Evolution is Impossible.... [Archive]

Demosthenes

2007-02-12, 12:19 PM

There are many misconceptions about evolution presented in your original post. The theory of evolution really has nothing to do with the big bang theory. The theory of evolution doesn't even say anything about the origin of life. Evolution does not take thousands of years. It happens generation to generation. Speciation, however, takes many, many thousands, if not millions of years.

There is nothing improbable about the theory of evolution. Not only is it an excellent model of the history of life, the facts behind it have been observed. It's like stating that the theory of gravity is improbable.

I really don't know what to say to your specific example of a lizard turning into a bird. My guess, though, is that the process you described is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing to say that it happend the way you described. In general, natural selection would severely reprimand any negative changes in a species, and they would die out fairly quick. I would suspect that the same principle would apply to the lizard. It would have happend much more systematically, and the changes would be beneficial for the intermediate species. That is, of course, how it happens in general.

The big bang theory states that the universe began from a singularity. The big bang would be very much like the collapse of a star into a black hole in reverse. Also, as Lenny stated, matter can not be destroyed in our universe. Black holes that swallow mass spit it back out in the form of Hawking Radiation. This is, of course, not matter, it is energy, however energy and matter are for all practical purposes the same thing, and the relationship between them is given by Einstein's famous equation. Before the big bang, atoms did not exist. Hydrogen atoms did not begin to form until at least one second after the bang -- an eternity at that time...quite literally.

-Big Bang Theory is pretty much garbage anyway, modern science still doesn't know nearly enough about our universe to make such theories with any sort of accuracy

That's not really true. Einstein's theory of general relativity implies that the universe is expanding or contracting. Through observations, we have discovered that galaxies further from us are moving away faster, which implies that the universe is expanding. Since the universe has been expanding, it is easy to see that at one point the universe must have been much smaller.

There is, of course, a massive amount of other evidence to support it. Cosmic radiation, as predicted by the theory, was found by the Cosmic Background Explorer. The abundance of primordial elements is predicted by the big bang -- where practically all other reasonable models have failed. The change of the state of the universe through time can be seen by a telescope as predicted by the big bang. I, of course, can not list everything that supports the big bang theory -- that would be an enormous post, but there is enough evidence supporting it that it would be likely that any new evidence found would add to it rather than replace it. Modern science certainly does know enough about our universe to make such theories. They easily did 50 years ago.

Divine intervention has enough of its own problems -- many more than either evolution or big bang. For one, where did god come from?

Lenny

2007-02-12, 01:00 PM

Ooooh! There was an interesting article on ZDNet a week or so ago about a group of scientists creating an experiment to test the string theory.

---

Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. Supposedly it's a constant, fixed amount present in the universe however.

Exactly - it isn't created or destroyed, but changes state.

Grav

2007-02-12, 01:13 PM

Sorry, I thought you were just talking about the phases of matter

Lenny

2007-02-12, 01:15 PM

Nah, I haven't learnt any of that. :p I only know about Matter up to GCSE level, above is beyond me.

KagomJack

2007-02-12, 01:29 PM

Goddammit, MJ, you're making too much sense. I demand you stop.

Draco

2007-02-12, 02:21 PM

I do understand that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I am just stating that the black hole or star would have caused a state change...
also the Cosmic Background Explorer just detects microwaves from the galaxy, and like light microwaves spread out like a wave in the water, over a great distance the microwaves could have come from any where....who could positively say that the waves are not comming from a nearby or distant source?

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-12, 02:23 PM

FUCK BLACK JESUS ARGHHHHH!

but I want all caps this time

Draco

2007-02-12, 02:39 PM

Grav

2007-02-12, 02:43 PM

Uh... the Earth was not created for us, rather life on this planet adapted to the conditions. I'd say you should take a few more science based courses before discussing this.

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-12, 02:45 PM

Uh... the Earth was not created for us, rather life on this planet adapted to the conditions. I'd say you should take a few more science based courses before discussing this.
QFTDIAF caps

Lenny

2007-02-12, 02:45 PM

OOooh! Ask him how old the Earth is!

KagomJack

2007-02-12, 02:47 PM

I'd say more, but Grav rather put it into perspective nicely.

Grav

2007-02-12, 02:47 PM

OOooh! Ask him how old the Earth is!

It's over NINE THOUSAND!!!!

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-12, 02:49 PM

It's well over NINE THOUSAND!!!!

Demosthenes

2007-02-12, 02:51 PM

It's well over NINE THOUSAND!!!!

9003?

KagomJack

2007-02-12, 02:51 PM

It's 666 thousand!

Grav

2007-02-12, 02:52 PM

9000 what? specify units kthx

Lenny

2007-02-12, 02:54 PM

9000 units of half a million years!

In'nit!

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-12, 02:55 PM

9000 IQs duh

lyke guyz my IQ is well over 9000 i know wut im talkin about

Medieval Bob

2007-02-12, 03:31 PM

Look, if the theroy fails what elts could explain the perfect formation of a livable planet called earth.... even science says that if the earth was a little farther from the sun or a little closer it would be uninhabitable..... it would either burn or freeze....

Your argument is that one theory seems unlikely, and we don't have another one right now, so God must have done it? Are you serious? If that worked, then anytime we had a puzzle that was difficult to solve, we could just declare that God did it.

*We can't find the murder weapon. God must have deleted it!

*Where'd my other sock go? I didn't burn it. God must eaten it!

*Why is it raining outside?
Well, you see, water condenses and rises up into the air. This water forms clouds, and then the clouds release that water back to the ground.

Nahhh. That doesn't sound very likely. God must be doing it.

Grav

2007-02-12, 03:32 PM

Naked gay avatar guy gets points.

Demosthenes

2007-02-12, 10:15 PM

I do understand that matter cannot be created or destroyed, I am just stating that the black hole or star would have caused a state change...

That's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. And to the big bang theory as well, for that matter.

also the Cosmic Background Explorer just detects microwaves from the galaxy, and like light microwaves spread out like a wave in the water, over a great distance the microwaves could have come from any where....who could positively say that the waves are not comming from a nearby or distant source?

Because the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation is very close to that of a blackbody. In fact, the spectrum picked up by COBE was much closer to that of a blackbody than anything we can produce in a lab. The only reasonable explanation for this is that it comes from a time when the universe was much hotter and denser than its current state. That, coupled with the fact that the deviations on the experimental values collected from COBE differ so slightly from theoretical values that they aren't even plotted on the graphs strongly implies that the big bang theory is valid.

Look, if the theroy fails what elts could explain the perfect formation of a livable planet called earth.... even science says that if the earth was a little farther from the sun or a little closer it would be uninhabitable..... it would either burn or freeze....

There are probably millions of planets. Some, surely, must have comprable conditions to those of earth. Furthermore, live has also adapted to the conditions presented to us. It does not need to be perfectly fine-tuned.

Lenny

2007-02-13, 03:47 AM

There are probably millions of planets. Some, surely, must have comprable conditions to those of earth. Furthermore, live has also adapted to the conditions presented to us. It does not need to be perfectly fine-tuned.

I daresay that if Mars had been close enough to the Sun to support life like the Earth, we could all be Methane breathers, rather than Oxygen, no?

---

Look, if the theroy fails what elts could explain the perfect formation of a livable planet called earth

You can not use a supernatural being as an excuse for everything! It was old after the first few hundred years, now it's ancient.

Draco

2007-02-13, 08:09 AM

No one can say anything about that.... no one really knows...

Draco

2007-02-13, 08:19 AM

yes there are logical explinations to many things that happen.... but you cannot compare loosing your sock to the creation of the entire galaxy!

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-13, 08:20 AM

He seems like the kind of person that closes their eyes and says "it's not real it's not real!"

Demosthenes

2007-02-13, 04:11 PM

yes there are logical explinations to many things that happen.... but you cannot compare loosing your sock to the creation of the entire galaxy!

Yes...magic was much more likely to have occurred a few billion years ago than now. -_-

Lenny

2007-02-13, 04:36 PM

I'll never believe it ain't so!

Draco

2007-02-14, 10:14 AM

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?
Also a statement from Chuck Missler (I dont know if the name is spelled correctly), but he said that evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and after it passes a car fully formed and functioning is left behind... it is an extremely slim chance that that could happen....

Draco

2007-02-18, 12:34 PM

scientists have many theories that try to explain what happens with life...
at one point they said that all life came from a "primordial pool" that held all the building blocks of life from which single celled organisms came.... they have also said that all life came from the sea and slowly came upon land... they tried to explain the whale and its role in evolution; they said that it came from a land mammal all because it had a bony flipper.... scientists keep saying that they are finding bones of early man although it has mostly monkey teeth and only one tooth that is human like, they instantly call it human....

Jamesadin

2007-02-24, 12:15 PM

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?

This is a very common piece of information, but it is untrue. Darwin in fact believed fully in his work until the day he died.

As he wrote in one of his last works, Descent of Man, he stated, "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

So, don't believe the anti-evolution propaghanda. Make your own decisions based on your personal beliefs. There are too many lies used by those who don't believe in evolution to strengthen their cause, when in fact they are only hurting themselves.

Lenny

2007-02-24, 12:24 PM

Make your own decisions based on your personal beliefs.

They ARE his beliefs, now.

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-24, 12:39 PM

There are too many lies used by those who don't believe in evolution to strengthen their cause, when in fact they are only hurting themselves.

So very true. Who are they helping by lying to encourage people to believe something that is untrue?

Demosthenes

2007-02-24, 09:36 PM

Was it not the founder of evolution, Charles Darwin, who disproved his own theroy?

This story was propogated by Lady Hope, and is almost certainly untrue.

Also a statement from Chuck Missler (I dont know if the name is spelled correctly), but he said that evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and after it passes a car fully formed and functioning is left behind... it is an extremely slim chance that that could happen....

Chuck Missler is a biblical fundamentalist who probably knows nothing of the working of evolution or biology in general. He is a moron. Not because he claims that evolution is highly improbable, but because he has absolutely no basis for his claim. Evolution by natural selection is very systematic. His analogy is bogus.

scientists have many theories that try to explain what happens with life...

From my "Objection to Religion" post:

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term �evolution.� Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution �is just a theory,� and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word �theory.� In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton�s classical theory, or Einstein�s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

KagomJack

2007-02-24, 10:06 PM

Goddamn you, Black Jesus, for making sense!

Lenny

2007-02-25, 10:01 AM

!King_Amazon!

2007-02-25, 12:07 PM

He's a bastard, ain't he?

---

I don't see why people should use the fact that "evolution is highly improbable" as an argument. So what if the chances are a billion to one? There's still that chance it could happen, however miniscule.
But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

Draco

2007-03-07, 08:37 AM

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....
You must also learn that when scientists are paid to research something they are not going to tell you what you dont want to hear......

Demosthenes

2007-03-07, 10:19 AM

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....

The possibility exists that everything I've been told is a lie. However, some of what I've been told is certainly verifiable. For instance, much of physics, especially classical physics, is self-verifiable. Heredity is also, for all practical purposes, verifiable. Genetic variation from parent to child is also verifiable. Many, many more observations are verifiable. These all coincide with the phenomenon of evolution. The same can not be said about most major religions.

