......I am aware that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life.....I know for a fact that the average layman is not aware of that, being the product of an American public school education......I am specifically aware that you attribute more to "evolution" than science does because you for some strange reason, believe I deny it......that could only be if you believe evolution teaches something it doesn't, as I don't deny anything that evolution teaches.......

meanwhile.....my previous statement is true, and dmp is correct.......you are not capable of writing an original statement that defends your claims about evolution.......if you believe you are, here is your opportunity to prove us wrong.......pasting nothing, give me a full paragraph of at least three sentences that shows, scientifically, that either of our arguments are incorrect........

[fj1200]

Do you think so? I haven't read the book, but the premises listed at the link would be at odds with several parts of the Bible's version of genesis...Eve made from Adam's rib,e.g.

Yes. I don't recall anything related to Adam and Eve but that part isn't science. How are they at odds?

[pete311]

meanwhile.....my previous statement is true, and dmp is correct.......you are not capable of writing an original statement that defends your claims about evolution.......if you believe you are, here is your opportunity to prove us wrong.......pasting nothing, give me a full paragraph of at least three sentences that shows, scientifically, that either of our arguments are incorrect........

Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.


Do you think so? I haven't read the book, but the premises listed at the link would be at odds with several parts of the Bible's version of genesis...Eve made from Adam's rib,e.g.

It's interesting to note the book is categorized as "Religious Studies", not as any science.

[Missileman]

Yes. I don't recall anything related to Adam and Eve but that part isn't science. How are they at odds?

"that part isn't science" ?

Please clarify that statement.


Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.

It's hilarious isn't it? A contention that if you can't come up with an original, previously unwritten proof that 2+2=4 then they are free to conclude that it =3.

[fj1200]

It's interesting to note the book is categorized as "Religious Studies", not as any science.

Who said it was science?


"that part isn't science" ?

Please clarify that statement.

Why would you expect God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve would be an example of science?

[Missileman]

Who said it was science?



Why would you expect God taking Adam's rib and creating Eve would be an example of science?

Since Collins believes man is descended from an ape-like ancestor, one can conclude he doesn't believe the biblical account of God making Eve from Adam's rib.

BTW, I don't expect anything from the Bible would be an example of science, hence the reason I asked for clarification.

All in all, I'm guessing that Collins is engaging in a little "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Since it's become impossible to disprove evolution, the religious are left with no other option than to give God credit for inventing it.

[darin]

And impossible to PROVE macro evolution; hence yours and others massive amounts of faith; your hopes hinging on its truthfulness, because the alternative scares the hell out of you. :)

[Missileman]

And impossible to PROVE macro evolution; hence yours and others massive amounts of faith; your hopes hinging on its truthfulness, because the alternative scares the hell out of you. :)

Faith is belief when there's no evidence to substantiate it. The MOUNTAIN of evidence available that substantiates evolution makes it no more a matter of faith to believe it than to believe that 2+2=4. As for fear, it resides solely in your camp, not mine.

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course nothing I say is original. I am not a biologist. I don't study in a lab and make findings. I am a web designer who happens to choose to inform himself on the subject enough to realize it's effectiveness. It's effectiveness is something you cannot deny. Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working day and night there has yet to be any experiment or observation (published in a peer reviewed journal) that disproves the theory. That is a powerful indication it works.

paragraph......three sentences......unfortunately, it didn't address the issue we were talking about........sorry.......

[revelarts]

Faith is belief when there's no evidence to substantiate it. The MOUNTAIN of evidence available that substantiates evolution makes it no more a matter of faith to believe it than to believe that 2+2=4....

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".


your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

[fj1200]

Since Collins believes man is descended from an ape-like ancestor, one can conclude he doesn't believe the biblical account of God making Eve from Adam's rib.

BTW, I don't expect anything from the Bible would be an example of science, hence the reason I asked for clarification.

All in all, I'm guessing that Collins is engaging in a little "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Since it's become impossible to disprove evolution, the religious are left with no other option than to give God credit for inventing it.

One can conclude a lot of things when we haven't read the book or don't recall specifically because it's been so long in my case. The following isn't by Collins but is from his foundations site:


...Science asserts that evolved brain capacity and function are part of what set Homo sapiens apart from previous hominids. It is this same capacity and function that make relationship possible and, particularly in the creation account, covenantal relationships between humans and God and between humans and each other (i.e., marriage). An advantage of this interpretation is that God’s natural processes marvelously work without the need for any ancestral or genetic fabrication. Also, you’d finally be able to explain where it is that Cain found his wife (answer: from the other humans walking the earth east of Eden; Genesis 4:16-17).


However, this view would require a reinterpretation of words like “formed” and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7 KJV). Can we use “formed” and “breathed” to mean created through the long and continuous history of biological evolution (as were the other living creatures in Genesis 1)? If so, then perhaps “the Lord God formed the man” could be read emphasizing the novelty and uniqueness which humans inhabit.


Similarly, the “breath of life” would not signify simply oxygenated animation (surely Genesis isn’t simply speaking in that sense), but that breath which set humans apart as inspired by God (the Hebrew word for breath here is different than the word used for oxygen-intake by living creatures as a whole).

...
http://biologos.org/blog/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary

Why wouldn't a religious person acknowledge that God "invented" it? If new ways are understood and it becomes easier to understand the background of the bible as well then it's perfectly natural. One thing that Collins refers to is believing in the "God of the gaps," if you believe that God is responsible for the missing links, for example, and then a scientific discovery is made explaining the link then where are you with your belief. You would have to question the god that you created because you put him in a box. I also think that people rely too much on modern translations that may misinterpret original words/phrases. A literal creationist would say that "day" equals 24 hours where the original wording has "day" meaning an era that could be millions of years in the making.

Besides, if anyone gets wrapped in this creation/evolution conundrum then they are completely missing the point anyway IMO.

[PostmodernProphet]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".


your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

sponges turn into liberal humans......for obvious reasons.......

[Missileman]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".

Macro-evolution is not a different process than micro-evolution, but the accumulation of vast amounts of micro-evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution does not claim that a mammal mutated into a bird. Transitions would occur over millions of years, not in a single pregnancy.

