The War of 'Science'

[Kathianne]

I'm firmly in the evolution or science camp. I do not claim that evolution is the final statement, but it's pretty solid at this point in time. Granted, with problems. Still more, IMO, than anything that the creationists can bring forward. My problem with that, they could easily say, "A devine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead.' But they don't.

In any case, here's my post for now:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-politicians-war-on-science/?singlepage=true


As Paula Bolyard noted (http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/11/25/marco-rubio-and-the-progressive-atheist-orthodoxy/) the other day, the “gotcha” game by the Democratic operatives with bylines to poison Republican candidates’ chances started early, with a loaded question to Marco Rubio:

To read some of the reactions to Senator Marco Rubio’s comments on the age of the earth, you’d think that he’d proposed rounding up scientists and imprisoning them in gulags. Liberals apparently think this is a plank in the vast right-wing “anti-science” conspiracy. At the very least, a man who refuses to swear a blood oath to the current orthodoxy that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not fit to hold any job that requires any more intellectual heft beyond knowing the proper temperature for grilling burgers.

Now, in fact, I would prefer politicians who are conversant with science and its methods to those not, but even more I prefer politicians who are conversant with basic math, economics, and human nature, and have an aversion to wrecking the nation’s economy. And if they have to occasionally salute the sensibilities of people who believe that evolution is the work of the devil, I can live with that — particularly since we have a current president who does exactly the same thing (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_h edge_about_whether_universe.single.html), while flooring the accelerator toward the fiscal cliff:


How do these quotes stack up? It seems to me that they’re exactly in agreement on four crucial and dismaying points:


1) Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.


2) They both go so far as to disqualify themselves from even pronouncing an opinion. I’m not a scientist, says Rubio. I don’t presume to know, says Obama.


3) That’s because they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part, says Obama.


4) Finally they both profess confusion over whether the Bible should be taken literally. Maybe the “days” in Genesis were actual eras, says Rubio. They might not have been standard 24-hour days, says Obama.


In light of these concordances, to call Rubio a liar or a fool would be to call our nation’s president the same, along with every other politician who might like to occupy the Oval Office. If a reporter asks a candidate to name the age of Earth, there’s only one acceptable response: Well, you know, that’s a complicated issue … and who am I to say?

Yes, as he points out, this is a problem of politicians in general, because a significant portion of the voting public does believe in a young earth, and it’s only damaging to Republicans because only Republicans are called out for it because…Democratic operatives with bylines. But as I noted (http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=46053) over at my blog the other day, both parties are at war with different aspects of science. Ron Bailey lays it out in detail (http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/22/blue-science-and-red-science):

After analyzing both the Democratic and Republican Party platforms, it’s evident that science is secondary to politics. Politicians of both parties manage to find science that conveniently supports the policies they already favor.
As another example, recall that the Obama administration declared a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf after the BP spill, citing a scientific report that its authors later claimed had been doctored (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/10/10greenwire-white-house-changed-report-implying-experts-su-96097.html) to come up with a recommendation that they never made. Now that’s what I call a “war on science.”


But getting beyond the bipartisan nature of taking science’s name in vain, I disagree (http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=46053) with Slate’s analysis (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_h edge_about_whether_universe.single.html):

So Obama believes in evolution, and presumably he’d like to teach it in the nation’s public schools, while Rubio suggests that “multiple theories” should be given equal time. But even so, both men present the science as a matter of personal opinion. Obama doesn’t say, Evolution is a fact; he says, I believe in it.
Well, he shouldn’t say that, because evolution is in fact not a “fact.” It, like gravity, is a scientific theory. And it is perfectly philosophically legitimate to say [as Rubio does] that alternate theories should be taught in school, but it should be done not in a science class but in one on comparative religions (of which science is one). That there is an objective reality about which we can discover things through scientific methods is not a fact, or “truth,” but an axiomatic assumption. Science is a form of faith, but in terms of understanding the natural world, and forging new artificial creations from it, it is a very successful and powerful one.


Scientists should recognize that their role is not to dethrone God, but to understand the natural world, and part of that recognition would be the essentially religious aspects of their own beliefs. They cannot prove that there is an objective reality whose nature can be determined by asking questions of it in the form of repeatable experiments, or that the entire universe obeys the same laws throughout as in our local neighborhood. These are axioms (among others) on which their faith (and my own) rests. But their faith is not intrinsically antithetical to God; it is orthogonal to it. One can believe in both God and the scientific method (and evolution), and one can believe in neither.


Beyond that, the notions that public policy should be based on science only, or religion only, are both wrong. Despite the attempts to square that circle, ethics issues cannot be determined by science alone (or in some cases at all), while issues of technology, offspring of science, should certainly be informed by it, tempered with the needs of both liberty and public safety. The Founders, in their wisdom, recognized the role of both science and God in public affairs, but too many of their successors don’t seem to. Of course, given the democratic nature of our republic, that, in turn, is largely because their constituents won’t let them. And as long as we have public schools, there will be an ongoing political war on what is taught in them, and by whom.

[Missileman]

I'm firmly in the evolution or science camp. I do not claim that evolution is the final statement, but it's pretty solid at this point in time. Granted, with problems. Still more, IMO, than anything that the creationists can bring forward. My problem with that, they could easily say, "A devine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead.' But they don't.

In any case, here's my post for now:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-politicians-war-on-science/?singlepage=true

Lost me at the argument that science should be taught as a religion...what a pile of crapola the article turned out to be after starting so sensibly. The implication that scientists are out to prove that god doesn't exist is laughable and that there are probably more than a few folks out there who would agree is tragic. Science isn't to blame for the shortcomings of religious mythology.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm firmly in the evolution or science camp. I do not claim that evolution is the final statement, but it's pretty solid at this point in time. Granted, with problems. Still more, IMO, than anything that the creationists can bring forward. My problem with that, they could easily say, "A devine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead.' But they don't.

In any case, here's my post for now:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-politicians-war-on-science/?singlepage=true

What does it actually mean to be in the evolution camp?

If anybody truly believes they are, they also believe that from 6 basic elements, that life simply ignited as it were. That humans ancestors, never mind apes, was the tiny bacteria.

So if you admit to being the decendent of the bacteria, maybe you can tell me how bacteria changed to the point of thinking?

[Kathianne]

What does it actually mean to be in the evolution camp?

If anybody truly believes they are, they also believe that from 6 basic elements, that life simply ignited as it were. That humans ancestors, never mind apes, was the tiny bacteria.

So if you admit to being the decendent of the bacteria, maybe you can tell me how bacteria changed to the point of thinking?

Good points.

Now you are in the camp that says man sprung up out of nothing? Suddenly? Ignoring all data that proves not true. The world is a few million years old, though science already proves the false?

Me? I believe in God, a divine creator. I believe the process was begun by that creator. Age hasn't matter.

[Robert A Whit]

When it comes to evolution, it created a brand new religion. A religion teaches as FACT things that thus far are based on FAITH.

As I said, to Kathianne, to accept with no proof by experiments that 6 elements can change to the point they not only are living, but then create higher orders is pure faith.

If you don't believe this, show me where science using what was available to the first life form, how science recreated life.

Oh sure, you want to believe. Because you can't prove your point, you just want us to take your word. And that is faith.

Oh, let me tell you the elements you must have.
Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Sulphur and phosphorus.

Those interested should read Professor Schopfs fine book covering this topic.

[Larrymc]

I'm firmly in the evolution or science camp. I do not claim that evolution is the final statement, but it's pretty solid at this point in time. Granted, with problems. Still more, IMO, than anything that the creationists can bring forward. My problem with that, they could easily say, "A devine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead.' But they don't.

In any case, here's my post for now:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-politicians-war-on-science/?singlepage=truescience refuses to accepted a creator, because its to for of a stretch to have faith in something they can't touch, but have no problem concluding that something as complex as the human brain evolved from some kind of big bang, or an easier one, we came from monkeys, that makes sense right, well thieve been around for several thousand years that we know of, but not one case of one evolving into anything other than a monkey, through out time there methods of measuring time has been proven wrong, so with all there effort the best they can do is a educated guess, now who is asking us to take a leap of faith

[Kathianne]

science refuses to accepted a creator, because its to for of a stretch to have faith in something they can't touch, but have no problem concluding that something as complex as the human brain evolved from some kind of big bang, or an easier one, we came from monkeys, that makes sense right, well thieve been around for several thousand years that we know of, but not one case of one evolving into anything other than a monkey, through out time there methods of measuring time has been proven wrong, so with all there effort the best they can do is a educated guess, now who is asking us to take a leap of faith

Not true. Science can accommodate a creator. There comes a point working back, when faith is the last resort or explanation.

[Robert A Whit]

Good points.

Now you are in the camp that says man sprung up out of nothing? Suddenly? Ignoring all data that proves not true. The world is a few million years old, though science already proves the false?

Me? I believe in God, a divine creator. I believe the process was begun by that creator. Age hasn't matter.

Well, do you believe man sprang from bacteria? That bacteria sprang from a rare combination of CHON plus Sulphur and Phosphorus?

There are those who believe that God is a myth.

As to Earth, I believe that using Geology and Astronomy the chances are that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I don't believe man simply sprang up.

I lean more to humans being brought here by so called aliens to be honest.

I feel I must explain that.

Treat earth as a giant map.

On that map, go back say ten thousand years.

Africa had what? Blacks.
Asia had what? Asians, the yellow race.
Europe had what? White races.
The Americas had what? Those called Indians.

And Australia had it's own type of blacks.

I think aliens figured it is a good place to put various types from other planets.

No, God did not bring them unless you want to call Aliens God.
Note. When I say CHON it stands for
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen

[Kathianne]

Well, do you believe man sprang from bacteria? That bacteria sprang from a rare combination of CHON plus Sulphur and Phosphorus?

There are those who believe that God is a myth.