Secondly, the reason I trust what is considered scientific fact is not because I have some unyielding trust in people, it's because every experiment they perform is verifiable. The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak. There are many, many social checks and balances in the scientific community, which is why I trust scientific fact. Religion, being based on faith, does not have these checks and balances.

You must also learn that when scientists are paid to research something they are not going to tell you what you dont want to hear......

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-07, 01:54 PM

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

I think you've owned this kid enough MJ, time to let him go on with his life in the dark.

Draco

2007-03-07, 07:21 PM

The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak.

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....

[QUOTE=mjordan2nd] Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution?[QUOTE]
Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

Draco

2007-03-07, 07:29 PM

But the thing is it's not highly improbable. Anyone with half a brain that has an open mind can look at the evidence and see that it's the most likely answer. Problem is, religion is all about being closed-minded.

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?:confused:

Grav

2007-03-07, 08:21 PM

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....

Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

Yeah, that's a real tough one.

What scientist in his right mind would possibly want to immortalize himself through one of the most ground-breaking discoveries in human history? What man would want to be synonymous with Einstein and Newton? What scientist would want to validate his own existence as a man of science by winning the Nobel Prize?

None that I know of!

Also the magic bullet has nothing to do with this.

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support

Demosthenes

2007-03-08, 08:17 AM

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....

I don't believe something because it's termed "theory," I accept it because it is based in well established scientific fact. "Magic bullet" most certainly is not.

Plus, a theory in the context of science is not really the same thing as a theory in common language. People seem to think that the term "theory" in science implies a certain degree of uncertainty. This is not the case. It is not termed "fact" because it is not a fact. It gives a plausible explanation of "how" or "why" a fact is, based on previous scientific research and new observations. There is the theory of evolution (debatable, although reasonably only on a very technical level). Then there is the natural phenomenon (fact) of common descent.

Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

You don't seem to get it do you? Maybe a diagram will help:

Nobel Prize ----> Money (Nobel Prize brings money)

You don't go into science for the money. A Biology or a Physics PHD will get you shit for cash. People go into it because they have a passion for finding the truth. That said, quickest way to money in a research-related career is a Nobel prize.

If you're worried about getting money to research an alternative, if a plausible hypothesis is given a university would fund it. If not, there are many people who would love for a scientist to "disprove" evolution. Just get some of the wealthiest organizations in America (churches). I'm positive that they would love to see a renowned scientist disprove evolution, and would fund it if given a reasonable opportunity. Now, if you're looking for a hidden agenda, that's where you should turn.

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded.

I mean, if you can believe in God, you shouldn't even need evidence. Why can't you simply "believe in" evolution, like you do God? Not saying that's a smart thing to do, but the logic doesn't make sense to me.

Let me ask you this: is there anything reasonable that would convince you that evolution is valid? Key word there is reasonable.

Generally when I pose this question people retort with, "Well what would it take to make you believe in God?" Before you dodge my question by throwing that at me, I'm going to just anticipate it and answer it for you.

First of all, this depends on how you define God. If you want to define God as whatever it was that initiaited the universe, then I could believe in God. General Relativity indicates that the universe is finite in both time and space. The fact that we exist inside it means if it wasn't always around, by our current understanding, it had to have been started at some point, so I can in this case reasonably acknowledge the existence of God. I'm not acknowledging any type of "outside" intelligence whatsoever, I'm simply saying whatever it was that initiated the universe can be called God, and that in that case it (term used loosely...because extra...universal anything is an opaque subject to science altogether) definitely exists.

However, people nowdays define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in Christianity at least, omnibenevolent being. That very definition seems to contradict itself. If, by its very definition, it is contradictory, how am I supposed to acknowledge the validity of outlandish myths based solely on the idea that God exists. When so much of his book clearly contradicts evidence, why/how should I believe in it. If you want me to believe in something that contradicts evidence, show me a miracle or something. Part the red sea by supernatural means. I'm blasphemous. Smite me when I yell at you to strike me down with lightning. Do something. In all honesty, even the parting of the red sea would not prove God's existence. It would simply prove that the red sea inexplicably parted. Although I think I would find that a bit too coincidental to not at least doubt my atheism. You might be able to convert me if you part the red sea. Science doesn't promise miracles. It simply offers the facts, and plausible (usually highly likely) explanations for those facts. God, on the other hand, promises miracles. I can give you fact after fact and explanations which fit all the observed facts. Can you give me a miracle?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-08, 08:20 AM

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?:confused:
Because religion is absolutely about being closed minded. Are you open to other people's religions? No, of course not, that's against your religion. Are you open to other people's ideas? Of course not, it isn't in your bible and your preacher doesn't teach you anything about it so it must be wrong.

All a religion is is a shitload of people who decide they are only going to believe one thing and automatically say everyone else is wrong. Religion is the biggest load of shit ever.

Demosthenes

2007-03-08, 08:24 AM

I think this summarizes the difference between religion and science:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-08, 08:58 AM

Pretty much yeah, that looks about right. Except the graph to the right is missing the "find evidence that is bullshit but believe it anyway" box. Like how Joseph Smith got those golden plates that had some divine language on them that only he could read and after he read them the "angels took away his ability to read them." And how nowadays there are actually prophets in the mormon church and pretty much anything they say is straight from God.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-08, 09:01 AM

Draco

2007-03-08, 08:17 PM

Oh and something interesting and slightly funny, the tomb of jesus and his family is thought to have been discovered. They've found loads and loads of evidence that statistically proves it's jesus' tomb. The funny thing is, a lot of christians I've talked to about it are like "yes see we were right all along!" when it actually completely disproves their religion. If christ rose from the grave, why would his remains stay behind?

I actually watched that... the one thing that gets me is that they tested the DNA from the tombs of "jesus" and "mary magdalin" to see if they matched up as relatives.... they said they weren't(like they were in the first place:rolleyes: )... why coulden't they have tested the body of "mary" that would at least prove that there was a connection between them (mother to son)... so that test made no sence to me....

The next step in this conversation is they say "God put that there to test our faith. The true believers won't be fooled by this."

Those people you talked to... don't represent all believers.... I will admit that a majority of "believers" don't know half of what there talking about...
As much as i hate to say this many "believers" only come to church because they are afraid or they want something...

Draco

2007-03-08, 08:33 PM

IIf you're worried about getting money to research an alternative, if a plausible hypothesis is given a university would fund it. If not, there are many people who would love for a scientist to "disprove" evolution. Just get some of the wealthiest organizations in America (churches). I'm positive that they would love to see a renowned scientist disprove evolution, and would fund it if given a reasonable opportunity. Now, if you're looking for a hidden agenda, that's where you should turn.

You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded.

Correction, I never denied common descent... I denied massive changes that are not even related to what the original descent was...

Let me ask you this: is there anything reasonable that would convince you that evolution is valid? Key word there is reasonable.

I do understand some resonabilities of evolution such as becoming acclimated to the weather around you or becoming a different color because your survival depends on it (like if a species of frog had two colors [say green and yellow] if they live in the woods natural selection would weed out the hurtful trait because the yellow frog would be easier to spot....

However, people nowdays define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in Christianity at least, omnibenevolent being. That very definition seems to contradict itself. If, by its very definition, it is contradictory, how am I supposed to acknowledge the validity of outlandish myths based solely on the idea that God exists. When so much of his book clearly contradicts evidence, why/how should I believe in it. If you want me to believe in something that contradicts evidence, show me a miracle or something. Part the red sea by supernatural means. I'm blasphemous. Smite me when I yell at you to strike me down with lightning. Do something. In all honesty, even the parting of the red sea would not prove God's existence. It would simply prove that the red sea inexplicably parted. Although I think I would find that a bit too coincidental to not at least doubt my atheism. You might be able to convert me if you part the red sea. Science doesn't promise miracles. It simply offers the facts, and plausible (usually highly likely) explanations for those facts. God, on the other hand, promises miracles. I can give you fact after fact and explanations which fit all the observed facts. Can you give me a miracle?

First of all, miracles were only given when they were needed.... (Ill use your example) the parting of the red sea was only done once because moses was told to save the slaves of egypt and bring them to the promised land.... God does not just give out miracles willy nilly.....

Demosthenes

2007-03-08, 10:05 PM

You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

http://static.flickr.com/59/154079409_fe5904d99a_o.jpg

http://www.reformation.org/vatican-city.jpg

http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/international-StudentExperience/EuropeExperience/ItalyExperience/Frank_Pisa_S103/Italy/vatican_garden.JPG

Absolutely. If I had to pay $40,000 a week to keep my grass trimmed I doubt I could help pay for the advancement of the human race either.

[QUOTE]Correction, I never denied common descent... I denied massive changes that are not even related to what the original descent was...

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

I do understand some resonabilities of evolution such as becoming acclimated to the weather around you or becoming a different color because your survival depends on it (like if a species of frog had two colors [say green and yellow] if they live in the woods natural selection would weed out the hurtful trait because the yellow frog would be easier to spot....

Exactly. Such changes are cumulative in a population. Given enough time, a new species rises. It's hard to distinguish exactly when a population is in a transitional state and when it is finally a species of its own, but it is what happens.

But you dodged my earlier question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of the theory.

First of all, miracles were only given when they were needed.... (Ill use your example) the parting of the red sea was only done once because moses was told to save the slaves of egypt and bring them to the promised land.... God does not just give out miracles willy nilly.....

Convenient how you can simply decree by fiat that the only thing that could really be seen as evidence for a Judeo-Christian God is impossible. I do agree with you, though. Miracles are impossible. Just as impossible as they were 2000+ years ago.

KagomJack

2007-03-08, 11:56 PM

Goddamn you Black Jesus! If you keep making more sense, I'll have to cry to God to smite thee!

Grav

2007-03-09, 05:33 AM

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-09, 08:20 AM

You know the mormon church requires its members to give 10% of their income to it, right? The mormon church is fucking rich. Mormon families are huge, when all the children grow up they all have to pay 10% of everything to the church.

Not only that but you're agreeing with the exact fundamentals of evolution but denying its existance. I don't think you really understand what evolution is. It doesn't mean that if I go swim around in the water I'll grow gills and be able to breathe underwater.

Lenny

2007-03-09, 12:28 PM

Hahaha!

A friend has just sent me links to MC Hawking. Amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwJZe8HtOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

KagomJack

2007-03-09, 12:47 PM

He's doing what the Vancome lady does when she covers her ears and goes "LA LA LA LA! LA LA LA LA!"

Draco

2007-03-09, 09:02 PM

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split.... there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell.... otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now.... I know you going to say that it takes billions of years, but at the rate that cells divide small mutations in the DNA would have shown something....

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism. After all if you remove any of the parts of a system the system fails and the organism fails as well.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.

RoboticSilence

2007-03-10, 10:08 AM

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!!
Why does every one say that?:confused:

They keep saying it because all evidence of your posts points to that conclusion. If you don't think this is true, then you are a hypocrite. Choose either to be open-minded (thus accepting that, perhaps, evolution's overwhelming evidence could have a foundation in fact) or choose to accept that religion makes you closed-minded.