Edited to add a link to a transitional species, not that you won't pooh pooh it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/15/prehistoric-fish-had-genes-for-legs-long-before-move-to-land-fossil-reveals/



your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

[logroller]

If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

Start a new religion or write a new version of the Bible-- you'll probably make more.:coffee:

[logroller]

Can you give me 1, example of Macro evolution like a fish to reptile
tetrapods


or a mammal to bird or a no eye to an eye. evidence not conjecture. nothing like "well this looks like this so it IS from this ...until we find out different. "
out of that Mountain of evidence. something scientific like SURE transition forms, a scientific - chemical, molecular or biological process for major positive mutations, not "here's my theory this seems to fit ignore the gaps so it true".
Birds didn't descend form mammals...so, that would be impossible; but that's not really the issue, which is, the mountains of evidence contain literally billions of mutations over millions of years. Most of which are long gone, the odds of finding every detail are slim to none, so of course some gaps remain, but the current theory is supported by the evidence which exists and scientists actually seek to disprove their hypothesis, not prove them. Its like going down the road looking for signs you are on the right path; sometimes there are signs the path is the right one, but every step of the way isn't paved, so one must also look for signs they are going the wrong direction. Then you go back. It's a slow process, but what took millions of years to evolve, we have discovered much in a relatively short time.



your 2+3=4 analogy doesn't work,
divining scientific processes from the distant past based on portions of dead plants and animals and current processes is more like murder mystery than simple addition, a cold case in fact. one can line up the sparse evidence to appear to have found THE killer but if you dismiss conflicting evidence because you think you've found the murderer, your a poor lazy and self deceived detective.

What is your issue with evolution? Is it the scientific process, because evidence is incomplete, that we came from monkeys, or do you just see it as an affront to religion?

B/C in my heart I believe in God, but my mind is forced to question such things as Light to humans in 6 days-- as best i understand, this ability to question and reason is what is meant by man being created in God's image. If He is all-knowing and omnipotent, why bother giving us these abilities and the emplacement of fossil records which aren't congruent with intelligent design-- He just toying with our inquisitive nature? Why?????????

[PostmodernProphet]

Transitions would occur over millions of years, not in a single pregnancy.

you see, that's the disadvantage against an intelligent designer.......she doesn't need millions of years of errors......

[pete311]

you see, that's the disadvantage against an intelligent designer.......she doesn't need millions of years of errors......
Apparently he need just one try to fuck up. Humans are a mess. I want a new design!

[logroller]

Apparently he need just one try to fuck up. Humans are a mess. I want a new design!

Tsk Tsk. Gotta see it through. Burnt steak makes for killer nachos! :bbq:

[PostmodernProphet]

Apparently he need just one try to fuck up. Humans are a mess. I want a new design!

perhaps you are a mess.....the rest of us have been getting along just fine for many generations......

[pete311]

perhaps you are a mess.....the rest of us have been getting along just fine for many generations......

then you haven't read anything about history or visited a hospice or questioned why we have unused DNA, unnecessary organs, push foul waste out next to our reproductive organs, why we have a tail bone, why our ears never stop growing, why i can't see shit in the dark, why my knees have arthritis. This is the best God could design? Not only bad physical design, but bad mental and emotional design. Read the news! We have the mental sophistication of cavemen. In my feeble mind I can come up with lots of improvements. Speaking of bad design. The Earth! Why did he create so much useless salt water, sandy desert and bone cold ice caps. We can only comfortable inhabit like 10% of the Earth. Nice design!

[PostmodernProphet]

you may change something about human beings.....doing so will prove that you're smarter than God.....what would it be and how do you conclude that it will not have some impact upon us that will make things worse for us in the long run........

[pete311]

you may change something about human beings.....doing so will prove that you're smarter than God.....what would it be and how do you conclude that it will not have some impact upon us that will make things worse for us in the long run........

Protection from childhood leukemia (God gave a child malfunctioning bone marrow) would be a good start. Do you see a downside? Boom, I'm smarter than God.

Interesting development
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810

[PostmodernProphet]

all cancers are the result of mutating cells.....if cells could not mutate how could evolution occur?.......if evolution could not occur you would still be an amoeba.......or, from our perspective, there might only be one color of butterfly......is the problem that cells mutate into cancer or is the problem that we haven't figured out yet how to repair that particular mutation......

when you consider all forms of life, how many cells are produced by the operation of DNA on an hourly basis......is it even possible to display such a large number on mere computer........out of all those cells what percentage are mutated (not even taking into consideration how many are brought to mutation through our contact with a polluted environment)......what percentage of those mutations are capable of reproducing themselves (cancer).......

before you can declare this one a win you have to convince me that simply waving your magic wand and eliminating cancer doesn't result in something worse, like an inability to adapt to a changing environment......

[pete311]

all cancers are the result of mutating cells.....if cells could not mutate how could evolution occur?.......if evolution could not occur you would still be an amoeba.......or, from our perspective, there might only be one color of butterfly......is the problem that cells mutate into cancer or is the problem that we haven't figured out yet how to repair that particular mutation......

Obviously there is a difference between normal cell mutation and cancerous mutation. God shouldn't have designed cells that can't turn cancerous. His cell replication process is flawed.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer



before you can declare this one a win you have to convince me that simply waving your magic wand and eliminating cancer doesn't result in something worse, like an inability to adapt to a changing environment......

How can you adapt to a changing environment if you are dead? Cancer kills. Why treat malaria patients or immunize kids for polio. We could be robbing them of vital protection to a changing environment! no...

[darin]

Pete - your last reply made a very strong case for evolution; you've finally evolved the ability to use 'mulit-quote' feature :)

WOOOHOOO!

[edit]
oh. nevermind. That was one reply you broke apart. :( I had such hope.

[PostmodernProphet]

How can you adapt to a changing environment if you are dead?

do you realize you've just refuted Darwin?......

[revelarts]

Obviously there is a difference between normal cell mutation and cancerous mutation. God shouldn't have designed cells that can't turn cancerous. His cell replication process is flawed.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer



How can you adapt to a changing environment if you are dead? Cancer kills. Why treat malaria patients or immunize kids for polio. We could be robbing them of vital protection to a changing environment! no...


I'm going to weight in on this question and go baack to the coments to my earlier post later.

But this brings us to 2 separte sections of the God designed it agrument , from my POV.

on one side I can point out the designed aspects idea conforms better to what we see sceintically than evolution does.
I can say it scientifically ,without reference to any specific intelligence or God.

Now from here everyone leaps and Adds the Theological bits and says "HA YOU SAY your God is Perfect and Good, but look at all of these design problems , it should have been done better. IF your God is who he says he is.

OK fine but understand that's a very theological question at this point, which assume Perfection and goodness of the creator. Because the science doesn't as yet bear it out.
Ok now Biblically there is a clear answer. that is, that God did make the world perfect BUT there was a problem, he allowed some freedom that freedom was abused and the whole of creation was corrupted becuase of it. from the environment to the smallest living creator.
THAT's why the designs are no longer "perfect".

Short answer: God did make everything perfect but man fell and and God cursed man and the earth thus death and illness until he renews the whole show.