As to Earth, I believe that using Geology and Astronomy the chances are that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

I don't believe man simply sprang up.

I lean more to humans being brought here by so called aliens to be honest.

I feel I must explain that.

Treat earth as a giant map.

On that map, go back say ten thousand years.

Africa had what? Blacks.
Asia had what? Asians, the yellow race.
Europe had what? White races.
The Americas had what? Those called Indians.

And Australia had it's own type of blacks.

I think aliens figured it is a good place to put various types from other planets.

No, God did not bring them unless you want to call Aliens God.
Note. When I say CHON it stands for
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen

hello Adolph! Good post, for your pov. Perhaps the most revealing so far.

[revelarts]

I'm in the creationist camp.
and Kath, there are some creationist that say what you'd like them to say.
"A divine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead."
I'm not one of them but there are many.

I've posted more than a few times as to some of my reasons why.
but i think my former agnosticism on religion probably would serve many people well in the area of evolution. And please consider not equating evolution with ALL of science. it is a not on the same level as chemistry or experimental physics, or experimental biology and really doesn't inform it in the final analyses. If you notice every new biological discovery is shoe horned into the theory of evolution not the other way around.
It's the current prevailing paradigm, like Humours was for medicine for years.

And its such a pervasive teaching that its difficult for many to even imagine it could be wrong.
Even though only 100 yrs ago it was not the prevailing view. And nothing really changed evidence wise then just the propagation of a theory that at the time even its promoter admitted did not have fossil evidence to prove it. in 100 yrs there still no solid fossil evidence of gradual change of the type Darwin described in the origin of species. so much so that current scientist have proposed things like spontanous generation, and some have even said life came from space. they are so desperate to make evolution work.

i think the big trick in the thinking of most people is its hard for us to imagine the leap the scientist gloss over when they talk about evolution. they claim that the small changes that ARE seen lead to all of the big changes that WE HAVE NOT seen and DO NOT SEE in the fossil record. it seems reasonable until we really start to comprehend the what that means. It's fine to say
'wow look this snail crossed the road.' it's something else to say
'Of Course this one snail went from the north pole to the south pole, then from Australia to Europe and then from Europe to south America all in 5.45 yrs under the same power you see it used to cross the street. All it needed was time and chance. The snail is here. until you have a better explanation i say it crawled. Looked we found old snail fecee in all those places therefor... Why don't you believe in science? Don't you believe that snails can crawl? Don't you see the snail fecees. that PROVES this SNAIL was there 4.25 years ago etc etc..'

No creationist denying the fact of microevolution changes from one kind of dog to another, one bacteria to another, but many of us are incredulous over the extrapolation that it accounts for all the intricate and specific life forms on the planet.
Evolution has NOT proven it has or could do that. it just hasn't. the hurdles are insurmountable except by blind faith in the idea that IT MUST BE the way it happened. It is assumed. And called science because well 'do you have a better theory... that leaves completely God out!?! Then this MUST be it.'

I've said more than i planned carry on.

[Robert A Whit]

hello Adolph! Good post, for your pov. Perhaps the most revealing so far.

Oh that hurt. Isn't that what you wanted me to say for doing nothing more than giving you my opinion?

In what way does that tie me to Adolph?

Unless you believe in board brawls, please do not pull that cheap stunt again.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm in the creationist camp.
and Kath, there are some creationist that say what you'd like them to say.
"A divine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead."
I'm not one of them but there are many.

I've posted more than a few times as to some of my reasons why.
but i think my former agnosticism on religion probably would serve many people well in the area of evolution. And please consider not equating evolution with ALL of science. it is a not on the same level as chemistry or experimental physics, or experimental biology and really doesn't inform it in the final analyses. If you notice every new biological discovery is shoe horned into the theory of evolution not the other way around.
It's the current prevailing paradigm, like Humours was for medicine for years.

And its such a pervasive teaching that its difficult for many to even imagine it could be wrong.
Even though only 100 yrs ago it was not the prevailing view. And nothing really changed evidence wise then just the propagation of a theory that at the time even its promoter admitted did not have fossil evidence to prove it. in 100 yrs there still no solid fossil evidence of gradual change of the type Darwin described in the origin of species. so much so that current scientist have proposed things like spontanous generation, and some have even said life came from space. they are so desperate to make evolution work.

i think the big trick in the thinking of most people is its hard for us to imagine the leap the scientist gloss over when they talk about evolution. they claim that the small changes that ARE seen lead to all of the big changes that WE HAVE NOT seen and DO NOT SEE in the fossil record. it seems reasonable until we really start to comprehend the what that means. It's fine to say
'wow look this snail crossed the road.' it's something else to say
'Of Course this one snail went from the north pole to the south pole, then from Australia to Europe and then from Europe to south America all in 5.45 yrs under the same power you see it used to cross the street. All it needed was time and chance. The snail is here. until you have a better explanation i say it crawled. Looked we found old snail fecee in all those places therefor... Why don't you believe in science? Don't you believe that snails can crawl? Don't you see the snail fecees. that PROVES this SNAIL was there 4.25 years ago etc etc..'

No creationist denying the fact of microevolution changes from one kind of dog to another, one bacteria to another, but many of us are incredulous over the extrapolation that it accounts for all the intricate and specific life forms on the planet.
Evolution has NOT proven it has or could do that. it just hasn't. the hurdles are insurmountable except by blind faith in the idea that IT MUST BE the way it happened. It is assumed. And called science because well 'do you have a better theory... that leaves completely God out!?! Then this MUST be it.'

I've said more than i planned carry on.

Dont worry you have said enough and said it well. Evolutionists use "magic" to explain the impossible. That "magic" that creates the faith to believe uses the mysterious powers of oodles and booodles of time, millions of years , billion of years they say! And we not being truly able to fathom the possibility of change in regards to such huge amounts of times reason sure its possible for a bacteria to morph into a human. Without asking why or how in a logical manner. If the bacteria lived for millions of years then it had no reason , no catalyst to change , nothing forced it as its survival was not at stake. Take the lizard changing into birds over millions of years, what forced that change and why didnt they die out while dragging those useless feathers around thru mud and muck for hundreds of millions of years. Surely if they could survive in first stage or 2nd stage that long then why change at all? I was 15 years old when I stumped my biology teacher with these common sense questions. He had no answers and said he'd get back to me on it. I saw him for the next few years at school and ask but he never got back to me with the answers.. Evolution uses the huge periods of time as the "magic" ABRA CADABRA without the ole wand.. My question is why change if surviving such great amounts of time was possible, no catalyst. ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT NON-HUMAN THINKING ANIMALS ASPIRED TO GREAT HEIGHTS OF WISDOM? WHERE ARE THE CHANGES NOW DURING MAN'S TIME? WE SEE MANY SPECIES THAT DISAPPEARED /DIED OUT BUT NO MID CHANGING GOING ON NOW. WHY?
The theory is a theory thats now called a fact based upon faith in the concept that no God exists so evolution could be true. Coulda, shoulda , woulda, all excuses but no real facts.. Science is now coming to the conclusion that everything came from nothing, came for a single point in time and space. If thats acceptable why isnt God acceptable? Why isnt he acceptable as that single point in time and space?--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Take the lizard changing into birds over millions of years, what forced that change and why didnt they die out while dragging those useless feathers around thru mud and muck for hundreds of millions of years.

I don't see cold blooded reptiles morphing into warm blooded birds.

I think that is why you can't see it happening.

[darin]

Any method of creation devoid of a creator, or intelligent design is far too mystical and magical for me; the logic of design is obvious.

[Larrymc]

Not true. Science can accommodate a creator. There comes a point working back, when faith is the last resort or explanation.Isn't that pretty much what i said??

[pete311]

If you notice every new biological discovery is shoe horned into the theory of evolution not the other way around.

Not shoehorned. It just fits. There hasn't been one credible (added this in anticipation you'll link me to some geocities site or obscure wiki page) discovery that contradicts evolution. and you still resist.

[darin]

Not shoehorned. It just fits. There hasn't been one credible (added this in anticipation you'll link me to some geocities site or obscure wiki page) discovery that contradicts evolution. and you still resist.

You have faith things magically just popped into existence; you have faith life grew from non-life. That's fine. Stop trying to claim your faith is based on science. You prefer irrational, illogical fantasy-based ideas about creation and the nature of life. That's fine. Makes you closed-minded to truth, but it's still fine. Admit it. Own it.

[pete311]

No creationist denying the fact of microevolution changes from one kind of dog to another, one bacteria to another, but many of us are incredulous over the extrapolation that it accounts for all the intricate and specific life forms on the planet.
Evolution has NOT proven it has or could do that. it just hasn't. the hurdles are insurmountable except by blind faith in the idea that IT MUST BE the way it happened. It is assumed. And called science because well 'do you have a better theory... that leaves completely God out!?! Then this MUST be it.'


We've been though this time and time again and you show your lack of understanding about evolution and it's modern advances. You really are not keeping up to date.

[pete311]

You have faith things magically just popped into existence; you have faith life grew from non-life. That's fine. Stop trying to claim your faith is based on science. You prefer irrational, illogical fantasy-based ideas about creation and the nature of life. That's fine. Makes you closed-minded to truth, but it's still fine. Admit it. Own it.

I am depressed to be drawn into this discussion again. We've been through it many times in the past and you have the same tired nonsense replies like an old ratty record player long abandoned by it's owner. All evidence found supports evolution. There is not one discovery that contradicts evolution. To humor you, it seems my faith is a lot more rational. Why do you choose to be irrational?

[aboutime]

What I enjoy about the beliefs, and faith I have in someone I call God is.

Not one of you out there need any explanation from me. No excuses, no reasons. No hyperbole.

Privately. No matter what anyone thinks about how the earth was created, or how man evolved into existence.