Furthermore, the improbability factor in evolution's action is entirely irrelevant. Consider that evolution requires improbability to function (for highly specialized organisations such as wings), why would this be its bane? For the rest, only those parts which, when checked by the actions of nature (living), are sufficiently bred to further generations (to flourish or fade, but, if an organisation is beneficial, it would surely flourish) will continue to emerge and undergo further specialization. Therefore, the tornado comment is a shot in the dark.

Grav

2007-03-10, 10:14 AM

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split.... there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell.... otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now.... I know you going to say that it takes billions of years, but at the rate that cells divide small mutations in the DNA would have shown something....

What are you even talking about? Such changes have been clearly visible, even in our own lifetime. How do you think bacteria is becoming more resistant to antibiotics?

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism. After all if you remove any of the parts of a system the system fails and the organism fails as well.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

Jeez, so many people are in denial. It's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those people are too religious to pull their head out of their bibles. The first paragraph is not even making a point. Systems? Lets move beyond high school biology class buddy. Bats are blind. Why are they alive without a 'visual system?'

The second paragraph is worse. If you are TOO CLOSE-MINDED to accept the possibility of genetic change over time (which is obvious in every form of life today), then you need to increase your gray matter and try again. We might even see something interesting in the next century. Many mentally "off" children are being born with significant abilities, most of which are termed autistic. However, these skills are usually overshadowed by their inability to meld with society. There might be an incident where normally functioning humans are born with some of the cognitive advantages of autism. This could lead to a new 'race' of humans. You might think thats impossible, but it's far more probable then something intangible and ambiguous like "god." Something of which there is NO proof at all, much like you claim evolution to have. (Although it obviously DOES). Even if there was only one piece of proof that evolution is fact, it is still more than NO EVIDENCE. Your beliefs are based on... well... nothing. How can you be comfortable with that? Because you choose to be ignorant. Don't get mad when those who choose to believe evidence make you look stupid.

RoboticSilence

2007-03-10, 10:19 AM

Let me just also say that what you have said about no observed mutations is also quite wrong and you should probably do some research (or maybe Google for a minute) before you say something like that.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006/12/michael-denton-and-molecular-clocks.html

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-10, 06:53 PM

There might be an incident where normally functioning humans are born with some of the cognitive advantages of autism.

Strangely enough this has already happened. There is a guy that I saw on a discovery show about autistic people I think, he's autistic but he's fully functional in society. He looks, talks, acts, exactly like normal human beings. But he's a natural genius. That's about all the info I have on that though, as I don't remember where he lives or what his name is.

KagomJack

2007-03-10, 11:50 PM

Autism and Asperger's is going to be the next ADD.

Draco

2007-03-12, 07:42 PM

What are you even talking about? Such changes have been clearly visible, even in our own lifetime. How do you think bacteria is becoming more resistant to antibiotics?

You evidently don't understand the difference between adaptation and evolution, that small changes in a cell wall can help a cell to survive like if it has minimal exposure to a drug it could develop a resistance much like when people take medicine for a while their body will eventually require more of it to feel the effects...

Jeez, so many people are in denial. It's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of those people are too religious to pull their head out of their bibles. The first paragraph is not even making a point. Systems? Lets move beyond high school biology class buddy. Bats are blind. Why are they alive without a 'visual system?'

You need to go back to high school biology, bats dont require a visual system because they use echo location to "see", something we don't have....

And for those of you that think Autism is a benefit, people with defect cannot survive on their own, think of them like an infant in a grown up body... they require 'parental' watch.....

Draco

2007-03-12, 07:46 PM

Religion does not make people closed minded, you have only been exposed to the people who are, remember that when you steriotype you make your self even more ignorant.....

I also want you to show me physical proof of evolution, a fosil or something....

Furthermore, the improbability factor in evolution's action is entirely irrelevant. Consider that evolution requires improbability to function (for highly specialized organisations such as wings),

Have you seen any changes lately that helped the organism, because I haven't... most of the time you see people with an extra something that is removed because it was causing a hinderance(extra weight, un usable, etc.)...

Grav

2007-03-12, 09:29 PM

1. If you understand the concept of adaptation, then you understand evolution. Evolution is adaptation on a larger scale. Basically you just debunked your own arguement. How do you think those bacteria adapt? God gives them +1 to membrane armor?

2. Obviously bats utilize sound. Are you that stupid? I was pointing out that your arguement doesn't make sense.

3. Nobody here thinks being autistic is a benefit. That's not even what we were talking about. Try to READ your opponents points first.

4. You're asking for a fossil? Look it up yourself. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of fossils that have been discovered. You can't just plug your ears and go NYAH-NYAH-NYAH CAN'T HEAR YOU! Although that's exactly what you're doing...

Draco

2007-03-13, 08:04 AM

1. If you understand the concept of adaptation, then you understand evolution. Evolution is adaptation on a larger scale. Basically you just debunked your own arguement. How do you think those bacteria adapt? God gives them +1 to membrane armor?

No, I said that slight changes in the cell itself can cause it to survive longer than the others... (my example was a cell with a thicker wall)...

2. Obviously bats utilize sound. Are you that stupid? I was pointing out that your arguement doesn't make sense.

Really? I thought your comparison between humans (whom need eyes to survive on their own) and bats (who dont need eyes to survive) made perfect sence....:rolleyes:

4. You're asking for a fossil? Look it up yourself. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of fossils that have been discovered. You can't just plug your ears and go NYAH-NYAH-NYAH CAN'T HEAR YOU! Although that's exactly what you're doing...

I asked for an evolutionary fossil, not just any fossil.... and I have looked, so far all possible fossils have turned out to be fakes....

3. Nobody here thinks being autistic is a benefit. That's not even what we were talking about. Try to READ your opponents points first.

Did you not say this yourself?

Many mentally "off" children are being born with significant abilities, most of which are termed autistic. However, these skills are usually overshadowed by their inability to meld with society.

I think you should pay more attention to your own replys....

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 08:15 AM

Draco

2007-03-13, 08:24 AM

My conclusion is Draco has got to be one of those 12 year old brainwashed robokids. If you don't want to believe something that's fine by me, but at least be informed about what you are talking about. There's a difference in choosing not to believe something and telling everyone else that they are wrong, especially when science is more on our side than yours. Even more when you're spouting nonsense.

If you diddent notice by now... you and every one else seems to dodge my question... where is the scientific proof of evolution... you dont see transitional animals walking around, and you dont see any evidence in the fossil record.... so where is it??? How can science be on your side if it dosent even hold its own theroy up?

Lenny

2007-03-13, 09:10 AM

Kinda reminds me of that religious clothhead we had a few months ago that I argued with.

Ah, fun times. :)

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 09:59 AM

If you diddent notice by now... you and every one else seems to dodge my question... where is the scientific proof of evolution... you dont see transitional animals walking around, and you dont see any evidence in the fossil record.... so where is it??? How can science be on your side if it dosent even hold its own theroy up?
There is no scientific PROOF. That's the fucking point you fucktard. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.

Regardless, it's got way more fucking evidence supporting it than your God Almighty. In the world I live in there is no fucking God. Now get the fuck out of here and shut the fuck up.

Draco

2007-03-13, 10:22 AM

There is no scientific PROOF. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.

You just contradicted yourself.... You first say that there is no proof then you say that there is evidence.... Evedence is proof, think about what you say...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 11:59 AM

Oh my fucking god. You have to be a troll. There's no other explaination for it.

Here, I'll bite and explain it to you.

Evidence is information that supports an idea or theory. For instance, if scientists go to the moon and find micro-organisms, that could be used as evidence to support the theory that there could be life on the moon. This does not PROVE that there are fucking ALIENS there.

Proof is information that CONFIRMS an idea or theory. For instance, if scientists go to the moon and find alien civilizations, that would be PROOF that would CONFIRM that there is life on the moon.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 12:24 PM

I believe this guy has trolled another forum in the past. I found this and it sounds a lot like him( http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156245 )

Reason I believe it's him is, matching name, they said he uses dots(...) a lot (which he does, just look at his posts,) and because they said something about him posting in a religious thread.

There you have it.

Lenny

2007-03-13, 12:31 PM

Another mystery solved by Sherlock Amazon.

First Alais. Then Draco. How will he complete the hat trick?

Tune in next week for the comcluding episode in this three-part series!

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 01:34 PM

There were more before Ailis brit. Don't remember how many but stuff like this is fun. There really wasn't much discovered here though besides him doing the same trolling on another forum. If I weren't at work I'd probably have found that religious thread and linked it as well. Too much trouble though.

Regardless of whether or not this is the same guy and whether or not he is a troll, he's a fucking retard.

KagomJack

2007-03-13, 06:58 PM

Man, remember the good ol' days when I was straight and Christian and didn't believe in evolution and was totally straight edge? <3

Grav

2007-03-13, 07:55 PM

Sup fools.

Draco

2007-03-13, 08:33 PM

Evidence is information that supports an idea or theory. For instance, if scientists go to the moon and find micro-organisms, that could be used as evidence to support the theory that there could be life on the moon. This does not PROVE that there are fucking ALIENS there.

Proof is information that CONFIRMS an idea or theory. For instance, if scientists go to the moon and find alien civilizations, that would be PROOF that would CONFIRM that there is life on the moon.

They are one in the same... in a court system evedence is proof that someone has done something, evedence supports the proof...

By the way, the DRACO you found on the website ( http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156245 )
is not me...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-13, 09:06 PM

What the fuck does court have to do with this? In SCIENCE, evidence supports an idea or theory. That's that. Get the fuck over it.

KagomJack

2007-03-14, 12:49 AM

Draco, are you a furry? I see that name a thousand times on my furry IRC channels.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-14, 08:14 AM

Please stop telling us about your furry channels.

Thanatos

2007-03-14, 08:45 AM

No shit, man..

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-14, 09:41 AM

Though it wouldn't suprise me if he is a furry.

Anyway I want to continue with the topic without sending this thread way off.

Draco

2007-03-14, 10:09 AM

What the fuck does court have to do with this? In SCIENCE, evidence supports an idea or theory.

I simply ment it as an example, nothing more....

Draco

2007-03-14, 10:11 AM

Draco, are you a furry? I see that name a thousand times on my furry IRC channels.

What is a furry?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-14, 10:11 AM

Regardless of you being wrong about that in the first place, you're dodging the topic and nitpicking about something small in my post.

KagomJack

2007-03-14, 01:20 PM

So tell me, if evolution is impossible and never occurred, then how'd we get here? A divine deity? Big bang? Accident? What?

Lenny

2007-03-14, 04:27 PM

Grav, have you stuck a flash thingy into your post?

Draco

2007-03-15, 07:52 AM

Regardless of you being wrong about that in the first place, you're dodging the topic and nitpicking about something small in my post.

How am I dodging the topic? You have yet to answer my original question...
Where are these transitional animals? Where are they in the fossil record?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-15, 08:39 AM

Draco

2007-03-15, 10:11 AM

What "transitional animals" are you talking about? It's not like there are animals that evolve on a daily basis. Evolution takes a very long time to happen. Most likely there would be no huge changes from one generation to another.

So if it takes a long time, shoulden't we see some sort of transition? We should be able to see some transition in the fossil record as well...

One question... If monkeys evolved into humans... how come we still have monkeys? Shouldent they all heve evolved?