It's a theological answer that i can't scientifically prove BUT I think you can find some evidence for it you take the view that man and the universe is not evolving but devolving. That the law of entropy is as work in everything, moving us from the more prefect complexity to less.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer



the opening line from your link...


Cancer is a term used for diseases in which abnormal cells divide without control
now, isn't that exactly what I have just said?....


God shouldn't have designed cells that can't turn cancerous. His cell replication process is flawed.
I'm assuming you didn't mean to use a double negative and that he should NOT have designed cells that COULD turn cancerous.....
1) can you scientifically document that permitting abnormal cells do divide and result (in some very small percentage) in cancer is worse for humanity than not permitting abnormal cells to be able to divide?.....2) is it a flaw or is it the very reason we have not already become extinct........3) isn't it true that most cancers are caused by the impact upon our cellular structure from outside the body.....things such as smoking upon lungs, etc......are these the result of God's will and intended design or human conduct......

[revelarts]

Why do you continually insist on comparing animate and inanimate objects? You have to realize it's nothing more than a giant strawman. Still waiting for you to produce a pregnant helicopter. I don't get this , ANY pregnant or self replicating creature is MORE complex than a a man made helicopter, but you say random chance plus time plus natural selection (which began in an unknown way) is able to to produce a billion variations of the life more makes sense than a designer. It's not a Straw man it's sound comparison. based on the fact that you MUST have information to create a self replicating life form and you don't get information by random chance. period. evolution doesn't answer HOW you get the NEW information. And Frankly people are working on self replicating machines so you may get your wish but it will be becuase someone designed it that way.


Im sorry I didn't realize dmp was the inventor of the "design requires a designer" statement. How neat is that! Hypocrites...
You two are so dense. How many time must I state that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life. It's how creatures change over time, that is all..... Nature is the designer. if you don't trust the scientific process then why aren't you visiting a shaman when you get sick? You're throwing in with ignorant cultures who didn't understand thunder and lightening so they attributed it to zeus.Who said anything about not trusting the scientific process? I'm saying that the scientific process doesn't PROVE the evolution of all of the major variations in biology. it ONLY show minor changes within a NARROW range. And it does not PROVE ancestral relationship. Is evolution is all of science somehow in your mind? that it accounts for medicine and lighting too?




Because science doesn't work on faith. We didn't pray one night and all of sudden advanced antibiotics arrived on our doorsteps. Science follows a defined method of prediction, experimentation and confirmation. These aren't people just day dreaming. We are descendants of apes. That is testable and verifiable. The bible is not.
... Remember the Bible was written by man, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Genesis was one of them.Science is made by man as well, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Darwinism is one of them.




Human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees. I think that is close enough!
Well it's not for some, "
"But the widely accepted notion that the 'greatest overall molecular similarity' is synonymous with 'most closely related' derives not from any empirical evidence but merely from the acceptance without question of the 'molecular assumption': namely, most recently divergent taxa will be most similar in their proteins and DNA because they will have shared a longer lineage of molecular change prior to their divergence and that the pace of molecular change was clocklike in nature. Nevertheless, despite claims to the contrary, the demonstration of molecular similarity does not a priori equate with a demonstration of homology, which must precede any hypothesis of phylogenetic relationship because a demonstration of similarity alone is only phenetic and must be subject to rigorous phylogenetic enquiry."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227133.800-could-orangutans-be-our-closest-relatives.html
"...We've all heard that chimpanzees are our closest relatives - that, in fact, they share 98% of their genes with us. But what evidence supports these often-repeated commonplaces? Very little, concludes physical anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz. In his keenly insightful demolition of conventional wisdom on the family relationships between apes and humans, Schwartz provides a fresh examination of fossil evidence, modern anatomy and physiology, and DNA....
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Ape-Orangutans-Origins-Revised/dp/0813340640/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245539303&sr=8-3
Schwartz and Grehan are both evolutionist but I point this out to show that what you consider proof beyond doubt "2+2=4" is not as solid as you'd suppose. the details of the evidence make the case stronger or weaker by degrees in any place, not the assumption of the conclusion.



"A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory."
You don't need to "watch" in a lab to put the puzzle pieces together. Of course you won't read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionread it.
Macro-evolution is not a different process than micro-evolution, but the accumulation of vast amounts of micro-evolutionary changes. The theory of evolution does not claim that a mammal mutated into a bird. Transitions would occur over millions of years, not in a single pregnancy.

here's the problem, Evolution claims so much, you say that "IT" is a reality. Well there are different bits of "it" that are true, and bits that are not, and bits that are hyposiss, and bits that are proven, and LARGE bits that are guesses and fairytales. ALL of it is said to be EVOLUTION that "only religious fanatics" question or can deny.

You guys don't like the term Marco Evolution but the fact is there are different aspect of evolution that go under specific names. Darwinism , neo Darwinism, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, transpremia are some of the popular terms that are out there that I know of.

I'll assume based on what you've said that you both think that gradualism ("Gradualism is the theory that evolution occurs slowly and consistently along periods of time.") is THE way all life have transformed since... um... well the Creation of life. But you do realize that some evolutionist do not agree. they think that there was NO "evolution" for long periods of time then sudden burst of "evolution". It's how they try to explain things like the Cambrian explosion and THE HORRIBLE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS!!!!! Darwin Himself said that there should be millions of transitional forms everywhere and HOPED -BELIEVED-- that one day many would be found, well he's been disappointed. there are still no decent line of transitional forms and clear ancestory for anything.

you say that its gradual. well what does a slug do with 1/2000th of an eye?
How does natural selection make that mutation reoccur for a millions generations and make RANDOM improvements that infer some REPRODUCTIVE advantage (cause those are the only ones that count in evolution) until we get the all of the nuero pathways, cognitive interpretations, light spectrum range, behavioral changes, instructions for all parts to reproduce correctly in various species, etc etc ? "the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that "it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear.". 2+2=4. Math says evolution Anit working. period.
One has to be blind not to see that evolution cannot do what it claims to do in MICRO steps. and there is no biological process known and no evidence for sudden none gradual MACRO POSITIVE mutations like the eye, or even less complex organs.

[pete311]

do you realize you've just refuted Darwin?......

Are you saying we should abandon modern medicine so maybe we can develop a resistance via the evolutionary process? I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at.



Short answer: God did make everything perfect but man fell and and God cursed man and the earth thus death and illness until he renews the whole show.
Sounds like a reasonable things to do... Anyway, this part of the Bible is so ambiguous it's impossible to debate. Too many assumptions are made.



It's a theological answer that i can't scientifically prove BUT I think you can find some evidence for it you take the view that man and the universe is not evolving but devolving. That the law of entropy is as work in everything, moving us from the more prefect complexity to less.