Nobody can prove otherwise. No matter what you believe, or claim to place your faith in.

That's how comfortable I am, and have always been as a Christian.

If you want to tell me I am wrong. Good for you. Now. Prove it.

[pete311]

If you want to tell me I am wrong. Good for you. Now. Prove it.

I hate how evolution topics "devolve" into God topics. One has nothing to do with the other. Evolution describes how organisms change over time. That is it. Nothing to do with God.

[aboutime]

I hate how evolution topics "devolve" into God topics. One has nothing to do with the other. Evolution describes how organisms change over time. That is it. Nothing to do with God.


pete311. I won't disagree with you on anything you said. As I said previously. You can tell me I am wrong...all day long, if you like.
But at least have the courtesy to PROVE IT. IF YOU CAN?

[Robert A Whit]

2nd bite of the same apple.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=596170#post596170)
What does it actually mean to be in the evolution camp?

If anybody truly believes they are, they also believe that from 6 basic elements, that life simply ignited as it were. That humans ancestors, never mind apes, was the tiny bacteria.

So if you admit to being the decendent of the bacteria, maybe you can tell me how bacteria changed to the point of thinking?



Good points.


Now you are in the camp that says man sprung up out of nothing? Suddenly? Ignoring all data that proves not true. The world is a few million years old, though science already proves the false?

Me? I believe in God, a divine creator. I believe the process was begun by that creator. Age hasn't matter.

I did not say that. I am not ignoring anything. I believe that Earth is in the range of 4.5 billion years old.

[Robert A Whit]

You have faith things magically just popped into existence; you have faith life grew from non-life. That's fine. Stop trying to claim your faith is based on science. You prefer irrational, illogical fantasy-based ideas about creation and the nature of life. That's fine. Makes you closed-minded to truth, but it's still fine. Admit it. Own it.

Though Evolution is not about the why of how life began, all it is about is minor changes. Some faster than others and some claim over time new forms show up.

Evolutionists shun discussions as to how life started. They want to devolve into calling names since they talk not about life creation, but after life creation changes.

The mystery is not that life evolves, but what started it?

Thus far, not the most smug, the most educated, the most cock sure scientist has created life. And they know what chemicals to use.

[Larrymc]

Not shoehorned. It just fits. There hasn't been one credible (added this in anticipation you'll link me to some geocities site or obscure wiki page) discovery that contradicts evolution. and you still resist.every link to evolution has to have a great leap of faith or imagination to make it work, and yet science calls creation a leap of faith

[Kathianne]

Though Evolution is not about the why of how life began, all it is about is minor changes. Some faster than others and some claim over time new forms show up.

Evolutionists shun discussions as to how life started. They want to devolve into calling names since they talk not about life creation, but after life creation changes.

The mystery is not that life evolves, but what started it?

Thus far, not the most smug, the most educated, the most cock sure scientist has created life. And they know what chemicals to use.

My first points were just this. Evolution is how life-forms came about, not the creation. As Rev has pointed out for years, evolution doesn't explain all, there are gaps. No argument from me.

[Missileman]

What does it actually mean to be in the evolution camp?

If anybody truly believes they are, they also believe that from 6 basic elements, that life simply ignited as it were. That humans ancestors, never mind apes, was the tiny bacteria.

So if you admit to being the decendent of the bacteria, maybe you can tell me how bacteria changed to the point of thinking?


I'm in the creationist camp.
and Kath, there are some creationist that say what you'd like them to say.
"A divine creator started the process, knowing where it would lead."
I'm not one of them but there are many.

I've posted more than a few times as to some of my reasons why.
but i think my former agnosticism on religion probably would serve many people well in the area of evolution. And please consider not equating evolution with ALL of science. it is a not on the same level as chemistry or experimental physics, or experimental biology and really doesn't inform it in the final analyses. If you notice every new biological discovery is shoe horned into the theory of evolution not the other way around.
It's the current prevailing paradigm, like Humours was for medicine for years.

And its such a pervasive teaching that its difficult for many to even imagine it could be wrong.
Even though only 100 yrs ago it was not the prevailing view. And nothing really changed evidence wise then just the propagation of a theory that at the time even its promoter admitted did not have fossil evidence to prove it. in 100 yrs there still no solid fossil evidence of gradual change of the type Darwin described in the origin of species. so much so that current scientist have proposed things like spontanous generation, and some have even said life came from space. they are so desperate to make evolution work.

i think the big trick in the thinking of most people is its hard for us to imagine the leap the scientist gloss over when they talk about evolution. they claim that the small changes that ARE seen lead to all of the big changes that WE HAVE NOT seen and DO NOT SEE in the fossil record. it seems reasonable until we really start to comprehend the what that means. It's fine to say
'wow look this snail crossed the road.' it's something else to say
'Of Course this one snail went from the north pole to the south pole, then from Australia to Europe and then from Europe to south America all in 5.45 yrs under the same power you see it used to cross the street. All it needed was time and chance. The snail is here. until you have a better explanation i say it crawled. Looked we found old snail fecee in all those places therefor... Why don't you believe in science? Don't you believe that snails can crawl? Don't you see the snail fecees. that PROVES this SNAIL was there 4.25 years ago etc etc..'

No creationist denying the fact of microevolution changes from one kind of dog to another, one bacteria to another, but many of us are incredulous over the extrapolation that it accounts for all the intricate and specific life forms on the planet.
Evolution has NOT proven it has or could do that. it just hasn't. the hurdles are insurmountable except by blind faith in the idea that IT MUST BE the way it happened. It is assumed. And called science because well 'do you have a better theory... that leaves completely God out!?! Then this MUST be it.'

I've said more than i planned carry on.

You creationists demand as proof that which science does not claim exists. You want someone to wheel out a fossil of a half-fish, half-bird hybrid(or some equally bizarre combo) as proof of an intermediate species. You construct these monstrous strawmen and then point to them as proof that evolution isn't real.

[pete311]

every link to evolution has to have a great leap of faith or imagination to make it work, and yet science calls creation a leap of faith

please substantiate this claim

[Kathianne]

please substantiate this claim

I'm not even going all the way to substantiate, just explain what he means. At least then there's a starting point.

[pete311]

there are gaps. No argument from me.

The gaps aren't even important to it's usefulness. We know evolution is real, scientists are just trying to figure out exactly how it works. It's like watching a car move down the road. You don't need to understand exactly how the motor works to know that the car is in fact there and moving down the road. you see it, now let's figure out how it works! that is science!

[Larrymc]

please substantiate this claimno need i will just wait on your to prove yours

[pete311]

no need i will just wait on your to prove yours

you want me to prove that there isn't one credible discovery that contradicts evolution?

[Larrymc]

you want me to prove that there isn't one credible discovery that contradicts evolution?of course not prove there is

[pete311]

of course not prove there is

why would I do that, it's not my claim

[Robert A Whit]

My first points were just this. Evolution is how life-forms came about, not the creation. As Rev has pointed out for years, evolution doesn't explain all, there are gaps. No argument from me.

And I have no argument with that. But as an exercise in science, imagine the earth has no life.

During my study of evolution, it was necessary to own my book on biology. It was necessary for me to read a dozen books discussing this topic. I read many books on this in the 1990's.

I wanted to start with a condition of non life and see if one can explain how some sort of elements can become alive. What would it take for some chemicals to join and live?

During my research, I ran into the book by Professor Schoph called
Cradle of Life. He has valid creditentials as a well established science researcher in the field of the starting of life.

Schoph explained that 6 elements are needed.

Also, unless mentioned by me, even defining life has varieties to define.

Animals did not come from plants. Mushrooms are not plants nor animals. I forget this instant how many types of life there are but I think it might be as many as half a dozen.

But take the human being. If one wants to start at the beginning, the only form that could become animal that I can think of is the bacteria. Priofessor Schopfs book explains his view of that.

Schoph tries to explain how bacteria starts.

It is the most complete book I have read on the creation of life.

[Larrymc]

why would I do that, it's not my claimtrying to look back, you replied to a comment i made about evolution correct

[pete311]

trying to look back, you replied to a comment i made about evolution correct

what point are you trying to make?

[Dilloduck]

The gaps aren't even important to it's usefulness. We know evolution is real, scientists are just trying to figure out exactly how it works. It's like watching a car move down the road. You don't need to understand exactly how the motor works to know that the car is in fact there and moving down the road. you see it, now let's figure out how it works! that is science!

You can't figure out how the motor works by looking at old tracks in the mud.

[Larrymc]

what point are you trying to make?that there's no real base for evolution

[pete311]

You can't figure out how the motor works by looking at old tracks in the mud.

If that is the only means of investigation, then I agree. Fortunately it isn't.


that there's no real base for evolution

We've documented it in bacteria and even fruit flies. Flu virus anyone? The field of Genetics has pretty much blown the door open.

[Larrymc]

You can't figure out how the motor works by looking at old tracks in the mud. its easyer to accept that someone built that car, rather than, some big explosion happen and after a few billion years ( that is only a guess to, no real way of knowing ) we have a car, and why not if it could cause the existence of the human brain why not a car

[pete311]

its easyer to accept that some bilt that car, rather than, some big explotion happen and after a few billion years ( that is only a guess to, no real way of knowing ) we have a car, and why not if it could cause the existance of the human brain why not a car

the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. for the last time, evolution describes the mechanisms for how and why animals change over time. That. Is. It. Not how the universe started. Not how life started.

[Larrymc]

the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. for the last time, evolution describes the mechanisms for how and why animals change over time. That. Is. It. Not how the universe started. Not how life started.shooow ok i can roll with that LOL

[Kathianne]

the big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. for the last time, evolution describes the mechanisms for how and why animals change over time. That. Is. It. Not how the universe started. Not how life started.

plants and animals. Flora and fauna, all living things.