Lenny

2007-03-15, 10:27 AM

Why should they all evolve? Is their some kind of law that states when one animal in a species evolves, every other animal of that species MUST evolve to?

Btw, ever heard of a nice little island chain called the Galapagos Islands?

Draco

2007-03-15, 10:42 AM

Why should they all evolve? Is their some kind of law that states when one animal in a species evolves, every other animal of that species MUST evolve to?

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Lenny

2007-03-15, 10:49 AM

Why? Come on, elaborate.

You can't just say "Oh, one has the traits to evolve, therefore all of them should evolve".

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-15, 12:56 PM

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....
Draco, go seriously learn about Evolution and then come debate it with us. You don't know anything about it. You're just talking out of your ass.

Kaneda

2007-03-15, 02:08 PM

Draco god is punishing you simply by continuing your existence.

Demosthenes

2007-03-15, 06:04 PM

Hahaha!

A friend has just sent me links to MC Hawking. Amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwJZe8HtOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jt7zJzkNQ

MC Hawking is awesome.

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split....

They do not create exact copies. There is genetic variation due to recombination, migration, or alteration in the karyotype. The beneficial traits in the descendant are preserved via natural selection, ergo a species evolves. I'm not entirely sure about my next statement, but my guess would be that meiotic cell division catalyzes this process significantly.

there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell

Simply because something is too hard for you to believe does not mean it can not happen. If you are referring solely to DNA replication, then you are correct. All the information needed for DNA replication is stored in the cell. However, the environment certainly has an effect on the genotypes and phenotypes of an organism. Genes which harm an organism in its current environment will make it more likely that the organism dies earlier than its competitors, which makes it less likely that the particular gene will be passed on. This is, once again, the process of natural selection.

Also, don't think of natural selection to occur on a species-level. It's far easier to think of it on a genetic level.

otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now...

Not necessarily. Creationists often throw this argument out. Believe it or not, though, speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:

Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring

A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock

The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man

Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism.

No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece. For example, you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

1.) This is largely irrelevant to the topic of speciation, which you actually stated you agree with in one of your above responses.

2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.

3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.

To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.

Jesus fucking H. Christ (If you catch me for blasphemy, FUCK YOU. I'm allowed to use my own name in vein). Again with the moronic missing link and no fossil evidence claims. From the thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

"Many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity."

However, if you lift even one finger (quite literally...thats all it takes to hit the keyboard) to look for the evidence, you will find it. There is no practical way I can list all the fossilized evidence towards evolution, but lets start by some:

Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils

Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree is certainly not evidence towards evolution. Certainly not.

I'll get to the rest of the posts later. I'm going to play basketball.

Demosthenes

2007-03-16, 02:42 AM

You evidently don't understand the difference between adaptation and evolution, that small changes in a cell wall can help a cell to survive like if it has minimal exposure to a drug it could develop a resistance much like when people take medicine for a while their body will eventually require more of it to feel the effects...

Actually, bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution. It is clearly heritable, making it a consequence of evolution, not a simple adaptation.

And for those of you that think Autism is a benefit, people with defect cannot survive on their own, think of them like an infant in a grown up body... they require 'parental' watch.....

What is beneficial in society need not coincide with what is genetically or biologically beneficial. What needs to be asked is will an autistic individual have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Not to my knowledge. However, KA and Grav were talking about something significantly different.

Religion does not make people closed minded, you have only been exposed to the people who are, remember that when you steriotype you make your self even more ignorant.....

Religion is based on faith. Faith is, of course believing zealously in something in lack of evidence. You could argue that this is not closed-minded. However, zealously believing something which contradicts all evidence is the very definition of dense. Trying to find loopholes around established facts, as you are trying to do in this thread, is quintessential closed-mindedness.

Have you seen any changes lately that helped the organism, because I haven't... most of the time you see people with an extra something that is removed because it was causing a hinderance(extra weight, un usable, etc.)...

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination

I can keep going, but it's impractical. The evidence for beneficial changes are all around.

1. If you understand the concept of adaptation, then you understand evolution. Evolution is adaptation on a larger scale.

Not really. Adapations need not be heritable.

I asked for an evolutionary fossil, not just any fossil.... and I have looked, so far all possible fossils have turned out to be fakes....

Where the fuck are you looking? Evidence for Evolution: Jesus Camp part II?

If you diddent notice by now... you and every one else seems to dodge my question... where is the scientific proof of evolution...

There is no proof of evolution. Proof is not in the realm of science. Proofs happen in mathematics. Science only offers evidence. Evidence and proof are not one and the same. As far as the theory of evolution goes, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence towards it. If you really can't google it, I can briefly outline that evidence for you in another post. Just let me know if that's what you would like me to do.

you dont see transitional animals walking around

"Transitional" is not very well defined. Biologists do not say that you will find outrageous animals, such as half-dogs, or half-birds. This would pretty much disprove evolution. Evolution states that an organism needs to be genetically well-adapted to its environment in order to survive. Such half-animals would not be so lucky, for the most part.

The mistake I assume you are making here is that you think that transitional animals needs to be incomplete in some way. Well, if that is the case, you could say that human beings are incomplete. What is to say that the eye is not further evolving? It's easy to see that other animals have much better eye-sight than our own. That being known, what makes you think that our eye is not simply in a transitional state. No. Transitional animals are all still complete. That is why they can survive.

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Again, it would be impractical for me to list all the examples. Nor could I tell you all the examples.

and you dont see any evidence in the fossil record

It paints a clear picture of the phylogenetic tree...

They are one in the same... in a court system evedence is proof that someone has done something, evedence supports the proof...

The interpretation of the courts is highly irrelevant in this discussion. Evidence and proof in the contex of science are simply not the same thing.

One question... If monkeys evolved into humans... how come we still have monkeys? Shouldent they all heve evolved?

This is another common example of creationist ignorance to evolution. Humans did not descend from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys.

DNA would agree... if one has the traits to change they all should....

Negative. Speciation generally occurs on a population. It is hardly ever pandemic. Evolution does not occur due to DNA encoding the change. It occurs through mutations in the DNA. It would occur on an individual level only. If it hapens to be beneficial, natural selection will spread it out through a population.

Draco

2007-03-16, 08:17 AM

No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece.

So if the origin of species can be outlined... how come scientists cant piece anything together? Do they not have anything to back their theroies?

...you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.

Man made creations are very simple compared to an organism... a computer does not have the ability to replicate itself unless it is told how to do it... I dont think that animals accidentially learned how to survive....

The problem with evolution is probibilty... not everything happens perfectly.
Unlike a computer(which can be built by precision and in one day), evolution is a chance based system... evolution is completely based on chance... so by chance we happened to get the brain power that we have today... by chance we exist today.
Yes scientists can create some organisms synthetically, but they dont leave it up to chance for the organism to form.... they controll the process...

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Yet, these animals need these traits to survive... the flying squirrel uses it gliding ability to escape danger, the euglena is a single celled protist with a light sensitive eye and use light for energy(my skin uses light for some processes too), the lung fish and other short term land fish come on land come to feedwhen the tide is low(they get nutrients from the sand)...

2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.

Correction, photons are packets of electrons... when they hit the eye the electrons are released and I already explained the rest...

3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.

He wrote how the eye could have evolved... in a perfect world.
Just because it can dosen't mean it will... you just cant say that that probibility will turn out to help a species unless you can also say that probibility will also harm a species as well... It is almost like rolling a die with a trillion different sides and saying that you could roll the same number twice in a row, its not going to happen... the odds are completely against you...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-16, 08:25 AM

Brace yourself for ignorant nonsense.

Hah, I was too late because I read MJs post. The ignorant nonsense is above this post.

This debate has reached the point of being pointless(isn't that weird.) MJ's last two posts were absolutely magnificent, I envy your ability to debate like you do MJ. Draco on the other hand is just an ignorant fool.

Lenny

2007-03-16, 08:40 AM

To quote MC Hawking:

Upon blind faith they place reliance,
What we need more of is science.

Draco, take note!

Draco

2007-03-16, 10:15 AM

To quote MC Hawking:

Upon blind faith they place reliance,
What we need more of is science.

Draco, take note!

If you do not want to hear what I have to say... just tell me so I dont have to waist time.... but if you are unwilling to look at the facts then you are just lost in the first place...

Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?

Lenny

2007-03-16, 10:17 AM

Hahaha! You can talk! :rolleyes:

KagomJack

2007-03-16, 11:51 AM

You and me both. I wish I could debate like that. I think it just takes a little more effort than most are willing to exert is all.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-16, 12:26 PM

If you do not want to hear what I have to say... just tell me so I dont have to waist time.... but if you are unwilling to look at the facts then you are just lost in the first place...

Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?
Anyone and just about everyone here is willing to hear what you have to say, but if you give us an uninformed and unintelligible opinion, we're going to judge you and everything you say based on that. Present us with intelligent posts and an informed opinion or factual information and we will listen to you. You type and talk like a 12 year old, everything you say is incredibly biased, and any time anyone gives you anything that hints that you might be even slightly wrong, you avoid that and comment on something else(and usually give some more unintelligible bullshit.)

For instance, a few years ago MJordan typed very similar to how you do, and I thought he was an idiot and a moron at the time, but he presents himself as a very intelligent young man, and that's how I see him now. I've got almost 3 years on him and he talks like a professor compared to me.

I feel I must comment on your "unable to look at the facts" statement. The irony of this statement is that you're pretty much just describing yourself. Mjordan presented numerous facts to you and you ignored them.

Demosthenes

2007-03-16, 01:41 PM

So if the origin of species can be outlined... how come scientists cant piece anything together? Do they not have anything to back their theroies?

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory.

Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy.

Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them.

Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence:
- indentions in the victim's head
- vaginal tearing
- John being a registered sex offender
- the DNA match of the semen to that of John
- the seucirty tape
- the bat
- the blood on the bat
- the blood on the shoes

Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy.

The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Man made creations are very simple compared to an organism... a computer does not have the ability to replicate itself unless it is told how to do it... I dont think that animals accidentially learned how to survive....

The problem with evolution is probibilty... not everything happens perfectly.
Unlike a computer(which can be built by precision and in one day), evolution is a chance based system... evolution is completely based on chance... so by chance we happened to get the brain power that we have today... by chance we exist today.

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

Yes scientists can create some organisms synthetically, but they dont leave it up to chance for the organism to form.... they controll the process...

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

Yet, these animals need these traits to survive

That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment.

Correction, photons are packets of electrons... when they hit the eye the electrons are released and I already explained the rest...

Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though:

. . . light itself is quantized; the quanta of light are photons.

He wrote how the eye could have evolved... in a perfect world.
Just because it can dosen't mean it will... you just cant say that that probibility will turn out to help a species unless you can also say that probibility will also harm a species as well... It is almost like rolling a die with a trillion different sides and saying that you could roll the same number twice in a row, its not going to happen... the odds are completely against you...

But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

Science sometimes can disprove itself... science in some cases can contradict itself... you cannot take science at face value, I do believe that scientitst said that we are experiencing "global warming", but diddn't they also say that we are coming out of an Ice Age? Isn't it supposed to warm up?

