Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
As amazing as a Swiss time piece is, with all of our intelligence , we can't come close what is done in nature.
Our most efficient known machine is a jet engine which is thousands of times less efficient than a single cell organism.

Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?

Does evolution even posses the scientific criteria to be considered a theory?

Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals?




wait.....wait...wait.....


Go!

These intricate systems evolved. When pieces are gone, they will adapt, but it can take a long time to come to something as complex as a rainforest ecosystem. This is not an example of irreduceable complexity.

If animals were designed, there are certain features and comprimises that would not be there, there's the famous example of the Panda's thumb. It's an adapted hand bone, not a true finger. One would think if the Panda was designed, they would get a proper thumb. Then there's a whale's vestigal hip bones...

thanks for the reply

Great post -#1

I believe that to a certain extent the uncertainty factor makes people uncomfortable, perhaps even nervous.

What uncertainty? Nothing in science is certain, but many things are highly probable.

Great post -#1

I believe that to a certain extent the uncertainty factor makes people uncomfortable, perhaps even nervous.

Thanks, and judging from the lack of replies you may be right.

the answer is not design or evolution, it's both. but not the darwinian evolution where animals turn into other animals. the darwinian evolution has only a minor part in evolution, the rest is design.

you don't have to believe in god to believe in design, because life/intelligence designed lifeforms. but if you want, you can also say that god did it, because god said that he is life...

lifeforms evolved similarly to planets. first they were gas, and they became matter later. lifeforms were not made of gas though, they were something else...

What uncertainty? Nothing in science is certain, but many things are highly probable.

some things are certain, for example, it's certain that the earth is round.

Thanks for the reply, Yorda.

Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
Few scientists say that. For one thing, it's false.
Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever? No. It's "or whatever", btw.

Does evolution even posses the scientific criteria to be considered a theory? Yes. The Darwinian theory is very well established, very powerful and useful and explanatory. It's even been modified and adopted by other fields, for various phenomena.

Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals There is a ton of evidence for it in the past, a couple of minor examples in the present, the mechanism established for the future. Given the time and the mechanism, one would have to show how it was prevented, now - the burden of proof has shifted.

Few scientists say that. For one thing, it's false.
No. It's "or whatever", btw.

Yes. The Darwinian theory is very well established, very powerful and useful and explanatory. It's even been modified and adopted by other fields, for various phenomena.

There is a ton of evidence for it in the past, a couple of minor examples in the present, the mechanism established for the future. Given the time and the mechanism, one would have to show how it was prevented, now - the burden of proof has shifted.


Thanks for the reply, Ice.

"Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

1.Consistent (internally and externally)

2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

4.Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) "


I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.

Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.

I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?

Thank you for your reply, one raven.

I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?

How about "work the same".
And the environmentalists might disagree with both of us.

Thanks for the post!

But it does still work the same - that's the thing.
That's the beauty of evolution.
Take a cog out of your swiss witch, and it's a worthless hunk of metal and glass.
Take a species out of the ecosystem, and it adapts.
Another specioes will come in and take it's place - or perhaps a few, or perhaps a dozen more will die off as a result, but evolution keeps working teh same way, and relative balance will again be restored.

Complexity is not built into the system at all.
The system is actually fairly simple and straight forward.
The complexity comes in as a natural effect of competing smaller systems, individual species and individual beings seeking to grow, progress and survive causing a constant push and pull of balance of power.

I honestly don't understand why the concept is terribly difficult to grasp for so many.

I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across. Go back to the people who handed you that, and ask them why they are deliberately sending innocents out into the world with big "Kick me hard" signs taped to their rears.

Unless you want to throw out geology, astronomy, climatology, oceanography, paleontology, and half a dozen more fields most everyone calls "science".

When you want to know what defines something as a science, the best people to ask are wise old scientists. Telling scientists what they are and are not allowed to call science, and do as science, and so forth, just labels you a nutcase.

Go back to the people who handed you that, and ask them why they are deliberately sending innocents out into the world with big "Kick me hard" signs taped to their rears.

Unless you want to throw out geology, astronomy, climatology, oceanography, paleontology, and half a dozen more fields most everyone calls "science".

When you want to know what defines something as a science, the best people to ask are wise old scientists. Telling scientists what they are and are not allowed to call science, and do as science, and so forth, just labels you a nutcase.