[pete311]

shooow ok i can roll with that LOL

cheers


plants and animals. Flora and fauna, all living things.

i stand corrected, thanks

[revelarts]

Not shoehorned. It just fits. There hasn't been one credible (added this in anticipation you'll link me to some geocities site or obscure wiki page) discovery that contradicts evolution. and you still resist.

Pete
how ya doing.
OK 3 directions i could take here.
I'll just break down your comment.
Just look at the what you said objectively.

"It's not shoe horned it just fits."
Ok it's broad enough to fit some yes.
usually the same old stuff, ei example of miroevolution. in this field or that.
Now you next comment is the kicker.
"There hasn't been one credible discovery that contradicts evolution."
Pete, what makes a discovery credible? Well, that it agrees wit evolution of Course.
If it doesn't it' won't likey make into "credible" journals UNLESS it's Shoehorned into the theory.
Or called a Mystery or a paradox. it's rarely or NEVER seriously consider a contradiction of evolution because well --Evolution is true DUH!-- why do you resist the fact that it's true and nothing ever contraticts it it all fit no matter what it is. If it's too far out of line with evolution well it's not REAL science. it's just crazy talk because it's not real science to challenge the FACT of evolution.

Long story short Pete it's circular reasoning. Which excludes ANY contrary evidence.
Not the scientific method at all. which is OPEN to contrary evidence and honestly treats it as such. Or at least CONSIDERS it may be when presented with such.

your not open because you ALREADY KNOW EVOLUTION IS true. With a capital T. I couldn't show you anything that would shake your faith in that idea.

I just ask you to consider this, Most of the "evidence " for evolution is based on conjecture about fossils. Conjecture about historical events in the DEEP past. conjecture About relationships. Conjecture about how things MIGHT have changed from this or that.

compare that to the scientific work on chemical reactions for purification of water.
Or the process of a nuke plant. Ot even research on cures for disease. it's all empirical, repeatable, directly observable. Evolution is NOT on the same level. But somehow it's unquestionable, unspeakably true? i don't think so.



I am depressed to be drawn into this discussion again. We've been through it many times in the past and you have the same tired nonsense replies like an old ratty record player long abandoned by it's owner. All evidence found supports evolution. There is not one discovery that contradicts evolution. To humor you, it seems my faith is a lot more rational. Why do you choose to be irrational?
how are you humoring anyone by starting with the idea anything you think is rational and others are irrational?
I've got o try that. it's a lots less work.



You creationists demand as proof that which science does not claim exists. You want someone to wheel out a fossil of a half-fish, half-bird hybrid(or some equally bizarre combo) as proof of an intermediate species. You construct these monstrous strawmen and then point to them as proof that evolution isn't real.

It does claim they must have existed. Evolution claims transition forms. it promotes the idea of vestigial organs and the like. That fish came form the waters to the land that. whales came from the water to land and back. but presents no proof of how the transition features came to be or any transitions features. Animal feature are ALWAYS in a fully functional form. legs work as legs fins work as fins lungs as lungs blow holes as blow holes. not 1/2 a blow hole. AND there's NO emperical information that gives us ANY idea HOW the NEW DESIGN features with the added info in the DNA came to be.
we are told
"its Evolution! Don't you SEE"


The gaps aren't even important to it's usefulness. We know evolution is real, scientists are just trying to figure out exactly how it works. It's like watching a car move down the road. You don't need to understand exactly how the motor works to know that the car is in fact there and moving down the road. you see it, now let's figure out how it works! that is science!

It more like the scientist see cars driving back and forth on the roads then finds a some cars at the bottom of the Pacific ocean and the top of Mt Kilimanjaro and assumes they were driven there.

[Missileman]

"There hasn't been one credible discovery that contradicts evolution."
Pete, what makes a discovery credible? Well, that it agrees wit evolution of Course.
If it doesn't it' won't likey make into "credible" journals UNLESS it's Shoehorned into the theory.
Or called a Mystery or a paradox. it's rarely or NEVER seriously consider a contradiction of evolution because well --Evolution is true DUH!-- why do you resist the fact that it's true and nothing ever contraticts it it all fit no matter what it is. If it's too far out of line with evolution well it's not REAL science. it's just crazy talk because it's not real science to challenge the FACT of evolution.

Long story short Pete it's circular reasoning. Which excludes ANY contrary evidence.
Not the scientific method at all. which is OPEN to contrary evidence and honestly treats it as such. Or at least CONSIDERS it may be when presented with such.

Malarkey! Credible means scientifically verifiable. I defy you to post a single instance where scientists have discarded scientifically verifiable evidence as it relates to evolution...good luck with that. Your complaint is that science won't violate scientific method to accept mythology as an equal alternative.

[Missileman]

It does claim they must have existed.

Post a link to ANY "non-creationist" source that makes the claim. Evolution is the accumulation of tiny changes (aka variations) over extremely long periods of time. The half and half nonsense is just that.

[revelarts]

Post a link to ANY "non-creationist" source that makes the claim. Evolution is the accumulation of tiny changes (aka variations) over extremely long periods of time. The half and half nonsense is just that.

you just contradicted yourself.
Tiny changes add up to 1/8 1/4 1/2 etc... of a part or a system.

it's not there. There are no portions of functional parts.
Scales are not ON THE WAY to feathers by the " accumulation of tiny changes" . It's an assumption. with no empirical evidence to support it.
scales function specifically as scales and feathers are designed to function as feathers.
Scales in the fossil record are always scales and feather are always feathers

the fact is that there is no evidence for the incremental changes creating any new functional parts or systems.
So much so that several famous evolutionist have proposed the idea that MAYBE, (conjecture) evolution works by Quick JUMPS ...because that is what more closely matches what we see in the fossil record... MAYBE a lizard egg hatched a more bird like creature. 'Huh Huh ? sounds good?..mm" 'ok but hows that?' 'well...--BY EVOLUTION!' (insert magic song here)-- the "hopeful monster" theory.
there are soft variations on this theme that "FIT" into evolution nowadays in certain circles.
At one point in time the idea was ridiculed as "miracle" and not "credible" but now some say well It MUST be PART OF evolution. Gradualism is still the main thing (used to be the WHOLE thing) but this other might play a part. shoehorned in.

[darin]

I am depressed to be drawn into this discussion again. We've been through it many times in the past and you have the same tired nonsense replies like an old ratty record player long abandoned by it's owner. All evidence found supports evolution. There is not one discovery that contradicts evolution. To humor you, it seems my faith is a lot more rational. Why do you choose to be irrational?

Look, you're the guy who has enough faith to suppose things magically happened. You're the guy who says things like "all evidence found" supports your position, when you know it's a lie. What you REALLY mean is you have no proof and very little evidence to support your beliefs in magic, but you choose to interpret what little evidence you have in the ONLY way that satisifies your fear of a Creator.

Your faith in all this stuff happening by accident is beyond my ability to reach. I look at data, facts, observation. Those things point clearly to a designer. Pretty simple, really. I admire your zeal, but I feel a little sad you will refuse the most-common-sense solution to your questions about life.

Sometimes I wonder if these little simple organisms 'evolved' blood, or viens first...what magically evolved next? Lungs or trachea?

[pete311]

"There hasn't been one credible discovery that contradicts evolution."
Pete, what makes a discovery credible? Well, that it agrees wit evolution of Course.
If it doesn't it' won't likey make into "credible" journals UNLESS it's Shoehorned into the theory.
Absolutely not true. The science community craves discoveries, no matter the consequences. That is the reason most enter a scientific field. It's not to join some zealous movement and protect it at all cost. If there is a true contradiction to a well known theory that is huge news and one scientists welcome. That is a power of science. Your faith can't say the same. It just drudges along in superstition and cover ups.



Or called a Mystery or a paradox. it's rarely or NEVER seriously consider a contradiction of evolution because well --Evolution is true DUH!-- why do you resist the fact that it's true and nothing ever contraticts it it all fit no matter what it is. If it's too far out of line with evolution well it's not REAL science. it's just crazy talk because it's not real science to challenge the FACT of evolution.

There is no worldwide conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists from every corner of the earth.



Long story short Pete it's circular reasoning. Which excludes ANY contrary evidence.
Not the scientific method at all. which is OPEN to contrary evidence and honestly treats it as such. Or at least CONSIDERS it may be when presented with such.


Thousands of studies are done every year that confirm modern evolution theory. They all use the scientific process and are peer reviewed. What are you talking about.



your not open because you ALREADY KNOW EVOLUTION IS true. With a capital T. I couldn't show you anything that would shake your faith in that idea.


If you know something that tens of thousands of scientists don't, then please reveal. You'd be TIME magazine person of the year. If not, you're just acting like another crackpot.



I just ask you to consider this, Most of the "evidence " for evolution is based on conjecture about fossils. Conjecture about historical events in the DEEP past. conjecture About relationships. Conjecture about how things MIGHT have changed from this or that.

compare that to the scientific work on chemical reactions for purification of water.
Or the process of a nuke plant. Ot even research on cures for disease. it's all empirical, repeatable, directly observable. Evolution is NOT on the same level. But somehow it's unquestionable, unspeakably true? i don't think so.

Science isn't based off conjecture. It's not old men sitting in a room smoking cigars thinking of cool ideas. I'm fine with fossil records not convincing you, but you can not ignore the field of modern genetics. You can not ignore the fact there have been countless observations of bacteria and viruses evolving in front of our eyes. We've observed it in fruit flies and butterflies. Hell, dog breeding is evolution. and now because we've been through this before I know you'll accept "microevolution", but can't accept "macro", but you can't just make that conclusion. you have to accept that microevolution is evolution and not some separate process. several million years of "microevolution" will result in some pretty drastic changes.