I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

hotdog

2007-03-17, 01:10 PM

mj amazes me at times. I actually need to wake up my freaking brain so I can read and comprehend his posts. I hate meteorology but I gotta take it to get a Physics Degree so plz have her post something on that.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-17, 04:14 PM

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

He's obviously plugging his ears and going "LALALALALA".

Grav

2007-03-17, 04:22 PM

No more flash

Jamesadin

2007-03-18, 03:25 PM

Thank you.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-18, 07:24 PM

It's still on every other page of this thread. I felt it necessary.

KagomJack

2007-03-19, 12:21 AM

You ripped off what I said earlier!

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-19, 12:53 AM

Actually I believe on page 2 I said something similar and then on page 4 you ripped off what I said. So there.

Draco

2007-03-19, 10:46 AM

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory.

Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy.

Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them.

Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence:
- indentions in the victim's head
- vaginal tearing
- John being a registered sex offender
- the DNA match of the semen to that of John
- the seucirty tape
- the bat
- the blood on the bat
- the blood on the shoes

Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy.

The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

[
Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

[
That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment.

Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though:

But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

Like I said before, if everything happened so perfectly wouldent it be in the DNA of everything to come out so perfectly?

[
I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

Lenny

2007-03-19, 12:12 PM

For pete's sake, man! Get your spelling sorted out! If there's one thing a lot of us hate, it's reading a post with spelling errors every other word.

Demosthenes

2007-03-19, 12:59 PM

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

They have...

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

Make a thread about it.

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

THEN READ YOU FUCKING FUNK-BUNNY! I will represent the very small amount of evidence I have presented:

. . . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:

Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring

A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock

The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man

Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . .

Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils

Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree . . .

. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.

(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.

What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-19, 01:10 PM

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

I really cannot see any other way he could be so stupid. It's just not possible.

Demosthenes

2007-03-19, 01:12 PM

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

Yea, but this is still the most fun I've had here for a while, so I'll continue to bite.

Lenny

2007-03-19, 01:12 PM

You know what's going to happen now, right?

He'll come on, and post a reply: "but you still havent given me any evedence".

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-19, 01:20 PM

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

Lenny

2007-03-19, 01:24 PM

I admit, I haven't actually read his posts since Pg1... I skim them and use them as a summary of mj's posts! :p

Has Draco mentioned the Bible at all?

Draco

2007-03-20, 07:34 AM

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.

(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound :p ...

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.

What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...
And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...

Draco

2007-03-20, 07:39 AM

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

I will get to that later... soon as I disprove evolution...

Lenny

2007-03-20, 11:07 AM

HAHAHAHA!

Oooh look! I see the seasons changing...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-20, 11:38 AM

I will get to that later... soon as I disprove evolution...
You're not going to disprove evolution, and you're not going to show how the bible is proof of anything, because everyone here but you has a brain.

MJordan has presented you with facts you fucking bitch. Reply to them or bow the fuck down.

Demosthenes

2007-03-20, 12:10 PM

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat.

Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound :p ...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did.

This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

Ya know, this troll is actually fun. Draco, if you could, could you reply to this thread as well: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

If a mod wouldn't mind, could I request that be bumped?

Willkillforfood

2007-03-20, 07:12 PM

Fossils were creating by millions of gnomes working with varying sizes of chissels and intricately fashioned tools.

Gah MJ, you worry me sometimes.

KagomJack

2007-03-20, 07:47 PM

Ah, how could I have missed that? My bad!

Draco

2007-03-21, 10:41 AM

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat.

Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did.

This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....
And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way.:p ..

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

Can we please stay on subject here?

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...
Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-21, 10:46 AM

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....
And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way.:p ..

Can we please stay on subject here?

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...
Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?
Ok so he's giving you all this evidence and you're ignoring it because you believe it's "fake."

Prove it's fake then.

Grav

2007-03-21, 11:24 AM

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way. ..

Provide evidence of this.

All you have done so far is ignore facts presented to you, or even worse, claim them false without providing any counter-evidence.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

Lenny

2007-03-21, 11:46 AM

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two.

I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-21, 01:07 PM

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two.

I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!
What trolls do best. He's a pretty good one too.

Grav, most likely MJ would prefer you not ban him, since he seems to be enjoying arguing with a brick wall. If it were me I'd say ban his ass.

Is this guy Kyeruu? I had considered the idea but dismissed it because this guy came long before Kyeruu if I remember right and Kyeruu doesn't put "..." after every sentence in every post he makes.

Demosthenes

2007-03-21, 01:28 PM

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way.:p ..

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

Can we please stay on subject here?

It's fairly on subject. I would prefer that you not inject morphine or any other minor tranquelizers directly into your brain before typing out a post. That's all I meant, and I think that is very much on topic.

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree.

Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God.

Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Basically, give us counter-evidence and tell us why you think the evidence I have presented to you is fictional quick, prick.

Or just save face and admit defeat. You're not convincing anyone of anything right now. You're simply becoming the laughing stock of Zelaron.

hotdog

2007-03-21, 09:14 PM

Dude...you read wikipedia...that's so terribly inaccurate in so many ways on so many different topics...

And mj, IQ does not have any links to ones thought complexity, it does; however, have a lot to do with ones thought speed and mental reflexes. For the actual complexity and power of his thoughts you must look at his CSF score.

Demosthenes

2007-03-22, 04:07 AM

And mj, IQ does not have any links to ones thought complexity

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a strong correlation between the two.

Draco

2007-03-22, 09:01 AM

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)...
The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human... If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth... I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up...
I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while? (My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...
The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms... also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world? whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree.

Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God.

Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution... animals that come from the same line with similar looks and traits as their parents has been proven...
Bacteria become more tolerant to antibiotics because of exposure(another example of adaptation) also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

Ya know... I don't believe I have ever heard of the Oro experiment...
Like I said before, I will get to the bible and God later... lets finish this debate first...

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Diddn't we go over this?

There is no scientific PROOF. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.

So which is it? Which one of you is right?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-22, 11:24 AM

Most likely MJ is right, he's smarter than me.

Regardless, you're a fucking idiot.

Grav

2007-03-22, 11:29 AM

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

I'm not sure this constitutes true irony, but it is hilarious nevertheless.

http://www.picaroni.com/IPs.gif

I'll also take this time to show you how evidence works.

Interesting correlations between all these accounts:

All were registered with yahoo email accounts that look suspiciously like throw-aways:
madarisbrian1+yahoo.com
amma_430+yahoo.com
fancyman20202000+yahoo.com
glazerade0703+yahoo.com
ianmc042+yahoo.com
ammanuelgerena+yahoo.com

Of the accounts that have birthdays, the year is listed as either 1988 or 1989.

Each of these accounts was registered in February 2007.

I could also delve deeper into the ellipsis obsession, but that would be wasting my time.

I think the conclusion is obvious.

Lenny

2007-03-22, 11:42 AM

But that's not rock solid "evedence", Grav! You could have made it up! :rolleyes:

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-22, 01:12 PM

Gravs evidence is fake.

P.S. I was going to mention to him that admins can check for matching IP adresses but I thought it would be more fun to just watch Grav prove it.

P.S.AGAIN. What's also funny about this is Grav already pointed out Draco's multiple accounts in THIS (http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41804) thread. Now Draco denies having multiple accounts. Pretty funny.

Draco

2007-03-22, 02:39 PM

I'm not sure this constitutes true irony, but it is hilarious nevertheless.

http://www.picaroni.com/IPs.gif

I'll also take this time to show you how evidence works.

Interesting correlations between all these accounts:

All were registered with yahoo email accounts that look suspiciously like throw-aways:
madarisbrian1+yahoo.com
amma_430+yahoo.com
fancyman20202000+yahoo.com
glazerade0703+yahoo.com
ianmc042+yahoo.com
ammanuelgerena+yahoo.com

Of the accounts that have birthdays, the year is listed as either 1988 or 1989.

Each of these accounts was registered in February 2007.

I could also delve deeper into the ellipsis obsession, but that would be wasting my time.

I think the conclusion is obvious.

Would this be caused by a school network? Because me and a few friends found this website at school, mainly because of the games, but I was the only one to stick around and get into the froums... I believe that the 'throw away' e-mail accounts are acctually my friends e-mail addresses... I am sorry if it appeared to look like this...
also the e-mail accounts, we all needed similar accounts because we need to send our homework... yahoo seemed to be the most popular in class...

Draco

2007-03-22, 02:48 PM

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened...
these show scientific evidence for creation...

<http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html>
<http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html>

this one offers rewards to anyone who can prove evolution...

<http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html>

(notice the reward still stands)

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-22, 03:49 PM

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Grav

2007-03-22, 04:06 PM

Would this be caused by a school network? Because me and a few friends found this website at school, mainly because of the games, but I was the only one to stick around and get into the froums... I believe that the 'throw away' e-mail accounts are acctually my friends e-mail addresses... I am sorry if it appeared to look like this...
also the e-mail accounts, we all needed similar accounts because we need to send our homework... yahoo seemed to be the most popular in class...

Oh, okay. These are all different people then?

Lenny

2007-03-22, 04:35 PM

Draco

2007-03-22, 08:03 PM

Draco

2007-03-22, 08:04 PM

Oh, okay. These are all different people then?

Yes...

Draco

2007-03-22, 08:06 PM

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?!

What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

It was also easy to keep up with...

I'd say Bible bashing Texans... but thats because they are bible bashers...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-22, 08:09 PM

Bible bashers are better than christians.

Grav

2007-03-22, 09:01 PM

Yes...

I'm willing to believe you.

This is because you provided counter-evidence: something you haven't shown so far.

Willkillforfood

2007-03-23, 12:22 AM

Wikipedia does have inaccuracies but it's been weighed in vs. britannica and other references and faired well.

Demosthenes

2007-03-23, 03:23 AM

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)...
The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human...

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.

I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.

If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth...

Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up...
I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

(My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.

Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.

Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms...

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world?

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.

whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature

You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution...

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Diddn't we go over this?

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened...
these show scientific evidence for creation...

*Sigh*

I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.

5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent.

What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..

Yea, but not on a global scale.

7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

Draco

2007-03-23, 08:39 AM

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.

I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.

Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

I heard it somewhere...

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

Like what?

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

I guess you did not see the brackets at the end of my sentence... I put what the example was at the end...

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.

Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.

Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.

DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....

Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

All right, I will get away from the tar.... for now....

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.

The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

It is the name of a medicine that makes you throwup...:x

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

I said it with the frog example!

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

You just don't like my answers....

*Sigh*

I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

Diddn't exactly plan it, but it was a great web site...

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.

What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-23, 09:33 AM

Just ban this kid already. He's absolutely dense.

KagomJack

2007-03-24, 10:11 AM

The only thing you got right is Syrup of Ipecak (or something).

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-24, 12:17 PM

And I'm pretty sure that makes you puke because it's so bitter you can't handle it. I don't know if it's actually tar. I do know it doesn't make you puke because it's an antibiotic though. Even if it is an antibiotic, that's not what it's used for, as you won't keep it in your body.

hotdog

2007-03-24, 04:23 PM

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?!

What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Dude I can put up with Texicans, but hillbillies are just too stupid. I live in a hillbilly state right now because it's cheaper to fly to Japan from here. No one can read, spell, or write with a readable penmanship.

Also christians are stupid. No matter who becomes one they always lose a lot of their intelligence and wisdom and they are terrible cooks as well!