Ha, ha! It was the fist list on google. I'm no scientist but I don't think you should label people who ask questions about your system as crazy.

Ha, ha! It was the fist list on google. I'm no scientist but I don't think you should label people who ask questions about your system as crazy. I didn't. I labeled you "innocent", and advised you to go back to whoever was sending you out into the big world to get kicked and ask them what they thought they were doing.

But if you're OK getting embarrassed in public for boosting other people's worthless causes, no problem.

I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?

Lets move beyond that fiasco over the Jesus magnets. I am responding to you posts merely so you may consider revisions.

Perhaps he is taking snippets from stuff he has read, even still he is much more articulate than i am. I will do my best to express myself here in this thread.

Originally Posted by clusteringflux
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.

He never said anything about species. He specifically used the term components and in that way he is 100% correct. A give away is using the word ecosystem, we all know an ecosystem operates within specific parameters that cannot be substituted and allow for limited deviation to what would be considered optimal. But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES.

But it does still work the same - that's the thing.
That's the beauty of evolution.
Take a cog out of your swiss witch, and it's a worthless hunk of metal and glass.
Take a species out of the ecosystem, and it adapts.
Another specioes will come in and take it's place - or perhaps a few, or perhaps a dozen more will die off as a result, but evolution keeps working teh same way, and relative balance will again be restored.

Again some organisms are absolutely VITAL and some are not. Still just an aspect of an ecosystem (one component)

Complexity is not built into the system at all.
The system is actually fairly simple and straight forward.
The complexity comes in as a natural effect of competing smaller systems, individual species and individual beings seeking to grow, progress and survive causing a constant push and pull of balance of power.

I honestly don't understand why the concept is terribly difficult to grasp for so many.

It is very complex, another point is that we are more aware of what the requirements are but take everything away and consider the ability required to envision such a concept and it become clear that we are not really talking about genius in human terms.

If animals were designed, there are certain features and comprimises that would not be there, there's the famous example of the Panda's thumb. It's an adapted hand bone, not a true finger. One would think if the Panda was designed, they would get a proper thumb. Then there's a whale's vestigal hip bones...Good argument if the counter argument is a perfect God as the designer; but that's not what the OP said. It didn't assume a perfect creator, just a creator. Something more on the order of the "cosmic clockmaker".

But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES. It just changes. It wasn't a body or a being, to begin with. You get a new ecosystem.
He never said anything about species. He specifically used the term components and in that way he is 100% correct To the extent he is correct the point is bootless - take the water away and you don't have an ocean, true, but so what ?

Lets move beyond that fiasco over the Jesus magnets. I am responding to you posts merely so you may consider revisions.

Not to worry.
There is nothing for me to move beyond, as I take nothing personally.


He never said anything about species. He specifically used the term components and in that way he is 100% correct.
No he isn't.

A give away is using the word ecosystem, we all know an ecosystem operates within specific parameters that cannot be substituted and allow for limited deviation to what would be considered optimal.
This is where the confusion starts to set in for many.
What we may consider "optimal" has no bearing on the situation what-so-ever.
Let's use an example...
Let's say, for example, we kill off the baleen whales - that's a popular one.
What happens?
Well, frankly, no one knows precicely what will happen, but you can be assured there will be widespread change, not just to the local ecosystem, not even limited to the oceans at all, in fact.
Nearly every ecosystem on earth will likely be affected.
Plankton will spread through the ocean like wildfire, choking off many other species.
Bacteria will grow out of control, killing off many other species.
The ocean temperatures will change dramatically - which will affect climate across the globe.
The climate change will have devastating effects on many land and air species.

However...
But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES.
Is just plain wrong.

Nature will adapt, as she always has, and the ecosystems will change, not die.
Perhaps the world will be a place that none of us would even recognize in a hundred years as a result of killing off the baleen whales.
Perhaps humans will even go extinct as a result - but the ecosystem will not change.
We may not survive, but nature will.
The ecosystem will change, but it will not die.
That's the simple beauty of evolution.
Survival of the fittest at it's very core.
The species which adapt best to the environment will thrive.