It does claim they must have existed. Evolution claims transition forms. it promotes the idea of vestigial organs and the like. That fish came form the waters to the land that. whales came from the water to land and back. but presents no proof of how the transition features came to be or any transitions features. Animal feature are ALWAYS in a fully functional form. legs work as legs fins work as fins lungs as lungs blow holes as blow holes. not 1/2 a blow hole. AND there's NO emperical information that gives us ANY idea HOW the NEW DESIGN features with the added info in the DNA came to be.
we are told
"its Evolution! Don't you SEE"


Understanding exactly how a whale came on to land and back into the water is not all that crucial. It's like watching a video of a quarterback throwing a long hail mary. You can watch the quarterback throw the pass, but maybe the video cuts out exactly when the catch it made, you can't see the catch, but you see the receiver with the ball in the end zone. You don't question the process because you don't have video of the moment of the catch.

Your above comment again really shows how out of date you are. The irreducibly complex claim was debunked in court in the 90s. There are a myriad of variations of organs of all complexity. Overtime some organs will change and perhaps become more complex or adapted. This is not a wild concept to accept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Organs are not always fully functional and are sometimes useless
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/

[pete311]

Look, you're the guy who has enough faith to suppose things magically happened. You're the guy who says things like "all evidence found" supports your position, when you know it's a lie.

Open. A. Biology. Book.

Guess what? The world is flat. But you already knew that.


nice photo of a weimaraner in your avatar. There was no weimaraner's on noah's ark. It's a dog that was breed over time for hunting. Evolution.

[darin]

nice photo of a weimaraner in your avatar. There was no weimaraner's on noah's ark. It's a dog that was breed over time for hunting. Evolution.


First; She is a Vizsla :)

Second...look what you wrote "Somebody" caused my dog's breed to become what it is. The dog 'was bred'. The dog was designed. The dog did not, via magic or simply time 'become' a vizsla. But your example is further flawed because we're talking about things going from one species to another - not micro evolution. My dog will be and always was a Dog. That dog will never decide or have magic happen, that turns it into a horse.

Thirdly, there were no FISH on noah's ark either. Doesn't matter. Probaly were no mosquitos, either. Again, doesn't matter. I'm unsure why you'd bring up a biblical story though - that's way off topic. But speaking of religion...You're sort of an In-the-Closet Religious guy. You adhere to your faith and shut out anything contrary because being wrong in your opinion is much worse than death. To keep from being wrong, you blind yourself to alternatives. Again, I admire your zeal, but I pity your limiting yourself. Unless you'd simply rather NOT know the truth, or learn truth.

[pete311]

First; She is a Vizsla :)

Second...look what you wrote "Somebody" caused my dog's breed to become what it is. The dog 'was bred'. The dog was designed. The dog did not, via magic or simply time 'become' a vizsla. But your example is further flawed because we're talking about things going from one species to another - not micro evolution. My dog will be and always was a Dog. That dog will never decide or have magic happen, that turns it into a horse.


Nice! I was thinking it could be a Vizsla too! :)

It's not important whether the dog was naturally or artificially evolved. The process still happened. It evolved. Your dog will always be a dog, yes. Evolution process is one of small generational changes. Not one big sweeping change. In only a few hundred years we've managed easily to transform a wolf into a chihuahua or a great dane (speaking of horses). Give it several millions years and find out what you get. All living things share DNA. You share DNA with a fruit fly. No species is an island. There is a reason for that.

[darin]

Nice! I was thinking it could be a Vizsla too! :)

It's not important whether the dog was naturally or artificially evolved. The process still happened. It evolved. Your dog will always be a dog, yes. Evolution process is one of small generational changes. Not one big sweeping change. In only a few hundred years we've managed easily to transform a wolf into a chihuahua or a great dane (speaking of horses). Give it several millions years and find out what you get. All living things share DNA. You share DNA with a fruit fly. No species is an island. There is a reason for that.


I love my Vizsla. Best. Dog. Ever.

Did my dog have an Intelligent Designer? Would the Vizsla as we know them today exist without a designer? That's the point of all this.

Evolution cannot have taken place as you believe because our system must work together as-is. We must have blood and veins at the same time. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. There's no small generational change that can take microbes and make them develop a respiratory system.
You're doing this, essentially: "Because I can't give supporting evidence to show macro evolution, i'll say 'just wait' - it'll happen. You're waiting for the great pumpkin, Linus. ;)

[Larrymc]

Open. A. Biology. Book.

Guess what? The world is flat. But you already knew that.


nice photo of a weimaraner in your avatar. There was no weimaraner's on noah's ark. It's a dog that was breed over time for hunting. Evolution.what makes you think you know what was on the Ark, science has never found any evidence of human evolution, However you can experience God, though it takes a measure faith, but no more than it takes to believe that humans came from something else

[Larrymc]

Nice! I was thinking it could be a Vizsla too! :)

It's not important whether the dog was naturally or artificially evolved. The process still happened. It evolved. Your dog will always be a dog, yes. Evolution process is one of small generational changes. Not one big sweeping change. In only a few hundred years we've managed easily to transform a wolf into a chihuahua or a great dane (speaking of horses). Give it several millions years and find out what you get. All living things share DNA. You share DNA with a fruit fly. No species is an island. There is a reason for that.your theory's are all a guess in fact your measure of time has changed many times, because a widely used method is disproved, so you find another to run with which im sure at some point will be disproved

[pete311]

I love my Vizsla. Best. Dog. Ever.

Did my dog have an Intelligent Designer? Would the Vizsla as we know them today exist without a designer? That's the point of all this.


The Vizsla would not likely exist without human tinkering, that is true, but so what? Humans were the catalyst for change in the wolf. That catalyst can just as well be natural forces as well.



Evolution cannot have taken place as you believe because our system must work together as-is. We must have blood and veins at the same time. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. There's no small generational change that can take microbes and make them develop a respiratory system.
You're doing this, essentially: "Because I can't give supporting evidence to show macro evolution, i'll say 'just wait' - it'll happen. You're waiting for the great pumpkin, Linus. ;)

The evolution of the circulatory system is well explained in a developmental biology course often with the help of comparative physiology.

Here is an interesting article from a faith based organization
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-3a

Again there are a myriad of biological systems out there. From single cells to human beings all with various complexities of systems. Evolution doesn't claim to suddenly change from one system to the next, that there must be a certain outcome, that system must be more complex or even that it even be beneficial. It's simply about the nature of change within organisms. over time.


what makes you think you know what was on the Ark, science has never found any evidence of human evolution, However you can experience God, though it takes a measure faith, but no more than it takes to believe that humans came from something else


your theory's are all a guess in fact your measure of time has changed many times, because a widely used method is disproved, so you find another to run with which im sure at some point will be disproved

I'm just about done talking with you. You have nothing intelligent to say. Nothing but ignorant tired soapbox rants. You make yourself look foolish when you make comments that can be disproven after a 30 second google search.

[Larrymc]

The Vizsla would not likely exist without human tinkering, that is true, but so what? Humans were the catalyst for change in the wolf. That catalyst can just as well be natural forces as well.



The evolution of the circulatory system is well explained in a developmental biology course often with the help of comparative physiology.

Here is an interesting article from a faith based organization
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-3a

Again there are a myriad of biological systems out there. From single cells to human beings all with various complexities of systems. Evolution doesn't claim to suddenly change from one system to the next, that there must be a certain outcome, that system must be more complex or even that it even be beneficial. It's simply about the nature of change within organisms. over time.i agree there is evidence of animals and even humans changing to adapt to there environment, but that's a long way from evolving into a different species


I'm just about done talking with you. You have nothing intelligent to say. Nothing but ignorant tired soapbox rants. You make yourself look foolish when you make comments that can be disproven after a 30 second google search.i agree we have nothing more to talk about, you seem to have no common sense

[darin]

The Vizsla would not likely exist without human tinkering, that is true, but so what? Humans were the catalyst for change in the wolf. That catalyst can just as well be natural forces as well.



The evolution of the circulatory system is well explained in a developmental biology course often with the help of comparative physiology.

Here is an interesting article from a faith based organization
http://biologos.org/blog/evidences-for-evolution-part-3a

Again there are a myriad of biological systems out there. From single cells to human beings all with various complexities of systems. Evolution doesn't claim to suddenly change from one system to the next, that there must be a certain outcome, that system must be more complex or even that it even be beneficial. It's simply about the nature of change within organisms. over time.


That's it - you're on it now. Human 'tinkering'. Humans designed the breed. See - your faith-based ideas just believe things will happen. I need strong evidence. Your faith-based belief says "It happens so slow we can't observe it!" I say I don't have enough faith to believe it. I want facts, Data, evidence. That's just it - there is no evidence I consider worth a shit to support the conclusions you draw. Way too much hope. Hope is not a plan. Hope is not a catalyst for a process.

The nature of change - within a species - is well documented. A micro-organsim changing into having feet is not documented, nor evidenced; it's a pipe-dream of people who refuse ALL possible answers. Make sense?

I'll read that link in a bit - thanks!

[pete311]

i agree there is evidence of animals and even humans changing to adapt to there environment, but that's a long way from evolving into a different species

Only because our minds have trouble comprehending a time scale of millions of years.

[Larrymc]

Only because our minds have trouble comprehending a time scale of millions of years.that's true because the Moon and Stars give some substantial measure of time,even it can't be exact, all other measures from earth or ice and so on can't be trusted

[pete311]

The nature of change - within a species - is well documented. A micro-organsim changing into having feet is not documented, nor evidenced; it's a pipe-dream of people who refuse ALL possible answers. Make sense?