The second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to closed systems. The Earth certainly is not a closed system. The universe being closed is up for debate.




1) can you scientifically document that permitting abnormal cells do divide and result (in some very small percentage) in cancer is worse for humanity than not permitting abnormal cells to be able to divide?.....

2) is it a flaw or is it the very reason we have not already become extinct........

3) isn't it true that most cancers are caused by the impact upon our cellular structure from outside the body.....things such as smoking upon lungs, etc......are these the result of God's will and intended design or human conduct......

Not all abnormal cell mutation is malignant. What is your point? Some cancers are caused by personal decisions yes. Some aren't.


I don't get this , ANY pregnant or self replicating creature is MORE complex than a a man made helicopter

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a Comanche Stealth Helicopter is more advanced than a yeast cell.



but you say random chance plus time plus natural selection (which began in an unknown way) is able to to produce a billion variations of the life more makes sense than a designer.

for the most part, yes, it has proved correct in every observation and experiment to date


based on the fact that you MUST have information to create a self replicating life form and you don't get information by random chance. period. evolution doesn't answer HOW you get the NEW information. And Frankly people are working on self replicating machines so you may get your wish but it will be becuase someone designed it that way.

I suppose researching how DNA replicates will yield an answer. SRM machines are many many decades away and even then it will be at the nano and micro level. A testament to science.



Who said anything about not trusting the scientific process? I'm saying that the scientific process doesn't PROVE the evolution of all of the major variations in biology. it ONLY show minor changes within a NARROW range. And it does not PROVE ancestral relationship. Is evolution is all of science somehow in your mind? that it accounts for medicine and lighting too?

Yes it does. What creature today disproves the theory?




Science is made by man as well, perhaps they made a few mistakes. I'm thinking Darwinism is one of them.

You're absolutely correct, thankfully we've modernize the theory. Something your Bible is unable to do. You are stuck in the middle ages with a book written by ignorant desert nomads.




here's the problem, Evolution claims so much, you say that "IT" is a reality. Well there are different bits of "it" that are true, and bits that are not, and bits that are hyposiss, and bits that are proven, and LARGE bits that are guesses and fairytales. ALL of it is said to be EVOLUTION that "only religious fanatics" question or can deny.


What bits of evolution has been proven false in observation or experiment. Please link me the paper.



Darwin Himself said that there should be millions of transitional forms everywhere and HOPED -BELIEVED-- that one day many would be found, well he's been disappointed. there are still no decent line of transitional forms and clear ancestory for anything.

Gaps are to be expected. Not all past creatures were fossilized and we certainly haven't found close to everything. New discoveries are made every year. They all support the theory.



you say that its gradual. well what does a slug do with 1/2000th of an eye?

There are many types eyes with varying degrees of complexity.



How does natural selection make that mutation reoccur for a millions generations and make RANDOM improvements that infer some REPRODUCTIVE advantage (cause those are the only ones that count in evolution) until we get the all of the nuero pathways, cognitive interpretations, light spectrum range, behavioral changes, instructions for all parts to reproduce correctly in various species, etc etc ? "the mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that "it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear.". 2+2=4. Math says evolution Anit working.


Where is this math? I wouldn't trust an accountant with launching a satellite nor a mathematician with evolution.

[Missileman]

on one side I can point out the designed aspects idea conforms better to what we see sceintically than evolution does.
I can say it scientifically ,without reference to any specific intelligence or God.


ROFLMAO!!! This may be the most hilarious post of the decade. Simply saying it's scientific makes it scientific? My eyes are watering from laughing so hard I can't see the screen to see if I've made any typos.

[revelarts]

...Edited to add a link to a transitional species, not that you won't pooh pooh it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/15/prehistoric-fish-had-genes-for-legs-long-before-move-to-land-fossil-reveals/
.
It's hard for me to address the whole article becuse its so full of assumptions. and I've wonder how they come by the dna from the fossil for make the test? OH they didn't they are checking modern fish and mice Okkk my laymans take on the 1st paragraph.

A celebrated missing-link fossil (Assumption, it looks like it should fit so BAM its IT until we find out it's not like we did with Colacanth) found in the Canadian Arctic seven years ago has led scientists to a significant new discovery that the genetic blueprint for arms, legs, fingers and toes existed in prehistoric fish long before some of them evolved into land animals exhibiting such features. (Assumption: they don't have the DNA, but it may have I'll let it slide)

The finding by a team of U.S. researchers, published in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reinforces the reputation of Tiktaalik roseae — a 375-million-year-old fossilized “fishapod” discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 — as an “evolutionary icon” because it symbolizes the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth’s most primitive creatures. (Symbolizes becuase they don't have ANY other real good candidate for the transition)

The researchers said the evident similarities between fish fins and mammal limbs — “particularly the wrist and hand-like compartments present in the fins of Tiktaalik” and other ancient transitional species (Notice that this "transitional" creature to LAND has FINS like a fish and Swims Like a fish guess what it might be?) — “inspired a laboratory experiment (Inspired an experiment Great some real science) to look at the homology, or shared physical and genetic traits, of fish and limbed animals.”

The experiment showed that a genetic “switch” needed to activate the development of limbs in present-day mice was also present in extinct species of fish some 400 million years ago. (Assumption: they don't have the 400 mil year old DNA but I'll let it slide both are fish so no biggie) Not only that, the same patches of DNA traced (traced How, they don't say) to primitive fish could be transplanted from present-day fish into modern mice embryos and successfully trigger limb development.

Likewise, the limb-development genes from mice could be substituted in aquatic species such as zebrafish and skate and trigger the growth of fins. (Sooo the same area on the DNA will make a Limb IF it's in a mouse or fins IF it's in a Fish. Um yeah, sounds like we got similar parts different function, does that prove DECENT? hmm not really. I would not be surprised if similar thing could be done cross many species of vertebrates, we have many similar functions and parts does it PROVE DECENT? no. only similarities.)






tetrapods
As mentioned above the colacath was assumed to be an early tetrapod transition from fish to land creature. until we found one alive an it was STILL claimed to be one and that it walked on the sea floor until scientist admted , well no it just swims with it's 4 tetrapod like limbs. never walked. and similar body style doesn't prove decent. the differences in each type of tetrapod which is specific and narrowlly defined and fine tuned for specific types of locomotion AND unable to interbred etc etc shows there are not just gaps but chasms of distant for the assumptions of evolution to fill. Unless you just take it on faith that similarities Prove decent.