Again some organisms are absolutely VITAL and some are not. Still just an aspect of an ecosystem (one component)
Whether humans go extinct, or just mosquitos, there will be a change, but evolution assures that nature herself will continue to exist, as long as there remains an environment condusive to life, and we have found life in nearly every environment (regardless how "harsh" it may seem in a anthropomorphic perspective).

It is very complex, another point is that we are more aware of what the requirements are but take everything away and consider the ability required to envision such a concept and it become clear that we are not really talking about genius in human terms.
It's really not complex at all, the results are.
As such , there was no need whatever to "envision" what the world looks like now, because there is no reason to think this is what the world was "supposed to" look like.
That reasoning implies there was a grand plan, and I see no reason to assume or believe such. Convince me otherwise if you can.

It is no diffeent than saying something as simple-minded as, "Look at all the many billions upon billions of pieces that had to be just so perfectly in place in order for us to even exist. This is surely proof of the existebce of God!"
What most people who make such statements fail to see or acknowledge is that such a statement presumes that humans were fated to exist in the first place - that the system was "designed" with us in mind.
They fail to recognize that the premise already includes the conclusion.
"God exists because God exists."

We are the result of our environment, not the other way around.
Such arrogance is unfounded.

Let's use an example...
Let's say, for example, we kill off the baleen whales - that's a popular one.
What happens?
Well, frankly, no one knows precicely what will happen, but you can be assured there will be widespread change, not just to the local ecosystem, not even limited to the oceans at all, in fact.
Nearly every ecosystem on earth will likely be affected.

It's really not complex at all, the results are.

I really dont know what to say but that seems to be a layman's interpretation. But i think we are working on two different definitions of the word ecosystem.

It just changes. It wasn't a body or a being, to begin with. You get a new ecosystem.
To the extent he is correct the point is bootless - take the water away and you don't have an ocean, true, but so what ?

Well for one thing there would be no freshwater, not to mention (if it would even matter) what the weather would be like.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013202025.htm

In fact, he explained, biosphere mixing appears to provide about one third the power required to bring the deep, cold waters of the world ocean to the surface, which in turn completes the ocean's conveyor belt circulation critical to the global climate system.

...

Scientists for some time have known that the highly sensitive plants act as reliable signals of environmental changes at or near the ocean surface through sudden declines or rapid growth ---- and they have suspected that phytoplankton affect as well as reflect climate change when large, sustained plant populations gulp carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during grand-scale photosynthesis.

OK, OK !

Ya'll don't have to argue! I'm sure theres a more formal description of it somewhere.

Since we've only touched on some of the questions, maybe someone could direct me to some footage/pics of one animal turning into another animal, we should surely not have to argue about that.

If been happening forever, it has to be happening right now...

You are Ice Age, aren't you?
I'm done.

I'm your old professor and I'm testing you.
Or am I god and testing you..

All kidding aside, I'm just myself and I've realized that the fundamentals of science require a lot of faith...

OK back to these animals that are jumping species..... Evidence?

BTW, I'm getting to why this is in the social section.

Well for one thing there would be no freshwater, not to mention (if it would even matter) what the weather would be like. So is that what you are talking about, with this "component" business ?

If been happening forever, it has to be happening right now... Yep. And of course you see quite a bit of variety in living beings, and notice that some breed more than others, right ? So you see the mechanism in operation just like the rest of us see it.

And the consequences - such as a growing population of American elm trees in the Northeastern US putting out seeds much earlier in their lives, when they are shrubs - are also visible to you, just as they are to everyone who wants to see them.

If you see something stopping it, that the rest of us don't see, then enlighten us at your convenience.
You are Ice Age, aren't you?
I'm done. Ah,yes.

Likewise.

OK, I'll save time by stating that even IF new species can be made by isolation and environment, with all of our fossils we have none detailing a transition from say a mouse to a bat... If it takes as long as suggested, wouldn't the land be covered with fossils of animals in ALL states of the transitional process? Yet we have none?

So is that what you are talking about, with this "component" business ?

Yep. And of course you see quite a bit of variety in living beings, and notice that some breed more than others, right ? So you see the mechanism in operation just like the rest of us see it.

And the consequences - such as a growing population of American elm trees in the Northeastern US putting out seeds much earlier in their lives, when they are shrubs - are also visible to you, just as they are to everyone who wants to see them.