My vote for Red Neck Christians.

Draco

2007-03-26, 10:20 AM

For those of you that have looked at the website:

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html

I believe that if you could prove evolution possible, those rewards would have been taken already... and most of these have been going on for years....

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-26, 10:38 AM

Draco

2007-03-26, 06:55 PM

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars.

Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't.

It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right.

For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Let me put it to you as best as I can.... this should help....

You know the universal code for help, S.O.S (dont worry I am going somewhere with this) means distress. S.O.S. isn't distress but it means it.... back when these simple letters were too big to transmit somone sat down and divised a way to re-represent this... he decided to represent S as three dots(...), and O as three dashes(---), so S.O.S. is (...---...). This is the way he wanted it and that is the way everyone now accepts it. Similarly, in DNA the acids Thymine(T), Guanine(G), Cytosine(C), and Adenine(A) in certain patterns represent different chemicals, Similarly to the dots and dashes represent certain chemicals except there are no dots and dashes... In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents. Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...

Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

Grav

2007-03-26, 08:47 PM

I already addressed this

-Just because something is far more intricate than you can understand, and requires probability that you cannot fathom, does not mean it's impossible

I'd say you're mostly talking out of your arse on this one

Everyone that wins the lottery feels beforehand that the odds were impossible

Yet people win every week and animals continue to evolve

Demosthenes

2007-03-26, 11:34 PM

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

Mostly undocumented claims. Even if they aren't, it doesn't prove much. Minerals in a solution can harden around an intruding object over relatively short periods of time.

Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

Helium is a very light atom, and can reach escape velocity simply through heat.

Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

Humphrey's theory is erroneous in at least 3 ways. First off, it assumes that we're at the bottom of an enormous gravity well, which contradicts evidence. If this were the case, we would notice blue-shifts rather than red-shifts. Secondly, it is based on the earth's frame of reference. Third, it is a well documented fact that our sun is at least a second-generation star. His theory fails to account for the billions of years before the formation of the earth.

Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

It doesn't happen by chance. Even if it did, this is an argument based on the incredulity of the author, which is scientifically irrelevant.

Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

Another argument based on incredulity.

I heard it somewhere...

Ahh. You heard it somewhere. Incredible place to get your scientific facts.

What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...

The point of my paragraph was to grant your argument about dishonesty within the scientific community some credit by giving the example of human cloning but then point out that in this particular case it can not be a factor.

Like what?

Such as most of post 115 and 116.

If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...

A natural chemical reaction by an organism which is encoded into its DNA is generally not termed an adaption.

DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....

IT DOES

Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....

The sparks are not continuous in the experiment, nor do they need to be for a chemical reaction to occur.

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

Not really. Most endogenic reactions only require heat. The sun provides plenty of heat.

I said it with the frog example!

No, you didn't. A population of frogs changing colors is not speciation.

They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...

It does. This is CCB. Common Creationist Bullshit.

I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...

Did he die after that? If not, you can still do what I asked.

No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...

In case you didn't know, relatives are genetically similar.

Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...

Yes, but bad legs are generally not a mutation, and are not heritable.

You just don't like my answers....

Do you even read what you're responding to? You never gave me any answers about the difference between evidence and proof. And you're right. I don't like most of your answers. They're full of CCB.

well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....

There isn't a perfect fossil record of transition. There is a damn good one though (refer to the John Doe example.). Even if there wasn't, that doesn't mean there wasn't any transition.

He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...

According to that paragraph he's asserting that the earth's field is decaying, not that it's improbable.

Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...

No...he...didn't...

Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....

I'm fairly sure that it rains everywhere on earth. Furthermore, the earth's environment changes as time progresses.

Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?

This is a more complicated question than I'm prepared to answer at this time.

Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...

Actually it can. I'm too lazy to go into details.

Lenny

2007-03-27, 07:26 AM

Genetic Mutations. How do Genetic Mutations fit into all of this perfect creation? Surely, if everything was designed perfect, then there would be no genetic mutations along the strand of DNA, right?

Willkillforfood

2007-03-27, 03:50 PM

It'd probably be in the best interest of religion to adapt to science rather than try to fight it fully x_x.

Lenny

2007-03-27, 03:52 PM

I don't know... they managed to keep it at bay pretty well during the Dark Ages. But then again, it WAS the Dark Ages. I'd like to see Catholics try and force that upon such a technological world. :rolleyes:

Willkillforfood

2007-03-27, 03:58 PM

Well, if China takes over we might have a world purged of mainstream religion x_X.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-27, 03:59 PM

Well, if China takes over we might have a world purged of mainstream religion x_X.
This world would be a lot more peaceful without religions.

Lenny

2007-03-27, 04:00 PM

But we'd also have less people to argue at... a much quieter place t'would be.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-27, 04:16 PM

Perhaps people could talk about more important things. How often do people go to war over science? There are scientific debates, there are scientists that disagree about things, but they don't go to war over it. I'm not saying the world would be war free without religion, but it would be a much safer and more peaceful place. People claim religion gives people morals as they go and slaughter families in other countries simply because they disagree with them. We're "helping them" by forcing our religion on them.

Unfortunately, religion will never cease to exist.

KagomJack

2007-03-27, 06:07 PM

I disagree. We will ALWAYS find something to fight about, whether religion or the difference of opinion between and Existentialist and another of a differing philosophical thought.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-27, 09:03 PM

I specifically said that I don't think the world would be war free. The point is, a lot of hate, genocide, and the majority of wars seem to be about religion and about the "make people believe by force feeding them" mentality that most christians seem to have.

KagomJack

2007-03-27, 11:09 PM

Possibly, but it's hard to tell such things. Look at the Rwanda genocides and you will see a genocide driven not by religion, but by racism. The Holocaust comes to mind as well.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-28, 07:13 AM

I think you're having trouble differentiating between "a lot of" and "all." They are indeed two separate things.

Draco

2007-03-28, 10:12 AM

Genetic Mutations. How do Genetic Mutations fit into all of this perfect creation? Surely, if everything was designed perfect, then there would be no genetic mutations along the strand of DNA, right?

Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...

Draco

2007-03-28, 10:14 AM

Perhaps people could talk about more important things. How often do people go to war over science? There are scientific debates, there are scientists that disagree about things, but they don't go to war over it.

You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...

Draco

2007-03-28, 10:19 AM

I will get back to you on all of this... I just need to find some time to be able to sit down for atleast an hour and reply.... If it looks like I forgot about it, tell me...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-28, 10:32 AM

You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...
That was mostly a war over power and bragging rights than a war over science, but it was indeed partially a war over science.

Like I said, I don't think the world would be perfect without religion, but it would definately be a big leap closer.

KagomJack

2007-03-28, 12:54 PM

I concur with the fact that "all" and "a lot of" are different things. I just believe that we would still have the same amount of wars, but I believe we may be less likely to nuke the livid fuck out of someone.

With religion, people are looking to initiate Doomsday in what way they can because they want to be free of their mortal shell as well as hasten mankind's judgement, if such a thing will ever happen.

Draco

2007-03-28, 06:36 PM

Hey, I found a video about a guy who once believed in evolution but after looking at certain animals he realized they don't fit into the evolutionary process... with this one he was looking at a bug called the bombardier beetle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

Evolution is so unforgiving, isn't it?

Grav

2007-03-28, 06:45 PM

Draco

2007-03-29, 07:56 AM

I just thought your little quip at the end was worthy of an equally irrelevant rebuttal.

What is more unforgiving: a system which lets the weak fall to the wayside, or a system which dooms the vast majority of its population to eternal suffering?

Hmm...

A system that lets the weak fall to the wayside...

atleast the vast majority was given a warning about eternal suffering and yet people ignore it, and the system allows anyone to be pulled away from the eternal suffering(which is the forgivness)...

Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution? That was the main reason behind his 'perfect race' of blond haired, blue eyed people... he thought they were the closest to Arian so he started to kill anyone that did not fit the discription... too bad he didn't look in the mirror...

Draco

2007-03-29, 08:00 AM

That was mostly a war over power and bragging rights than a war over science, but it was indeed partially a war over science.

Like I said, I don't think the world would be perfect without religion, but it would definately be a big leap closer.

All I was saying is that if science had not created the power we woulden't have had the war....

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-29, 08:04 AM

KagomJack

2007-03-29, 10:30 AM

Hitler believed in a lot of things. He also believed in being a Cokehead to cure his Parkinson's and a vegetarian.

But is any of that really relevant to anything?

Lenny

2007-03-29, 11:10 AM

Of course it is Kagom! How can you not see that Hitler directly links to the problem of evolution?!

I can never remember if the sarcasm tags are "sarcasm" or "sarcastic". :(

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-29, 11:11 AM

Clearly hitler is proof that evolution is not true guys, can't you see that? Draco was good to use him to prove that evolution is all a lie.

Lenny

2007-03-29, 11:17 AM

Oh! Of course! I see what he did there. Clever guy, this Draco fella.

Grav

2007-03-29, 11:45 AM

It would be a shame if Draco's father's ambulance got into an accident while he was on call.

Lenny

2007-03-29, 12:02 PM

Either I've missed something in this thread or another, or you know the kid.

How do you know Draco's father is an ambulance driver?

Grav

2007-03-29, 12:05 PM

He told me. He told me through his posts. He told me by believing that evolution is a lie.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-29, 12:45 PM

Not only that, but his father is a firefighter. And he lives in Georgia. And his school mascot is the Seminoles.

Can't you read between the lines Lenny?

Lenny

2007-03-29, 12:48 PM

Not really. :(

To be perfectly honest, I don't read his posts. I skim over them, pick out the key words, and skew the topic onto something completely different.

Draco

2007-03-30, 08:39 AM

Tell me how many people died in the cold war Draco.

I know there were casualties, but really, most of them were due to training accidents.

http://www.3ad.org/coldwar/coldwar_casualties.htm

"Most of the casualties died in training accidents"

I know there were no war casualities, but if it had begun a full scale war, we possibly would not be here posting right now... Also, you are missing the point... the only reason I brought up hitler was to prove that science can lead to war, in this case a world war....

Now tell me... after all the scientific proof I have shown you you still believe in evolution?! I mean come on... the bombardier beetle could not have evolved, no matter how fast or slow... it would have killed itself(loud pop, then silence...) or been killed off... also, if you think about evolution, it is a perfect system... in order for evolution to work the 'evolved' creature would have to be only survivor in order for the benifit to survive, otherwise the benifit would have been spliced back into the gene pool... if you look at dogs, they have been breeded for specific traits... the more you breed the less of a gene pool you have to pull from... take a toy poodle(example) it's smaller than a normal poodle, but if you breed two toy poodles together you can only get a toy poodle(of equal or lesser size)... this is a loss of information, everytime a dog is breeded to be smaller or longer or whatever the genetic traits from being tall or short are weeded out.... so there is no gain of information, there is always a loss.... so for evolution to work our ancestors must have had similar genetics to our ancestors....

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 09:05 AM

You sir, are an idiot, and that's the last I'm going to say about that.

You don't know jack shit about evolution and you don't know jack shit about what you're talking about.

Lenny

2007-03-30, 10:38 AM

I know a Jack. I know four Jacks, in fact.

I wonder if Draco is a Jack...