Birds didn't descend form mammals...so, that would be impossible; but that's not really the issue, which is, the mountains of evidence contain literally billions of mutations over millions of years. Most of which are long gone, (why assume that it was there in the 1st place?)the odds of finding every detail are slim to none, so of course some(Most) gaps remain, but the current theory is supported by the evidence which exists and scientists actually seek to disprove their hypothesis, not prove them.(um no they try to prove evolution) Its like going down the road looking for signs you are on the right path; sometimes there are signs the path is the right one, but every step of the way isn't paved, so one must also look for signs they are going the wrong direction. (None assume they are going in the wrong direction though? Any signs that say so must be reinterpreted , like the Cambrian explosion or the Latoli Footprints) Then you go back. (go back? !!! "TO WHAT?" they say "the DARK AGES?") It's a slow process, but what took millions of years to evolve, we have discovered much in a relatively short time.

for example
"..<small>A US Geological Survey team, consisting of Harold Malde, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, and Roald Fryxell, working under a grant from the National Science Foundation, assigned dates of 250,000 year B.P. for these artifacts. These geologists stated that four different dating methods independently yielded an anomalously great age for the artifacts found near Valsequillo. The dating methods used were:

1. uranium series dating
2. fission track dating
3. tephra hydration dating
4. study of mineral weathering

The date of 250,000 years obtained for Hueyatlaco by the US Geological Survey team provoked a great deal of controversy. If accepted, it would have revolutionized not only New World anthropology but the entire picture of human origins, since human beings capable of making the sophisticated tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa...</small>"
"<small>Excerpt of letter to Marie Wormington from Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams [circa 1969]:

"...Meanwhile, I recently got a letter from Hal, with some (completely wild) uranium dates on Valsequillo material. I don't see how he can take them seriously since they conflict with the archaeology, with his own geologic correlations, and with a couple C14 dates. However, God help us, he wants to publish right away! I am enclosing a copy of Hal's letter and my reply. Needless to say any restraint you can exercise on him would be greatly appreciated. All we need to do at this point is to put that stuff in print and every reputable prehistorian in the country will be rolling in the aisles."</small>

<small>On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”
</small>
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life18.htm




What is your issue with evolution? Is it the scientific process, because evidence is incomplete,
Incomplete and inconclusive
that we came from monkeys,
That's a problem if it's False, yes
or do you just see it as an affront to religion?
Yes, PARTS of it is, not all. As I said before, "Evolution" claims to much in it's broadest sense, as folks like Dawkins and other atheist point out.




B/C in my heart I believe in God, but my mind is forced to question such things as Light to humans in 6 days-- as best i understand, this ability to question and reason is what is meant by man being created in God's image. If He is all-knowing and omnipotent, why bother giving us these abilities and the emplacement of fossil records which aren't congruent with intelligent design-- He just toying with our inquisitive nature?

Why?????????

He gave us reason to look at all of the evidence and see what's not congruent with evolution as well, if we are open minded enough to allow that it could be wrong. but the scientific community is only in the past decade or so started looking seriously at alternative views and concultions of the facts and allow some of the new and some suppressed information to rise to the surface.



I recomend to you a few books.
(http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830838317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926959&sr=1-1) Darwin on Trial (http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Trial-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830838317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926959&sr=1-1) by Phillip E. Johnson (http://www.amazon.com/Phillip-E.-Johnson/e/B000APES1M/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1326926959&sr=1-1)


Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926877&sr=1-1) by Michael A. Cremo (http://www.amazon.com/Michael-A.-Cremo/e/B000APJC1I/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1326926877&sr=1-1) and Richard L. Thompson (http://www.amazon.com/Richard-L.-Thompson/e/B000APL4BY/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1326926877&sr=1-1)
and Signiture in the cell (http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926723&sr=1-1) by Stephen Meyer (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926427&sr=1-1) The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326926427&sr=1-1) by David Berlinski (http://www.amazon.com/David-Berlinski/e/B000APXFS4/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1326926427&sr=1-1)




the 1st book deals kind of walks you into some of the philospospcal assumtions them talks about some of the evidentury problems of evlution and some of the insider debate within the scientic community. to most of us lay people we'd assume that evolition is monolithcal accepted in all respects across the board when that not the case.

the 2nd book documents many truly incredble achological finds that blow the doors of of the currnet portraly of evoltionaly history and tree. mainly presenting scientist who over the last hundred years have found and wirtten and sudstantied fossil finds of homospapain that go back 800000 to millions yep millions of years. And documents the treatment of many of the respected scientist who try to get this information presented. and also talks about how some of the most revered fossils claims are in question in acedimia.

Signiture in the cell basically in thick deatil makes a case based on the same critriea Darwin used that the CODE in the cell demands that it was designed. that it's the best explaination just as if you find a book on the beach you don't assume it was made but erosion of natral processes.

Berlinski is just a great read



...If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

I showed one to you a while back but you didn't accept it, you denied that the sciencist thought the find was credible. I'll post it again but I won't hold my breath for my money.



Most people have heard of "our ancestor" Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, she's suppose to be around 3 MILLION years old found in Africa right?
OK
Have you ever heard of the Laetoli Footprints , also about 3 MILLION years old also found in Africa. Amazingly preserved in soft wet cool volcanic ash which quickly hardened like cement. The funny thing about these footprints is that they look like normal human foot prints. But becuase man "was not there 3 MILLION years ago" of cousre these where of some one in Lucy's family right?
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by wiki
Australopithecus afarensis... anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is most likely reflective of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb...



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Little_Foot_01.jpg/220px-Little_Foot_01.jpg
Soo the footprints look like that right .. with curved toes ?
NOPE!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_03.html)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by PBS evolution library
...The prints, say experts on hominid body structure, are strikingly different from those of a chimpanzee, and in fact are hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans....



Many experts say they are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.
Seems to me any scientist would have to conclude, from the evidence, that Modern Humans lived 3MILLION years ago.


http://www.ic.arizona.edu/%7Eraichlen/3Dprint.jpg
http://www.liv.ac.uk/premog/images/G-trail-1.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/quicktime/l_071_03.html)

and one of the next logical questions is, IF there where already modern humans 3 million years ago then when did modern humans really appear on earth?
to start...


the Video on the PBS page? At about 2:55 the expert says that the footprint is "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint" before that he compares it to a chimpanzee print and point out the vast difference. the chimpanzee footprint looks like the Lucy foot Missle. No Arch and long thumb for a big toe.

Other experts footprint expert, Louise Robbins of university of North Carolina call to the original Laetoli team. R.H Tuttle another expert. And Even Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather than apes.