"Macroevolution is not different than microevolution; rather, it is the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes. The definition of what is or is not a species is essentially a human construct. The simplest definition of “species” is a group of organisms that commonly reproduces in the wild. This definition obviously does not apply to asexually reproducing organisms like bacteria. The number of existing species that has been formally discovered is only 1.8 million. It is estimated that there are at least 4 million species, all of which are understood to have descended from one or a few single-celled organisms that were on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago."

http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/AAAS_Study_Guide_EvolDialogues.pdf

[pete311]

This is a funny and priceless video which illustrates your misconception

Micro vs. Macro Growth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRhD_hv5Y1k

[revelarts]

Absolutely not true. The science community craves discoveries, no matter the consequences. That is the reason most enter a scientific field. It's not to join some zealous movement and protect it at all cost. If there is a true contradiction to a well known theory that is huge news and one scientists welcome. That is a power of science. Your faith can't say the same. It just drudges along in superstition and cover ups.

There is no worldwide conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists from every corner of the earth...


I'll get to rest of your post later but this has to address and I'd really like to see you acknowledge the point I'm about to make.

Scientist have preconceived scientific beliefs and are PRONE to FIGHT FOR the current scientific dogma or trend and RESIST new data or paradigms even in the face of clear evidence until they are forced to acknowledge otherwise. usually over time.

That's just the way people are. the herd mentality is not dropped just because people become scientist. the ideals of pure scientific research are great but not often applied easily especially in areas long believed to be "settled".

no need for conspiracy, just group think.
frankly you are an example of it. your not part of a conspiracy but you REFUSE to even CONSIDER the idea that Evolution is lacking in any significant way. It' just needs to 'fill in a few gaps' ..which make it implausible BTW.... but it's just gaps. You say you "DON"T HAVE TO SEE IT" you connect the invisible dots and wonder why ANYONE else would refuse to do the same. it's OBVIOUS to you, though not empirically, experimentally, or scientifically proven. The conjecture of imagining the football from one point to the other is all you need. not the real hard data. (Your assuming the channel hasn't changed and your not looking a different game as well.)


But the fact is cientist often have to fight to bring their discoveries to the the table, for example there's been a Paradigm Shift in Crystallography. Dr. Daniel Shechtman said that Crystals don't necessarily repeat themselves & that the existing theory was wrong. He was thrown out of his research group because what he proposed was against what all the text book said.

He persisted and finally was able to prove that what he was saying we true. EMPIRICALLY, not by imagined dotted lines. It's very hard to fight against belief in what some assume is there. How do you prove against what they "KNOW"?

Dr. Shechtman did finally win a Nobel prize recently.

Before you say 'See he got a Nobel prize' Sure ...finally after his peers pushed him aside.

Not all scientist have even lived to see themselves vindicated

Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis basis came up with germ theory as a physician in the mid 1800's. he was ridiculed and fired from several positions and final died unable to convince his medical and scientific peers that hand washing would save patients lives. Even after he had the empirical data to prove it in wards where he was able to mandate the practice... until told to stop and fired. the scientific FACTS did not change the scientific beliefs until years later.

Global Warming science is another area where science is not JUST about the facts or new discoveries. Politics, careers, cover ups, suppression, false data, firings, money etc etc..
Are muddying the science and the scientific community.

just a few weeks ago i posted the Confirmation of a discover about Dinosaur tissue dated to only 10's of thousands of years ago. the Chair scientist at the conference where the paper was presented tried to censor the spread of the information from it's website by pulling the posted scientific paper. No other papers got pulled. WHY, censor taht one? because it wasn't credible? NO. But because they didn't like the results of the test.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report&p=590429#post590429

The info flys in the face of all the textbook which say that all dinos fell to extinction 65 MILLION yrs ago. you know, evolution and science say so.
One point that i didn't mention before is that One of the dating methods use in evolution is circular in that often the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them. so if you find a dino YOU KNOW the rock it's in is at least 65 million yrs old. But if Dinos were not all dead then it throws off the dating of the rocks by that method. the ROCK does NOT have to be that old it could be MUCH younger.

So it's a problem of sorts, huh?
Gaffer made a few comments to backhandly shoehorn it into the evolutionary timeline. I'm sure many others have done the same.
Instead of even considering it as a possible problem. it couldn't be a problem. why, Because Evolution is just TRUE. so what ever you find it fits.... somehow right?

So, bottom line, the scientific community is not driven by raw facts alone. it's proved itself loathed to change often, especially in major areas.

And the raw data does not prove evolution is true, seems to me it proves the opposite.

[pete311]

just a few weeks ago i posted the Confirmation of a discover about Dinosaur tissue dated to only 10's of thousands of years ago. the Chair scientist at the conference where the paper was presented tried to censor the spread of the information from it's website by pulling the posted scientific paper. No other papers got pulled. WHY, censor taht one? because it wasn't credible? NO. But because they didn't like the results of the test.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37627-Dino-tissue-Carbon-14-dated-to-less-than-40-000-years-Censored-conference-report&p=590429#post590429


confirmation? lol. the problem is you put too much credit into some crackpot sites you found on the internet. there are no news stations covering this and no peer reviewed journal entries. you believe anything anyone puts up on some geocities website. the said conference is a joke. some 20 people. no one cares, because it's junk science.

you ignore the thousands of studies and research that supports evolution and instead focus on some crackpot research posted on a geocities website. who is shoehorning now?

We've observed bacteria, virus and fly evolution. That is fact. Once you accept this fact, watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRhD_hv5Y1k

[revelarts]

confirmation? lol. the problem is you put too much credit into some crackpot sites you found on the internet. there are no news stations covering this and no peer reviewed journal entries. you believe anything anyone puts up on some geocities website. the said conference is a joke. some 20 people. no one cares, because it's junk science.

you ignore the thousands of studies and research that supports evolution and instead focus on some crackpot research posted on a geocities website. who is shoehorning now?
:rolleyes:
see what i mean.

If you look at the whole thread you'll find that it's a real science conference and a real science papers. they are following up on years of research by Dr. Mary Schweitzer that's been mentioned in most of the science mags with headlines like "turns the field upside down". and always reviewed with some skepticism , which is fine. but at least they didn't laugh at it because they weren't familiar with the website. It's the quality of the work that makes the work credible Pete.
search Dr. Mary Schweitzer. and don't stop at the stories that says she's been proven wrong.. find the more recent ones that show the debunkers wrong and her initial findings correct.
And this follow up info puts it even further away from the mainstream.

As far as the other TONS and tons of research.
well if your trying to find the age of book and some people are looking at the paper, others at the ink, others at the style of writing, others at the glue, and they all print millions of docs on what they think the age of the book is and why. But then someone just reads the print date on the front leaf and confirms it with the publishers copyright notice at the federal registrar it doesn't matter what the paper expert said does it? he's wrong about the print date even though he may have found out some interesting facts about the paper.

[pete311]

:rolleyes:
If you look at the whole thread you'll find that it's a real science conference and a real science papers. they are following up on years of research by Dr. Mary Schweitzer that's been mentioned in most of the science mags with headlines like "turns the field upside down". and always reviewed with some skepticism , which is fine. but at least they didn't laugh at it because they weren't familiar with the website. It's the quality of the work that makes the work credible Pete.

search Dr. Mary Schweitzer. and don't stop at the stories that says she's been proven wrong.. find the more recent ones that show the debunkers wrong and her initial findings correct.
And this follow up info puts it even further away from the mainstream.


Credible work is verified by repeated independent experiments. There are none. If this was taken seriously there would have been dozens of further studies by others to verify the same results. That is how science works. I didn't see a paper. I saw a slideshow presentation with bullet points. That is not close to legit. He mentions contamination probability is low. What the hell does low mean. That is subjective. Low could mean 60% chance.

Regardless, dino bones are fossils, There is no soft tissue anymore. C-14 could never work. You can't use C-14 on rock, which is what a dino bone is!

However interesting Schweitzer's find was, it was blown out of proportion by the media.

It was a mineral matrix, that once dissolved in acid and treated with lots of chemicals yielded a matrix reminiscent of soft-tissue. Enough so, to give us a little insight to dinosaur tissue. Its not like the media seems to imply that it was a chunk of "flesh".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue_2.html

[aboutime]

This thread has become a pure source of entertainment. I say that because. NOT ONE person here, or ANYWHERE, for that matter. Has ever presented Positive Proof to backup, or prove the contrary about the entire topic.

In other words. As it stood, before this thread began. Nothing has changed.

[pete311]

This thread has become a pure source of entertainment. I say that because. NOT ONE person here, or ANYWHERE, for that matter. Has ever presented Positive Proof to backup, or prove the contrary about the entire topic.

In other words. As it stood, before this thread began. Nothing has changed.

a common college course experiement
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/evolutionlabs/DrosophilaEvoBioscenev28-2p3-6.pdf

you can have fun with evolution too. go breed a lab with a poodle. you get a labor-doodle. done. evolution win.

[Larrymc]

This thread has become a pure source of entertainment. I say that because. NOT ONE person here, or ANYWHERE, for that matter. Has ever presented Positive Proof to backup, or prove the contrary about the entire topic.

In other words. As it stood, before this thread began. Nothing has changed.that's a fact either you buy it or ya don't, there's no real prof of it, and no iron clad way to disprove it, "it comes down to what your willing to believe"

[pete311]

that's a fact either you buy it or ya don't, there's no real prof of it, and no iron clad way to disprove it, "it comes down to what your willing to believe"

i just gave two bloody freakin elementary level examples above

[darin]

This thread has become a pure source of entertainment. I say that because. NOT ONE person here, or ANYWHERE, for that matter. Has ever presented Positive Proof to backup, or prove the contrary about the entire topic.

In other words. As it stood, before this thread began. Nothing has changed.

We aren't debating the evidence, but the interpretation of same. We are debating verbs, not nouns. ;)

[revelarts]

Credible work is verified by repeated independent experiments. There are none. If this was taken seriously there would have been dozens of further studies by others to verify the same results. That is how science works. I didn't see a paper. I saw a slideshow presentation with bullet points. That is not close to legit. He mentions contamination probability is low. What the hell does low mean. That is subjective. Low could mean 60% chance.