I had a lovely lunch today. Chips and a sausage roll. Only cost £1.50, too! What did you have for lunch, !K_A!?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 12:04 PM

Every week day I have either cheese or creamy alfredo cup ramen for lunch. Unless I had subway the night before and then I usually have the leftover half.

Lenny

2007-03-30, 03:20 PM

Oooh! Sounds lovely! Whatcha have on the Subway?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 03:24 PM

Turkey bacon on honey oat bread with swiss cheese, double meat double cheese double bacon, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, lots of olives, spicy mustard, oregano, lots of parmesian cheese.

I almost always get the double meat double cheese double bacon part free because most of the time one person makes the sandwich and one person rings it up on the register. Me having worked at subway, I know this, so I take advantage of it. 9 times out of 10 the person that makes the sandwich doesn't tell the person ringing it up that I got double meat double cheese, they don't even tell them what I got. When you get to the register, they ask you what you got, I simply tell them "foot long turkey bacon."

Not really a lie but it saves me like 5 bucks in the end. I could probably tell them I got a footlong veggie sub and save even more, but then I would be lying, and that's just not nice!

Lenny

2007-03-30, 03:30 PM

Ooooh! Sneaky!! I wonder if they do that in England...

I've never had a Subway sandwich before. There's a shop in Burnley, but I've never actually been in. Do they do ciabatta's?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 03:31 PM

Subway does certain things depending on the demographics of where they are located, so I can't really say.

Lenny

2007-03-30, 03:32 PM

Fair enough.

What's for tea tonight, then? Subway?

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 04:17 PM

I only drink sweet tea.

Jamesadin

2007-03-30, 04:24 PM

Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution?

He was also a vegitarian. Does that mean that we should discredit all vegitarians becuase he believed it was a healthier eating choice? Obviously he as a crazy man!

Way to poison the well, yo.

EDIT: I totally missed everyone saying pretty much what I said. It's still true, though.

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-30, 05:00 PM

James, be more active yo.

Draco

2007-03-31, 01:31 PM

He was also a vegitarian. Does that mean that we should discredit all vegitarians becuase he believed it was a healthier eating choice? Obviously he as a crazy man!

Way to poison the well, yo.

EDIT: I totally missed everyone saying pretty much what I said. It's still true, though.

No... you completely missed the point...
All I meant is that science helped to cause the war.... that all I ment...

!King_Amazon!

2007-03-31, 02:04 PM

Demosthenes

2007-03-31, 03:20 PM

In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents.

Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.

Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...

Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word. Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.

A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.

Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...

ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.

You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...

It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.

I will get back to you on all of this... I just need to find some time to be able to sit down for atleast an hour and reply.... If it looks like I forgot about it, tell me...

K.

Hey, I found a video about a guy who once believed in evolution but after looking at certain animals he realized they don't fit into the evolutionary process... with this one he was looking at a bug called the bombardier beetle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.

Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!

I'll get back to you after I watch the next 30 seconds. Or maybe after I watch the rest.

Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss.

"Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life.

I'll get back to you when I feel like it.

I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it.

I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist.

I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.

I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.

Evolution is so unforgiving, isn't it?

Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.

A system that lets the weak fall to the wayside...

atleast the vast majority was given a warning about eternal suffering and yet people ignore it, and the system allows anyone to be pulled away from the eternal suffering(which is the forgivness)...

I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows children and babies to die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.

Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution? That was the main reason behind his 'perfect race' of blond haired, blue eyed people... he thought they were the closest to Arian so he started to kill anyone that did not fit the discription... too bad he didn't look in the mirror...

This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

All I was saying is that if science had not created the power we woulden't have had the war....

The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.

I know there were no war casualities, but if it had begun a full scale war, we possibly would not be here posting right now... Also, you are missing the point... the only reason I brought up hitler was to prove that science can lead to war, in this case a world war....

Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.

Now tell me... after all the scientific proof I have shown you you still believe in evolution?! I mean come on... the bombardier beetle could not have evolved, no matter how fast or slow... it would have killed itself(loud pop, then silence...) or been killed off...

Google it.

... also, if you think about evolution, it is a perfect system... in order for evolution to work the 'evolved' creature would have to be only survivor in order for the benifit to survive, otherwise the benifit would have been spliced back into the gene pool...

For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that.

the more you breed the less of a gene pool you have to pull from...

That's simply not true. Why do you say that?

take a toy poodle(example) it's smaller than a normal poodle, but if you breed two toy poodles together you can only get a toy poodle(of equal or lesser size)...

1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents.

2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.

his is a loss of information, everytime a dog is breeded to be smaller or longer or whatever the genetic traits from being tall or short are weeded out....

Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.

so for evolution to work our ancestors must have had similar genetics to our ancestors....

Our ancestors have similar genomes to our ancestors.

Lenny

2007-03-31, 06:38 PM

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is the first time I've fully read one of your posts in an argument, MJ. Usually I just skim over it looking for key phrases that indicate ridicule.

I wonder if Draco has any unexplained gingers in the family. That might help to explain genetic variation to him a bit. Either that or a large hammer will do the trick.

KagomJack

2007-03-31, 08:37 PM

Off-topic: That's why I like Buddhists. They dont' try to force ANYONE to convert (except a few Indian kings a few centuries ago, but as a whole they're pretty cool).

Demosthenes

2007-04-02, 09:02 AM

*sigh*

KA has forced me to get a flash blocker. -_-

Willkillforfood

2007-04-02, 02:01 PM

One thing: Hitler waged his war on the stance of racism. It was all the craze to blame Jews for everything at the time. Hitler got most of his ideas on how to persecute the Jews from the Catholic Church. Even the famed "Protestant Reformation" leader Martin Luther was EXTREMELY against Jews. He condoned hate crimes and even murdering of them.

Look at what the father of the Protestant faith has to say about Jews.

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

Germany needed someone to blame for their failure to win World War 1. They were content to believe that Jews who had infiltrated the highest levels of the Germany government surrendered to the Allies when they could still win the war.

Lenny

2007-04-02, 02:21 PM

Jews have always been persecuted. A large majority of Russian Tsars persecuted the Jews. Kaiser Wilhelm II persecuted the Jews to some degree. Strangely, Bismarck didn't, instead choosing to persecute the Catholics with Kulturkampf.

Willkillforfood

2007-04-02, 02:30 PM

The safest place the Jews have had so far seems to be America.

Draco

2007-04-04, 05:18 PM

Religion is the cause of most wars. Maybe you should get together with the damn missionaries that just came to my appartment and wasted 5 minutes of my life trying to force their religion down my throat.

The first thing I told them was "I'm not interested."

What do you think they did next?

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ" blah blah I'm a retard blah blah.

After about 5 minutes of telling them I'm not convertable and I don't believe their rediculous religion I finally had to slam the door in their faces because they wouldn't go the hell away.

That's the problem with religion, most religions can't accept the fact that someone else doesn't believe what they believe, so they do everything in their power to convert people. These guys thought they were doing me a favor by trying to convert me, when not only did they waste my time and their time, but they got me pretty pissed off in the process.

Sorry you had to go through that.... People have to remember that you have a choice, to believe or not to believe... all they should have done was ask if you were interested and left it at that...

This doesn't just apply to religions however, for instance our government is trying to "bring democracy" to other countries. Who the hell decided democracy is the best form of government. I'm not saying it isn't, but let other people make their own decisions.

Our government is allowing people to have a choice.... over in Iraq, those people were forced to things they did not wan't to do... they were forced to vote for someone at gun point, they were also forced to believe in Islam(if they didn't they would be considered as an "infedel" and be killed)... so our government is helping them....

Demosthenes

2007-04-04, 05:21 PM

Our government is allowing people to have a choice.... over in Iraq, those people were forced to things they did not wan't to do... they were forced to vote for someone at gun point, they were also forced to believe in Islam(if they didn't they would be considered as an "infedel" and be killed)... so our government is helping them....

That is so horrifically misleading I just vomited all over my shirt. Thanks a lot.

KagomJack

2007-04-04, 06:19 PM

The Pogroms were awful.

Draco

2007-04-04, 06:46 PM

Coming from you, that sounds surprisingly accurate aside from the last statement. Yes, codons determine which amino acid is to be made, but that does not imply that some sort of intelligent being matched codons with amino acids. Codons match a particular amino acid due to a complex set of biological reactions. Exactly why a particular codon matches a particular amino acid is not well known yet, I believe, but that does not mean we can conclude that some supreme intelligence sat around one day and matched the two up. You're simply creating a god of gaps. Earlier, people did not know why there was lightning or thunder. They explained it by God. You're using the same methodology here. Once scientists figure out why one codon is code for creating a particular amino acid, god will simply go away again.

so tell me... how is it that the biological reactions in the codon know when to and how to react to a certain acid way back in the beginning... how is it that the DNA was able to be interpreted and read when it was just formed? Thats like comming up with the CD before the CD player or wrighter...

Adenine, thynine, cytosine and guanine are not random collections of acids. They are nitrogenous bases. And codons are translated into amino acids by ribosomes, as you already stated. I thought you would know that. It is not nearly as random as drawing letters and making a word. Every tri-nucleotide chain that is not responsible for determining the genotype of an organism codes the creation of a particular amino acid. There are only 64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations, and each of them are code for a particular amino acid.

I did not say the random letter drawing would make a word... I was merely stating the fact that randomly drawing any two letters would have no meaning unless it was predetermined....

Now, you say there are "64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations"... yet each combination stands for a certain amino acid.... what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around?

A more accurate analogy than the one you presented would start off with four letters thrown in a hat. The language you spoke would only consist of 64 word. Each word in your language was only three letters long. What would be the chance that if you drew 3 random letters you would form a word? Easy. 100%.

But what determined that the random collections of three letter words stood for somthing? thats my point... you cannot have meaning unless something gives it meaning....

ROTFLOL!!! "We slowly corrupted our genetics." AHAHAHAHA. "Adam and Eve had perfect genetics." You crack me up. Sadly, I'm not sure you even understand why I'm laughing at you.

I understand why you laugh...

It's already been mentioned, but I think it's significant enough to reiterate that the Cold War was not a war with millions dying. Yes, it was a race to be more scientifically advanced, but that was it.

Yes, but in order for one group to dominate they had to have the bigger gun... in this case, the atomic bomb...

I have watched 28 seconds of the video and realized that this guy is a moron. First of all, he says evolution starts with the big bang. This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ever since Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, biologists have vehemently denied that the origin of the universe, or even abiogenesis for that matter have anything to do with evolution. Evolution starts after abiogenesis.

Well, the earth had to be here in order for life to exist... all he was pointing to was that if there is no creator then this is the way it had to have started...

Second, he describes the big bang as "basically everything went kaboom." What. The. Fuck. Honestly. This guy is a doctor? THERE WAS NO FUCKING EXPLOSION IN THE BIG BANG!

So why do they call it the BIG BANG? If there was no bang, then why do they call it that?

Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss.

"Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life.

I'll get back to you when I feel like it.

I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it.

I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist.

I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.

I have now finished the video. "Dr." Martin simply gave us an argument of incredulity. He can not conceive how the beetle would have formed, therefore it could not have formed is not a sufficient argument. And, in fact, I've heard this bullshit about the bombardier beetle quite a few times before. He's not original. And there are many plausible evolutionary paths that this animal could have taken, and they're not difficult to find if you search google. I'm not going to actually look for one right now, but they do exist. Look them up.