Here's an audio excerpt from the book Forbidden Archeology. With Quotes from Leaky, Robbins, Tuttle an White.
http://mynetbox.info/audio/Laetoli-Footprints-3mil.mp3

You could download and listen to the book here Audible.com Forbidden Archeology (http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=BK_ALIT_000096&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes)
the book at amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1276357998/ref=a9_sc_1?ie=UTF8&search-alias=aps&field-keywords=forbidden%20archeology)


Russell H. Tuttle Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:
"A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them. . . . In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans."
New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373.


and
"In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo. . . . In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis."
Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64




Tim White, who asserts that they are afarensis also says
"Make no mistake about it, . . . They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to ell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you."
D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.





and here's a youtbe
Ireducable design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2hSXmyIOGY&feature=relmfu

debate ID and Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naGMex003SY&NR=1&feature=endscreen

[Missileman]

you say that its gradual. well what does a slug do with 1/2000th of an eye?


Obviously a question that points to a lack of design.

[revelarts]

Obviously a question that points to a lack of design.

your not answering the question. You claim there has to be 1/2000th of an eye. I don't. I say an animal gets an eye fully formed or a light sensor fully designed from the begining. there are no transitional eyes. gradual Evolution ASSUMES that there were, way back in the olden days when we weren't around and can find out now... "BUT THEY WERE THERE, becuase evolution says so it."

Mountians of assumptions.

Are you going to answer the question?

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you saying we should abandon modern medicine so maybe we can develop a resistance via the evolutionary process? I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at.

not even close.....you raised the argument that dying does not promote evolution......I put it to you that evolution involves lots of dying....for evey successful mutation that survives to pass on it's genes there are thousands, probably millions, that do not.....cancerous cells are examples of mutations that do not, but the structure of our cells, the permission to mutate, is the essence of the process that results in the single success as well as the tens of thousands of failures.....

[Missileman]

your not answering the question. You claim there has to be 1/2000th of an eye. I don't. I say an animal gets an eye fully formed or a light sensor fully designed from the begining. there are no transitional eyes. gradual Evolution ASSUMES that there were, way back in the olden days when we weren't around and can find out now... "BUT THEY WERE THERE, becuase evolution says so it."

Mountians of assumptions.

Are you going to answer the question?

I made no such claim. There are many creatures with rudimentary sight, in some cases limited to the ability to only sense light and dark. That creatures with eyes evolved over time from a creature with rudimentary sight, which we already know REALLY DO EXIST is no more an assumption than an arm evolving from a flipper or in the case of whales, vice versa.

[PostmodernProphet]

is no more an assumption than an arm evolving from a flipper or in the case of whales, vice versa.

/grins......

[darin]

this thread has a lot of good info; thanks smart folks. :)

[logroller]

we have many similar functions and parts does it PROVE DECENT? no. only similarities.)...Unless you just take it on faith that similarities Prove decent.


Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.


I'll take a look at what you've posted, but honestly, I'm swamped with reading right now. I literally have thousands of pages to read over the next two months, from safety standards to native american peoples to the philosophy of professional ethics-- its not likely evolution will fit into the reading queue. However, let me address the footprints. Walking upright with feet doesn't make someone human anymore than communicating with vocal chords does. Its an interesting find, and certainly presents sufficient evidence to challenge modern theories of human evolution; but in no way is it cause to scrap the other humanoid finds as anomalous or without foundation. There's debate over how humans settled North America, when and how etc. But to dispatch associated theories as little more than faith-based is disingenuous to the objectively rational processes and careful consideration of those who develop them.

Of course there a problems with evolution, or holes whatever; its not perfect. But is God?
Man is imperfect, so it follows he cannot create anything which is perfect. If we, an imperfect creation, were created by God, then how could it be assumed He is perfect? Just saying man, if you tear down everything because its not perfect, we'd be left with nothing. Gotta take this beautiful world as it is, and not as we would have it. That's not faith, that's function. If God works for you, great. If another man thinks evolution is the path to understanding, very well. Good for him, good for you; but neither one of you will ever be PROVEN correct. So let's stop that charade of positive proof; it doesn't exist without some degree of assumption. The degree of assumption, however, is subject to scrutiny. But I find God, or the ID theory, involves far more assumptions than any scientific theory.

[PostmodernProphet]

[/COLOR]
Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.


that's really going to mess up those who think science had definitely proven that all species have evolved from a single source........

[revelarts]

[/COLOR]
Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.


I'll take a look at what you've posted, but honestly, I'm swamped with reading right now. I literally have thousands of pages to read over the next two months, from safety standards to native American peoples to the philosophy of professional ethics-- its not likely evolution will fit into the reading queue. However, let me address the footprints. Walking upright with feet doesn't make someone human anymore than communicating with vocal chords does. Its an interesting find, and certainly presents sufficient evidence to challenge modern theories of human evolution; but in no way is it cause to scrap the other humanoid finds as anomalous or without foundation. There's debate over how humans settled North America, when and how etc. But to dispatch associated theories as little more than faith-based is disingenuous to the objectively rational processes and careful consideration of those who develop them.

Of course there a problems with evolution, or holes whatever; its not perfect. But is God?
Man is imperfect, so it follows he cannot create anything which is perfect. If we, an imperfect creation, were created by God, then how could it be assumed He is perfect? Just saying man, if you tear down everything because its not perfect, we'd be left with nothing. Gotta take this beautiful world as it is, and not as we would have it. That's not faith, that's function. If God works for you, great. If another man thinks evolution is the path to understanding, very well. Good for him, good for you; but neither one of you will ever be PROVEN correct. So let's stop that charade of positive proof; it doesn't exist without some degree of assumption. The degree of assumption, however, is subject to scrutiny. But I find God, or the ID theory, involves far more assumptions than any scientific theory.

yes, my spelling is not not decent. The secretaries on my job love that. brings them a lot of laughs. I admit it's pretty laughable.
But glad you got my points.
ANd I understand not being able to get to the reading, it's out there if you want to explorer and I ending up getting Darwin on trail as an audio book from audible.com
And sure, everyone has to go there own path, however evolution is the default for modern science and i think that it hasn't earned it's place. I mean i was raised in public schools and PBS and animals shows and Carl Sagans cosmos, so evolution was assumed in my mind without ANY known scientific challenge. then i started to here about questions and i laughed but listened and read and well what do you know the emperor has no clothes. well he's got some clothes like nice underwear, gloves, socks and a crown. But i guess one of main issues is that evolution was given this High place where it's assumed corrected until proven not 100 years ago when Darwin himself said that there was little evidence for it and today there's been only a little that has changed however the theory is assume sound no matter what data is presented to knock out various -just so stories- that are taught as THE way this or that happened.
for instance as mentioned above the story goes that man became Bipal BECUASE we left the trees blah bah around 800000 yrs ago but the Latoli foot prints apparently show 3 million year ago there were bipedal creatures of some kind. posbily humans? So the story we've been told in wrong the dates are wrong and the reason for bipedal mutation is wrong and possibly the desent from the Australopithecus is wrong. but we were taught that it was all TRUE not to questions Unless your a fanatic, or Ignoramus. I don't have a problem with science just with the arrogance of assumed knowledge from sparse info.
you mentioned yourself and scientist admit that IF evolution occurred MOST of the evidence is NOT available. if it NOT available we have Little right to assume to fill it with dogma that doesn't allow you question it outright. there are more gaps than there are filled spots.
In the discipline of species classification called Cladism there are a group of scientist who refuse to classify fossils and ancient creatures by their supposed Descent becuase of the lack of clear data in that respect and the history of changing opinion in that area. They see no truly scientific way to do it so they focus on the forms and body styles to group creatures in relationships by clear patterns not by assumed descent. they are called pattern cladist. Seem reasonable, but instead of being thought of as clear headed good scientist many have been attacked becuase they are not playing the "we KNOW this came FROM that" game, to some scientists minds it's nigh on evolutionary blasphemy.