Regardless, dino bones are fossils, There is no soft tissue anymore. C-14 could never work. You can't use C-14 on rock, which is what a dino bone is!

However interesting Schweitzer's find was, it was blown out of proportion by the media.

It was a mineral matrix, that once dissolved in acid and treated with lots of chemicals yielded a matrix reminiscent of soft-tissue. Enough so, to give us a little insight to dinosaur tissue. Its not like the media seems to imply that it was a chunk of "flesh".

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue_2.html


mentioned that you should not stop at the debinkers they have been debunked.

the collagen protein has been confirmed to be collagen protein NOT mineral matrixs or any of the other thing purposed to try to make it go away.

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/

A team of researchers from North Carolina State University and the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) has found more evidence for the preservation of ancient dinosaur proteins, including reactivity to antibodies that target specific proteins normally found in bone cells of vertebrates. These results further rule out sample contamination, and help solidify the case for preservation of cells – and possibly DNA – in ancient remains.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences with a joint appointment at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, first discovered what appeared to be preserved soft tissue in a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex in 2005. Subsequent research revealed similar preservation in an even older (about 80-million-year-old)Brachylophosaurus canadensis. In 2007 and again in 2009, Schweitzer and colleagues used chemical and molecular analyses to confirm that the fibrous material collected from the specimens was collagen.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S875632821201318X


Dr. Mary Schweitzer found in the sliced t-rex bone.....blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels. Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”) ...

[Larrymc]

i just gave two bloody freakin elementary level examples aboveyea you do what you want with that, proves nothing, except maybe to different breeds can mate,

[pete311]

yea you do what you want with that, proves nothing, except maybe to different breeds can mate,

and what is the result of that breeding?


don't worry revelarts, I'm still looking over your sources. they are actually pretty interesting.

[Larrymc]

and what is the result of that breeding?


don't worry revelarts, I'm still looking over your sources. they are actually pretty interesting.the result is, you can breed and rebreed until you turn blue and your still going to have a Dog

[pete311]

the result is, you can breed and rebreed until you turn blue and your still going to have a Dog

yes but those dogs will be different from the previous due to the genetic mixing and mutations. that is all evolution is. breed certain traits over millions of years and it may not resemble a dog any longer.

[Missileman]

you just contradicted yourself.
Tiny changes add up to 1/8 1/4 1/2 etc... of a part or a system.


No, I didn't contradict myself, you just made another strawman. Evolution doesn't happen with the end in mind.

[AllieBaba]

yes but those dogs will be different from the previous due to the genetic mixing and mutations. that is all evolution is. breed certain traits over millions of years and it may not resemble a dog any longer.

Well it may not resemble the original pair, but it is still a dog genetically.

And it doesn't spontaneously turn into a cat, or elephant, or something else.

Obviously evolution can take place within a species.

But it in no way explains how those creatures came into existence in the first place. There is zero evidence that we morphed out of some other species, which in turn morphed out of another species, which originally crawled out of slime, which started as a one cell creature.

It's a theory, and it's colorful and interesting...but there's no evidence that it's true.

[revelarts]

No, I didn't contradict myself, you just made another strawman. Evolution doesn't happen with the end in mind.

no plan but survival huh?

Look Pete, it does end with a very specific functional parts.
with or without it in mind.
The changes are suppose to be moving in the direction of functional survival/fitness

[Missileman]

no plan but survival huh?

Look Pete, it does end with a very specific functional parts.
with or without it in mind.
The changes are suppose to be moving in the direction of functional survival/fitness

No, they aren't. Variations occur all the time...some good, some not so good. If a variation proves advantageous, more of those with the variation will survive and given enough time all in that line will have the variation. Evolution is not a process with a beginning and end, it's nothing more than an accumulation of changes.

[pete311]

Well it may not resemble the original pair, but it is still a dog genetically.

And it doesn't spontaneously turn into a cat, or elephant, or something else.

Obviously evolution can take place within a species.

But it in no way explains how those creatures came into existence in the first place. There is zero evidence that we morphed out of some other species, which in turn morphed out of another species, which originally crawled out of slime, which started as a one cell creature.

It's a theory, and it's colorful and interesting...but there's no evidence that it's true.

You need to read through this thread because i've answered all these questions. You also have a very low understanding of the theory and what a scientific theory is. Please read a bit on the subject and come back. I'm tired of arguing elementary level shit.


No, they aren't. Variations occur all the time...some good, some not so good. If a variation proves advantageous, more of those with the variation will survive and given enough time all in that line will have the variation. Evolution is not a process with a beginning and end, it's nothing more than an accumulation of changes.

I want to emphasis that MM said. Evolution does not pick a side. Sometimes the changes are good and sometimes bad. Sometimes to moves to complexity and sometimes it moves to something more simple. Sometimes I feel the people who resist the theory think it's some sort of ultimate power that makes everything better over time. It's not true.

fyi, Wired.com just posted a neat article on current human evolution a few days ago
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/

[revelarts]

No, they aren't. Variations occur all the time...some good, some not so good. If a variation proves advantageous, more of those with the variation will survive and given enough time all in that line will have the variation. Evolution is not a process with a beginning and end, it's nothing more than an accumulation of changes.


the accumulation of change END UP with Functional parts.
You don't have a hand that's Changing to a little here or there. And as iv'e mentioned you don't get
portions of functional parts.

I'm not sure what your arguing. are you saying that the parts of the ear just happened to create the function of sound that's brains can translate into information by the anvil drum doing something else, just bits of flesh hanging out near the end of a hole in the head near some with a nerves for millions of years and that those nerves send signals to the brains and that it could translate into information by another hunk of flesh that incrementally mutated to think about it ...etc etc...
which came 1st the holes in the head? the fleshy bits just inside at the right place growing incrementally randomly, the specialized nerves connections etc... it's a fairy tale for adults.
Accumulation of mutations by random chance for added survival is mathematically impossible to accomplish over the amount of time allowed. And add to that all of the specialize functions of the animal and plant kingdoms that have remained steady and practically unchanged except for size variations for "millions" of years because DNA functions to weed OUT mutations. and you have an effectively ZERO chance.

PLUS you don't see it in the fossil record. what you see is Explosions of life in very short periods of time with creatures that have ALL of their functions fully formed, perfectly integrated and set to replicate without major changes into the future.

Not incremental unseen changes, unseen until you see um, almost skin but not quite skin, but with an advantage. Skin, teeth, lungs, knees bones, eyes, cartilage, tongues, stomachs , livers, blood, nerves, hair, bark, leaves, roots, cells, brains etc etc etc etc it's not science to say that it happened incrementally. no one has empirically trace ANY of the steps for any of those things, it's pure conjecture.

[pete311]

the accumulation of change END UP with Functional parts.
You don't have a hand that's Changing to a little here or there. And as iv'e mentioned you don't get
portions of functional parts.

Our hands have changed over our history
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571064/

I think you're really discounting the power of very very small changes over a very very long time. Of course it's not like one day a baby was born with a half a heart and then the next generation the next half was added. Of course that's not how it works. It's all very small mutations. Everything looks fully functional. There isn't a fish out there with gills that don't work. But over time those gills might change in different ways and each mutation will be fully functional, but different.

[Missileman]

the accumulation of change END UP with Functional parts.
You don't have a hand that's Changing to a little here or there. And as iv'e mentioned you don't get
portions of functional parts.

I'm not sure what your arguing. are you saying that the parts of the ear just happened to create the function of sound that's brains can translate into information by the anvil drum doing something else, just bits of flesh hanging out near the end of a hole in the head near some with a nerves for millions of years and that those nerves send signals to the brains and that it could translate into information by another hunk of flesh that incrementally mutated to think about it ...etc etc...
which came 1st the holes in the head? the fleshy bits just inside at the right place growing incrementally randomly, the specialized nerves connections etc... it's a fairy tale for adults.
Accumulation of mutations by random chance for added survival is mathematically impossible to accomplish over the amount of time allowed. And add to that all of the specialize functions of the animal and plant kingdoms that have remained steady and practically unchanged except for size variations for "millions" of years because DNA functions to weed OUT mutations. and you have an effectively ZERO chance.

PLUS you don't see it in the fossil record. what you see is Explosions of life in very short periods of time with creatures that have ALL of their functions fully formed, perfectly integrated and set to replicate without major changes into the future.

Not incremental unseen changes, unseen until you see um, almost skin but not quite skin, but with an advantage. Skin, teeth, lungs, knees bones, eyes, cartilage, tongues, stomachs , livers, blood, nerves, hair, bark, leaves, roots, cells, brains etc etc etc etc it's not science to say that it happened incrementally. no one has empirically trace ANY of the steps for any of those things, it's pure conjecture.

Yeah, that's exactly how it happened...every creature on the planet was walking around deaf, wondering what that hole in the side of their heads was for and then one day they all developed an ear drum and walked around deaf still until another day, millions of years later, they all spontaneously developed auditory nerves and Voila! EBILUTION! :rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Our hands have changed over our history
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571064/

I've pointed out before the Latoli footprints and other fossil finds that apparently show there where humanoid like creatures as far back as 3 million years, the same time as africanus, so the idea that modern humans features came from them is an Assumption not born out by, or at least questioned by the fossil record in that respect.
And I have to say most articles are fairly honest in the way they are written in that they constantly say things like
"may have... could have... might have... possibly lead too"... etc




I think you're really discounting the power of very very small changes over a very very long time. Of course it's not like one day a baby was born with a half a heart and then the next generation the next half was added. Of course that's not how it works. It's all very small mutations. Everything looks fully functional. There isn't a fish out there with gills that don't work. But over time those gills might change in different ways and each mutation will be fully functional, but different.
yes i do discount it. especially when there's no examples of it.
the article you post mentions Chimps and other animals that are extinct.
All of those animals have extensive morphological difference that are all integrated into it's body's system.