Hey.. I googled it... all I could find were pages that supported creation using the beetle in their arguments... seriously, check it out for yourself....

Scientific theories aren't compiled because they seem nicest, they are compiled because they fit the evidence.

Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....

I disagree. If God exists, he is a horrible deity. How dare the potter blame the pot for its flaws. If his standards are so fucking high, why would he make his vessels so flawed. And he holds them accountable. You're saying that a system without any intelligence that is only guided by the laws of the universe is less forgiving than an intelligent, omnipresent and omnipotent being who allows children and babies to die as the flood waters slowly rise over their heads? And what about the mothers who had to watch their babies die before they themselves were drowned. You're telling me that this guy who has control of everything is more forgiving than a system which can't control itself when he lets the first-born be slain by the pharoah? Hell no. This is a perfect being who controls everything. He allows and condemns his creation to suffer and die, when he made us flawed. Evolution does no such thing. If God does exist, I'd take my chances in hell rather than join a sadomasochistic, megalomaniacal asshole.

God does not blaim us for the flaws... we are responsible for it, not him...
Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water slowly rise around their child...

the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God...

as you said before, "he holds them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts...

This is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So your saying that Hitler was right? Twice? What are you trying to say?

The space race was part of the cold war, not the reason behind the cold war. The cold war was a war of ideological differences. And science makes the art of war more deadly and precise. It does not actually cause wars.

I said nothing about the space race...
You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes...

Science did not lead to WWII. Hitler's bogus ideologies did.

How did Hitler get his ideologies?

For the love of God, please be more coherent with your writing. I would like to respond to what you said, because from the little I could make out from that it seems like you are confused, but I can't make much out from that.

That's simply not true. Why do you say that?

1.) A toy poodle can be bigger than both of its parents.

2.) Yet, even at birth, the child's genome could not be traced simply by knowing its parents genome, even if every single permutation of the parents genome was found. This is due to genetic variation. Enough genetic variation, and the animal stops being a toy poodle.

For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...

Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in...

Breeding isn't natural selection, is it. And even dogs that are bred to be tall or short can gain a gene which codes the opposite phenotype by genetic variation.

No, breeding is not natural selection...
The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs...

Our ancestors have similar genomes to our ancestors.

Yeah, they were humans...

Lenny

2007-04-04, 06:57 PM

Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....

For Gods sake man, do you read any of MJ's replies, or do you just come up with half-assed 'argument's against them?

And for heavens sake, spell check before you post! CD wrighter? Blaim?

For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...

What the figs are you getting at here? That atheists shouldn't be allowed to shout "God damnit!" or "For Gods sake!". Methinks you ought to start countering our wicked, wicked ways and take, oh, I don't know, Darwins name in vain? Don't see why not.

Draco

2007-04-04, 07:06 PM

For Gods sake man, do you read any of MJ's replies, or do you just come up with half-assed 'argument's against them?

And for heavens sake, spell check before you post! CD wrighter? Blaim?

What the figs are you getting at here? Tha atheists shouldn't be allowed to shout "God damnit!" or "For Gods sake!". Methinks you ought to start countering our wicked, wicked ways and take, oh, I don't know, Darwins name in vain? Don't see why not.

I read MJ's replys...

funny...:rolleyes:

KagomJack

2007-04-04, 07:09 PM

But yet, your responses are still very half-assed.

Draco

2007-04-04, 07:28 PM

But yet, your responses are still very half-assed.

What... you think I make up all of this? you think I am trying to just start something? What?

KagomJack

2007-04-04, 07:39 PM

I think you don't fully comprehend what he's saying at times.

Draco

2007-04-04, 07:40 PM

I think you don't fully comprehend what he's saying at times.

Sometimes I think the same yall...

KagomJack

2007-04-04, 07:41 PM

From the looks of things, he's calmly and intelligently argued all your points.

Demosthenes

2007-04-05, 04:09 AM

so tell me... how is it that the biological reactions in the codon know when to and how to react to a certain acid way back in the beginning... how is it that the DNA was able to be interpreted and read when it was just formed? Thats like comming up with the CD before the CD player or wrighter...

Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing).

I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.

I did not say the random letter drawing would make a word...

Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.

I was merely stating the fact that randomly drawing any two letters would have no meaning unless it was predetermined....

Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/0/e/50e75c8fc81ed1e9c2f0d191772a2629.png

From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God.

what could have possibly read the DNA and understood what was going to happen if there was nothing but DNA and random collections of non-living matter floating around?

The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.

But what determined that the random collections of three letter words stood for somthing? thats my point... you cannot have meaning unless something gives it meaning....

If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.

Yes, but in order for one group to dominate they had to have the bigger gun... in this case, the atomic bomb...

Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.

Well, the earth had to be here in order for life to exist... all he was pointing to was that if there is no creator then this is the way it had to have started...

I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.

So why do they call it the BIG BANG? If there was no bang, then why do they call it that?

They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name.

Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.

Hey.. I googled it... all I could find were pages that supported creation using the beetle in their arguments... seriously, check it out for yourself....

What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."

Really? I would like to see the evidence for evolution... oh wait, there isn't any.... sorry....[

Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.

Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:

. . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:

Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring

A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock

The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man

Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . .

Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils

phylogenetic tree . . .[supported by both anatomical and molecular evidence]

. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.

- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination

- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time

That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.

God does not blaim us for the flaws... we are responsible for it, not him...

Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?

Look, if the flood is your worry, blaim the parents for just sitting there and just watching the water slowly rise around their child...

So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?

the pharoh knowingly and willingly killed innocent children, blame him for his actions not God...

I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.

Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.

as you said before, "he holds them accountable", maening you are responsible for your own actions, not someone elts...

That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.

So your saying that Hitler was right? Twice? What are you trying to say?

If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.

I said nothing about the space race...

Again, an example.

You are right, science does make death quicker, but most people want that technology to blow up the enemy country, then the enemy country wants to stop them from using the technology, so they go over and try to stop them... thats how a war starts sometimes...

Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.

How did Hitler get his ideologies?

The only way to effectively answer this in a post is:

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/0395083621.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

Read, if you actually want to know where he got his ideologies.

For someone who does not believe in God, you certainly use his name alot...

And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.

Anyway... the toy poodle would only have the genes of a toy poodle and its genetic variation... the genetic variation would only be that of a toy poodle, it would not have gained any new information... basically, the variation would not cause any differences in the dog that is not already there... the variation could cause the dog to have two different colors of fur(one color from each parent) or something of that nature, the dog would not gain something unless that trait it bred in...

Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.

Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.

Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being
fixed by genes.

Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.

No, breeding is not natural selection...
The dog would already have that gene if the offspring were taller than it, the variation would be the different hights of the dogs...

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."

Yeah, they were humans...
That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion.

And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.

Willkillforfood

2007-04-05, 09:07 AM

MJ seems to be taking this debate rather seriously. I must ask you the ultimate quest ...what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Demosthenes

2007-04-05, 11:19 AM

MJ seems to be taking this debate rather seriously. I must ask you the ultimate quest ...what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Most likely.

RoboticSilence

2007-04-05, 01:20 PM

Obviously... for the first "chicken" must have come from an egg.

Demosthenes

2007-04-05, 01:22 PM

Obviously... for the first "chicken" must have come from an egg.

Unless God created the chicken as is, of course.

Lenny

2007-04-05, 01:29 PM

Well of course he did! Ever heard of this quaint little thing called "The Garden of Eden" in which every single animal in the world lived, fully formed as we know them today? :rolleyes:

Draco

2007-04-05, 05:06 PM

Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing).

I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.

You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution ..." So you believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory. A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your faith of evolution. The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain. That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.

also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact.... you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....

Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.

therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....

Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/0/e/50e75c8fc81ed1e9c2f0d191772a2629.png

From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God.

The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.

again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics... basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position... a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will. So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum... it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...

If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.

No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...

the tree being struck causes the energy of the lightining to transfer to the tree and begin the burning process.... what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...

Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.

so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?

I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.

again, you must have one to have the other... if the big bang did not happen then life could not have happened on its own... basicly, if one does not exist the other does not either....

They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name.

Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.

so where did the matter come from? It could not have created itself? Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?

What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."

I searched bombadier beetle evolution and found the first three links...

>Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of DesignThe scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. ...
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

>CB310: Bombardier beetle evolutionThe bombardier beetle myth exploded. Creation/Evolution 2(1): 1-5. Angier, N., 1985. Drafting the bombardier beetle. Time (Feb. 25), 70. ...
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.talkorigins.org ]

>Beetles And EvolutionThe inference which people have drawn from this appears to be that the bombardier beetle’s defence mechanism is a problem for evolution, and thus serves as ...
jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/852.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

the last two are inconclusive about the beetle and the top one supports evolution, but thats just the top three....

Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.

The geologic column...

as you can tell from the first picture humans and dinosaurs seemed to be pretty close...
http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/images/column001.jpg

the second picture tells what human remains were found in the different rock layers...
http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/images/column002.jpg

Now tell me how this could be possible if humans and dinosaurs never existed together....

Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:

I am and will....

That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.

I never said fossils are fake... i just said that the fossils on record do not point to evolution, they are fossilized creatures that either still exist or that particular species is dead....

Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?

The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...

So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?

No, then its the thug's fault for your death.... if the parents knew it was going to happen or(it happened slow enough) they or even you could have stopped the thug....

I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.

Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.

That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.

So, you are saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions?

If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.

So was he right when he killed the jews?

Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.

Yes, but without those nukes other countries would willingly attack us without fear of being blown off the map....

And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.

Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.

Yes, aslong as those genes were passed down to those mice by their parents... but if the mice have no background of different colors then you could not hope the mice would have offspring with white fur... the gene has to be passed down inorder for the mice to have it...

Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.

Yes, that would be extremly unlikely... where would the white color come from? Unless the child is albino the colors black or brown would still show up...

Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being
fixed by genes.

So a chuaua would grow in size if it had a large environment? I don't think so... size is a trait just like hair color... if you have a history of tall people in your family you chance of being tall is great, but if there are short people in your family then you could be tall, short or in between....

Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.

1: Ji J, Lu J, Ye W, Hu X, Wang D. Related Articles
[Study on the mitochondrial DNA variation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;24(2):167-72. Chinese.
PMID: 17407074 [PubMed - in process]

2: Gasser RB, Hu M, Chilton NB, Campbell BE, Jex AJ, Otranto D, Cafarchia C, Beveridge I, Zhu X. Related Articles
Single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) for the analysis of genetic variation.
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(6):3121-8.
PMID: 17406575 [PubMed - in process]

I found these two by searching point mutations, these are the first two in the search...
both of these talk about mutations that are harmful... they do not say anything about benifits except for their research...

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."

I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution....
I said that the dogs would have to have the the height gene inorder to be taller than their parents... i also said that the varying gene that each dog could have would be the height gene making the dogs different heights....

That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion.

And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.

Right.....

any way... I want you to tell me one piece of FACT that supports evolution... and dont say fossils because there is more evidence for creation in those than for evolution as I stated 16 quotes up.... I want hard evidence for evolution....