...One line of scientific reasoning that points to a Creator is the intricate design found in all living organisms. This is known as the teleological argument. William Paley presented one of the most famous versions of this argument—that of the watch and the watchmaker.1 Since the nineteenth century, however, it has been widely believed that Paley’s argument for a universal Designer was effectively answered by the philosopher David Hume. Hume claimed that Paley’s analogy between living things and machines was unfounded and unrealistic in that life does not need an intelligent designer as machines do. 

In addition to his philosophical argument, Hume advanced a theory of natural selection similar to Darwin’s, which he claimed could account for the apparent design seen in nature. Atheist Richard Dawkins writes in The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”2 Dawkins goes on to explain that there is no need to postulate God as the Designer since natural selection can perform the miracles. 

However, in spite of Dawkins’ claims, scientists can no longer ignore the idea of design. Recent discoveries reveal that life is indeed analogous to the most complex machinery, thereby reinforcing Paley’s argument. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, states, “Paley was not only right in asserting the existence of an analogy between life and machines, but was also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man.”3 ...
Science is re-learning an old lesson: the more we uncover details about the universe and living organisms, the more we discover design. Many notable scientists inadvertently support Paley’s arguments as they describe the design in nature revealed to them through science. Physicist Paul Davies, who does not profess to be a Christian, supports teleology—and ultimately creationism—when he says, “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to reveal yet another facet of order.”4
And Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, shook up his fellow scientists when he said, “The Anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result.”6

Robert Jastrow, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, quoted in Geisler, Systematic Theology, 2:591. Clearly, the Humanist has no patience with the Anthropic Principle, which states that the world was tailored for our existence. For an excellent defense of this principle, see Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley, 1984), 102ff.


here are some quotes about Imagination assumption and preconception of evolution





"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."
Fix, William R. in The Bone Peddlers. Macmillan, New York, NY (1984), p.150.


"Botanists construct as best they can an imaginary picture of the missing links, so as to complete the sequence of steps in the evolution of the plant kingdom . Obviously such a practice is mainly guesswork, but, like many such hypotheses, has been very useful in organizing subject matter and stimulating research...the record of the rocks reveals practically nothing of the earlier chapters in the evolution of the plant kingdom. For these, therefore, we must rely upon the types of plants still in existence, plus a liberal measure of scientific imagination."
Coulter M. C. in The Nature of the World and of Man. H. H. Newman, Garden City, NY (0), p.216.



"The models we consider are of three sorts: those that extrapolate processes of speciation to account for higher taxa via divergence, those that invoke selection among species, and those that emphasize that many higher taxa originated as novel lineages in their own right, not only as a consequence of species-level processes. It is in this latter class of model that we believe the record favors." "... many of the large populations should have been preserved, yet we simply do not find them. Small populations are called for, then, but there are difficulties here also. The populations must remain small (and undetected) and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum (or class). This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are. We might imagine vast arrays of such small populations fanning continually and incessantly into adaptive space. Vast arrays should have produced at least some fossil remains also. Perhaps an even greater difficulty is the requirement that these arrays of lineages change along a rather straight and true course --- morphological side trips or detours of any frequency should lengthen the time of origin of higher taxa beyond what appears to be available. Why should an opportunistic, tinkering process set on such a course and hold it for so long successfully among so many lineages?"
Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. in "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record" in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Raff, Rudolf A. and Elizabeth C. Raff, ed. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY (1985), p.71.


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Gould, Stephen Jay i,l. (1982), p.140.

"Since we hardly know anything about the major types of organization, suggestions, and suggestions only, can be made. How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of organization, if one relies entirely upon imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Vertebrata. The lack of concrete evidence relative to the "heyday" of evolution seriously impairs any transformist theory. In any case, a shadow is cast over the genesis of the fundamental structural plans and we are unable to eliminate it."
Grasse, Pierre in "Chapter I: From the Simple to the Complex--Progressive Evolution, Regressive Evolution" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.17.


"Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even turn out to be right."
Jones, Steve in The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future. Flamingo, London, (1994), p.196.


""This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.""
Simpson, George Gaylord in "Chapter III: Micro-Evolution, Macro-Evolution, and Mega-Evolution" in Tempo and Mode in Evolution, L. C. Dunn, ed. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., New York and London, NY (1965), Reprint, p.106,107.

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
Rensberger, Boyce in How the World Works. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY (1986), p.1718.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
Takahata. 1995. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. …


"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors"
Rensberger, Boyce. 1981, in Science…

"It is, however, when we come to consider the actual course or lineage in the subsequent diversification of organisms...that we meet with disappointment and frustration if we rigorously distinguish between evidence and speculation...At this time there are no known living or fossil forms which unequivocally link any two of the proposed divisions."
Bold, Harold C. in Morphology of Plants. Harper & Row, (1967), p.515.

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."
Feducia, Alan in "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers" in The Beginning of Birds. Jura Museum, Eichstatt, West Germany (1985), p.76.


One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.

Darwin not only had a racially biased view of the non-Aryan races, he even held other Europeans who were not of English descent with contempt. Here is his opinion of the Irish, taken from his Descent of Man:
"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."(Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times: Natural selection as affecting civilised nations.)
Darwin quoted Greg here in referring to his Irish neighbors as degraded members of society.
He also wrote that the western nations of Europe owed none of their "superiority" to Greek ancestry: "The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks", to whom he referred in a quote from Greg as "'corrupt to the very core.'" (Descent, ibid.)
Darwin shared with us his evolutionary viewpoint on what happens to more primitive cultures when encountering more "advanced" (i.e. European) cultures in Chapter Seven of the Descent, On the Races of Man: On the Extinction of the Races of Man: "The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
Darwin also stated that the wealthy nations would eventually replace the less privileged races in the struggle for life, and it is apparent that he believed this to be a good thing:
"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."(Ibid)



"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
Huxley, Aldous in Ends and Means. (0), p.270.