Not just the hand but the wrist the shoulders the back the neck the Hips the legs knees and feet. Changes to any of the shapes and sizes of bones have to be wedded to changes in the muscles that connect them and where they connect. they all have to be perfectly in sync to right sized and strength to for them to work. And the changes symmetrically timed to each other.
The changes have to be packaged and coordinated to allow for any advantageous functions, and the changes embedded to replicate in the DNA and become dominant.
It's Not just the thumb bone growing a little longer on day and 10000 years later one of the many bones of the wrist changes a bit then one of the 4 bones of the index finger gets unpredictably and unperceptivly smaller. the changes have to be coordinated to convey function of any kind.

[revelarts]

Yeah, that's exactly how it happened...every creature on the planet was walking around deaf, wondering what that hole in the side of their heads was for and then one day they all developed an ear drum and walked around deaf still until another day, millions of years later, they all spontaneously developed auditory nerves and Voila! EBILUTION! :rolleyes:

Well you forgot that the symmetrical holes in the head formed incrementally at random over millions of years 1st, maybe, possibly could have and those holes conveyed an ebilutionary advantage.

[Missileman]

I've pointed out before the Latoli footprints and other fossil finds that apparently show there where humanoid like creatures as far back as 3 million years, the same time as africanus, so the idea that modern humans features came from them is an Assumption not born out by, or at least questioned by the fossil record in that respect.
And I have to say most articles are fairly honest in the way they are written in that they constantly say things like
"may have... could have... might have... possibly lead too"... etc



yes i do discount it. especially when there's no examples of it.
the article you post mentions Chimps and other animals that are extinct.
All of those animals have extensive morphological difference that are all integrated into it's body's system.

Not just the hand but the wrist the shoulders the back the neck the Hips the legs knees and feet. Changes to any of the shapes and sizes of bones have to be wedded to changes in the muscles that connect them and where they connect. they all have to be perfectly in sync to right sized and strength to for them to work. And the changes symmetrically timed to each other.
The changes have to be packaged and coordinated to allow for any advantageous functions, and the changes embedded to replicate in the DNA and become dominant.
It's Not just the thumb bone growing a little longer on day and 10000 years later one of the many bones of the wrist changes a bit then one of the 4 bones of the index finger gets unpredictably and unperceptivly smaller. the changes have to be coordinated to convey function of any kind.

You're being ridiculous...how many 7' human beings have been born with 5' muscles? Even better (added) how many human beings have been born with a 7 footer's radius and a 4 footer's ulna?

[revelarts]

You're being ridiculous...how many 7' human beings have been born with 5' muscles? Even better (added) how many human beings have been born with a 7 footer's radius and a 4 footer's ulna?

Well Club foot is a an example of a mutation/defect that can effect the size, the length, strength and type of muscles and tendons. And I believe it there are cases where it effects the placement of where the muscle is attached also.

Random individual changes to the size of A single bone without a parallel changes in the muscles and tendons will cause problems not advantage.

[aboutime]

Well Club foot is a an example of a mutation/defect that can effect the size, the length, strength and type of muscles and tendons. And I believe it there are cases where it effects the placement of where the muscle is attached also.

Random individual changes to the size of A single bone without a parallel changes in the muscles and tendons will cause problems not advantage.


Just like BRAIN DAMAGE seems to be doing for this thread.

[pete311]

Evolution doesn't pick sides. Mutations often are not advantageous.

You like use the complex system argument and it really doesn't make any difference. There are plenty of evidence of there for how complex systems have evolved. Irreduciblely complex argument was debunked in court in the 90s. The human body is not perfect. If it were I'd be in the nba right now. Instead I'm 29 with more health problems I can shake a stick at.

[aboutime]

Evolution doesn't pick sides. Mutations often are not advantageous.

You like use the complex system argument and it really doesn't make any difference. There are plenty of evidence of there for how complex systems have evolved. Irreduciblely complex argument was debunked in court in the 90s. The human body is not perfect. If it were I'd be in the nba right now. Instead I'm 29 with more health problems I can shake a stick at.


29 and more health problems than you can shake a stick at?

Why is that?

What caused your health problems, or better yet. Who was responsible for your health problems?

[pete311]

Bad genetics :)

[revelarts]

Evolution doesn't pick sides. Mutations often are not advantageous.

You like use the complex system argument and it really doesn't make any difference. There are plenty of evidence of there for how complex systems have evolved. Irreduciblely complex argument was debunked in court in the 90s. The human body is not perfect. If it were I'd be in the nba right now. Instead I'm 29 with more health problems I can shake a stick at.


Sorry about your health Pete. i pray you can find ways to work out of them.

As far as the Irreducible complexity argument being debunked in court in the 90s. I didn't know science was settled in court. And frankly It's still significantly unanswered.
You haven't answered the complexity I've mentioned here in an off handed way.

Hands are complex living tools, the differences in Human hands and all other primates hands/feet are significant. Yet evolution asserts it's true with NO fossil info to show the imagined random incremental changes that make the supposed transition.
With no idea or evidence of any biological system or systems that would need to be in place make the complex synchronized changes from imagined pre-human to human hands.
And again it's just one of trillions of different functional interrelated living forms in nature.
It's like winning the lottery a 10,000 times a day for a million years. random mutation and slight advantages over time doing it is somewhat unlikely

[Robert A Whit]

The mystery is creation. Supposedly to get rid of those speaking of creation, the topic diverts to minute changes known as evolution.

So smart people, tell me again what caused 6 elements to bond and create any life form?

See, God has many planets. God has a human factory on some planets and brings them all here by taxi.

[pete311]

As far as the Irreducible complexity argument being debunked in court in the 90s. I didn't know science was settled in court. And frankly It's still significantly unanswered.
You haven't answered the complexity I've mentioned here in an off handed way.

Review the case, it was a slam dunk.



Hands are complex living tools, the differences in Human hands and all other primates hands/feet are significant. Yet evolution asserts it's true with NO fossil info to show the imagined random incremental changes that make the supposed transition.

Humans did not evolve from any primate alive today so I wouldn't expect them to be extremely similar.



It's like winning the lottery a 10,000 times a day for a million years. random mutation and slight advantages over time doing it is somewhat unlikely

That's a bit of a hyperbole, but yeah it's pretty amazing to think about. As unlikely as it might seem, it's still astronomically more likely than any other scenarios presented at the moment. Again, there has been no discovery that falsifies evolution to date. It fits everything we've seen. Sure there are plenty of questions, but that is for science over time to discover. It's like the Theory of Relativity. Scientists are still working on it long after Einstein, but we know it's true because if it weren't, GPS and weather satellites would be useless. We know Evolution is true because it's consistent with everything we see. If we were wrong, then our experiments would show it and we wouldn't be as far in genetics as we are now. If anyone would find a discovery that falsified evolution, you'd win a Nobel Prize.

[pete311]

The mystery is creation.

I can fully accept that. Creation is up in the air at the moment.

[Kathianne]

I can fully accept that. Creation is up in the air at the moment.

Probably for more than a moment. That
to me, whatever the theory posited, is the thumbprint of God.

[Robert A Whit]

Probably for more than a moment. That
to me, whatever the theory posited, is the thumbprint of God.

So, how do you think God operated?

[Kathianne]

So, how do you think God operated?

I'm not God, I've not a clue. I suppose you are?

[Larrymc]

I'm not God, I've not a clue. I suppose you are?"He Speaks"

[Gaffer]

The mystery is creation. Supposedly to get rid of those speaking of creation, the topic diverts to minute changes known as evolution.So smart people, tell me again what caused 6 elements to bond and create any life form?See, God has many planets. God has a human factory on some planets and brings them all here by taxi.Perhaps there is an, as yet, undiscovered 7th element.

[Larrymc]

Perhaps there is an, as yet, undiscovered 7th element.maybe but sense evolution wont do anything for you in eternity, i think your time would serve you better, if you spent it finding out the truth about a Supreme Being and Creation, sure the first step is Faith but given a chance he will reveal him self

[aboutime]

I'm not God, I've not a clue. I suppose you are?


Kathianne. Who? In their right mind, would be able to honestly answer that question?

That kind of question reminds me of the "WWJS? What would Jesus Say...crowd.

So far. Not one of them has had an Honest, Accurate, Provable Answer.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Who? In their right mind, would be able to honestly answer that question?

That kind of question reminds me of the "WWJS? What would Jesus Say...crowd.

So far. Not one of them has had an Honest, Accurate, Provable Answer.

Ask the person that originally asked.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm not God, I've not a clue. I suppose you are?

WTF

And you claim I start fights.

WTF

No, I am not God.

YET!!!

[revelarts]

WTF

And you claim I start fights.

WTF

No, I am not God.

YET!!!

LOL!

This should be moved to the Mormon challenge thread.
(no offense RW)

[Robert A Whit]

LOL!

This should be moved to the Mormon challenge thread.
(no offense RW)


I figured somebody would say that. :slap::2up:

[AllieBaba]

You need to read through this thread because i've answered all these questions. You also have a very low understanding of the theory and what a scientific theory is. Please read a bit on the subject and come back. I'm tired of arguing elementary level shit.




http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/11/recent-human-evolution-2/

I'm sure you are. Because it is at the elementary level that the theory does nothing to explain different species, or the origin of life.

[AllieBaba]

pete311. I won't disagree with you on anything you said. As I said previously. You can tell me I am wrong...all day long, if you like.
But at least have the courtesy to PROVE IT. IF YOU CAN?

He can't.

And he won't. All he'll do is continue to say asinine things like "it's obvious" and "it's already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "I've already shown how...."

I actually read through the thread again at his behest thinking maybe he'd shared some interesting information.

There's nothing there. My understanding of evolution exceeds his, as far as I can tell. I'm afraid to follow the link he provided about his little "piece" on the topic. I've no doubt it's garbage.