"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution," but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error."
Johnson, P.E. October 24, 1994. Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin in Christianity Today, 38(12).


Prove it wrong is the standard? er hmm Ok.

6 days, prove me wrong.

[pete311]

One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.


I'm not defending "Darwinism", I'm defending the Modern Theory or Evolution.

btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago. Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources.

[PostmodernProphet]

btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago. Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources.

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........

[darin]

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........

What he MEANS is "Go read a Book that agrees with my opinion"...

[pete311]

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........


What he MEANS is "Go read a Book that agrees with my opinion"...

A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?

[logroller]

...
Prove it wrong is the standard? er hmm Ok.

6 days, prove me wrong.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFInoFnOE17ZM95hfnSpgU9JNjbuO7L a-C8gwnpKnMCN0Atq8am-ReToZ4

BAM! :laugh:

You know what i've always found intriguing is that the female human's menstrual cycle is 28 days, very similar to the moon, which is currently 29.XX days. Most scientists say its just coincidence; research has been done and something 40% of of those tested showed some response to lunar cycle, so that's 60% who didn't; hardly conclusive. However it has been shown the moon's orbit is slipping away from Earth at 4cm per year, which I believe would cause its period of revolution to increase. So my question is, when was the moon's cycle 28 days and could this be the time when modern humans developed? I've been studying the peopling of the New World, and much debate surrounds why the megafauna (rhino-like creature and mammoths etc) went extinct here. Humans were thought to be culprits, we just killed them wholesale-- big dumb animals didn't know we were a threat; while others say it was the Pleistocene glaciation and resultant shorter period in which to harden young, which was an aggravated stress on those larger animals with longer gestational times. Odds are its both, but it makes me wonder if humans too experience such stressors, and if the inability of humans to change/evolve our reproductive cycles will bring about our demise? Doesn't keep me up at night or anything, just food for thought?

[revelarts]

I'm not defending "Darwinism", I'm defending the Modern Theory or Evolution.based on darwins work right..



btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago.So 30 years ago evolution wasn't true but now it is?




Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources....
A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?
Many if not all of those i quoted above are/were university factually and have published numerous peer reviewed papers. Don't you want to read contrary opinion from informed sources?

one of the above i quote is
"Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895 - 1985) was a French (http://www.conservapedia.com/France) zoologist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Zoology) who served as Chair of evolutionary (http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution) biology at Sorbonne University (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sorbonne_University&action=edit&redlink=1) for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=French_Academy_of_Sciences&action=edit&redlink=1).[1] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-0)[2] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-1) Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-2)




Pierre-Paul Grassé stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists (http://www.conservapedia.com/Biology), as soon as they observe a mutation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mutation), talk about evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution). They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-3) Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."[5] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-4)
Pierre-Paul Grassé also wrote the following:

<tbody>
“
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates (http://www.conservapedia.com/Postulate), of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations (http://www.conservapedia.com/Extrapolation), a pseudoscience (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pseudoscience) has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6 Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8
It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31[6] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-5)

</tbody>

[pete311]

based on darwins work right..

Some of it. It's been revised since Darwin. That is the great thing about science. What is your point.



So 30 years ago evolution wasn't true but now it is?
It's always been true, but in the past we obviously didn't have a clear enough picture of it. In thirty more years I bet the picture is even clearer. I think you are trolling right now. You know what my responses will be.




Many if not all of those i quoted above are/were university factually and have published numerous peer reviewed papers. Don't you want to read contrary opinion from informed sources?

one of the above i quote is
"Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895 - 1985) was a French (http://www.conservapedia.com/France) zoologist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Zoology) who served as Chair of evolutionary (http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution) biology at Sorbonne University (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sorbonne_University&action=edit&redlink=1) for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=French_Academy_of_Sciences&action=edit&redlink=1).[1] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-0)[2] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-1) Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre-Paul_Grassé#cite_note-2)


Unfortunately your scientist friend died 30 years ago and wasn't privy to the mass amounts of experiments that confirm evolution such as this that just came out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/yeast-reveals-how-fast-a-cell-can-form-a-body.html?_r=1

[revelarts]

...Unfortunately your scientist friend died 30 years ago and wasn't privy to the mass amounts of experiments that confirm evolution such as this that just came out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/yeast-reveals-how-fast-a-cell-can-form-a-body.html?_r=1:rolleyes:

Nytimes? is that a peer reviewed textbook???? No.


but lets take a look


...Dr. Ratcliff suspects that the transformation of the yeast in his lab may offer hints about how animals and other lineages became multicellular hundreds of millions of years ago. “Forming clusters isn’t a freaky yeast thing,” he said. The closest single-celled relatives of animals, called choanoflagellates (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/14creatures.html), also sometimes grow as clusters of cells.
Animals and plants did not evolve inside flasks, of course. But natural conditions could have favored clusters of cells. They might have been harder for predators to eat, for example. A cluster of cells might also be able to feed more efficiently in some cases...

...Dr. Ratcliff would not go into detail about where the yeast evolution was going until he published the latest results....

Well it's settled then.

[PostmodernProphet]

A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?

because you, yourself, don't understand the book well enough to realize there's nothing in any of them that counters what we are arguing.......you just assume it must be there because textbooks have been written...........

[pete311]

because you, yourself, don't understand the book well enough to realize there's nothing in any of them that counters what we are arguing.......you just assume it must be there because textbooks have been written...........

You're right, I'm not smart enough to convince anyone. Fortunately ten years ago this debate was already over and won by people who are smart enough.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

[darin]

You said it well, but in another thread, Pete. With creative license.


The concept 'something' eventually evolved from 'nothing'; that an organism can realize the value of, say, developing blood and a heart, is childish superstition. nothing more than fear tactics. fear? fear from simple, scared men who refuse to accept they are not gods. fear of being held-account to their actions and attitudes. fear of God. even if there was such a silly thing, it's comical how much "scientists" just make up on their own. Macro evolution is taught by perhaps well-meaning, but otherwise normal men who had no more idea than any of you. Yet, it's talked about as 'fact'. With no possible means to pass scientific tests.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're right, I'm not smart enough to convince anyone. Fortunately ten years ago this debate was already over and won by people who are smart enough.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

invite them over, I can show them wrong as well.....

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k5r5cRlctLM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

Princeton mathematician and philosopher agnostic comments on some of the problems with evolution
</object>

[Gator Monroe]

Out of Africa will be Debunked within 20 years