If you see something stopping it, that the rest of us don't see, then enlighten us at your convenience.
Ah,yes.

Likewise.

ok, I never mentioned population?? Is this to me cause, on the quote it's spelled a little different..LOL

Good argument if the counter argument is a perfect God as the designer; but that's not what the OP said. It didn't assume a perfect creator, just a creator. Something more on the order of the "cosmic clockmaker".

God would have to be able to do anything if you are relying on him as the organizing force. Adjusting your model to account for an imperfect God is a very weak argument, since the alternative explanation, that the Panda's thumb evolved through slow evolution parallelling the bear's unique and specialized diet, is far more logical and likely.

If it takes as long as suggested, wouldn't the land be covered with fossils of animals in ALL states of the transitional process? No, it would not. We're lucky to have any fossils at all - we don't, for most environments and most times.

"Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

1.Consistent (internally and externally)

2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

4.Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) "


I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.

To take the points you've highlighted...

(A) Evolution does explain observable phenomena. Fossils are observable. Modern animals are observable. Why is it that most fossils are from species that do not seem to be alive any more? Why is it that the fossils of still extant animals often do not have the great antiquity of the rest of the fossil record? Why is it that so many modern animals seem to have atavistic features? How does one account for genetic similarities between species? Etc. Evolution provides explanations for a wide variety of phenomena, which is part of why it swept through biology so compeletely.

(B) As for falsiiable, it is. If fossil evidence and genetic evidence stacked up agaisnt the theory (and they could havce) the theory would have been discarded. On the "empirically testable" front, there have been controlled experiments testing evolution. More of them, in fact, than controlled experiments testing the theory of Plate Tectonics. That you don't know about them is no reason to assume they do not exist, see, for example this one (http://www.questia.com/library/book/experiments-with-drosophila-ampelophila-concerning-evolution-by-frank-e-lutz.jsp) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution) for a broader discussion.

In addition to those controlled experiments, moreover, you can also test it by using it to make predictions and then seeing if those predictions are correct. The most obvious prediction that evolution made, imo, was that given the difference between fossil animals and modern ones that transitional animal forms must have existed. Since then, for most modern animals, transitional forms have come to light.

(C) Controlled experiments are alswered by the "empirically tested" links above.

Every living thing that ever existed is in a state of transition, some are in the midst of more rapid transition, some appear to be more stable.

I could be wrong, but I believe we are seeing evolution in action with bacteria. In a biology class I took we grew cultures of bacteria and placed antibiotics in the culture. The more deadly the antibiotic was to the bacteria the farther away they would move from it and leave a clear circle around the drug, but when we placed penicillin in the culture by the next day the bacteria hadn't avoided it they just crawled all over it, had absolutely no effect. We might have overused penicillin and now the bacteria have developed an immunity to it. They reproduce faster than other animals so you can more readily see changes in their characteristics from generation to generation. Although I am studying to become a neurobiologist I entirely accept the concept of evolution. You have to take all scientific theory with several grains of salt because when it comes to biology the rules are in a constant state of change.

You have to take all scientific theory with several grains of salt because when it comes to biology the rules are in a constant state of change.

Thanks for stating the truth and keeping an opened mind, Great reply!

There is very little observable evidence that animals are spawning new species and NO evidence of larger jumps through families and genus that would be required for evolution to be correct.

Yet, it's taught as if it were fact.

I think it hurts science in the long run.

I don't think that's what she meant. There is evidence for both of those things. An open mind doesn't mean closing it to the evidence.

There is very little observable evidence that animals are spawning new species and NO evidence of larger jumps through families and genus that would be required for evolution to be correct. Baloney. There's tons.

Baloney. There's tons.

Well,this was your last attempt to explain this.
Yep. And of course you see quite a bit of variety in living beings, and notice that some breed more than others, right ? So you see the mechanism in operation just like the rest of us see it.

And the consequences - such as a growing population of American elm trees in the Northeastern US putting out seeds much earlier in their lives, when they are shrubs - are also visible to you, just as they are to everyone who wants to see them.



Are you willing to try again? cuz it wasn't really clear how it related to my topic.

Are you willing to try again? cuz it wasn't really clear how it related to my topic. It's clear to most people. You aren't interested in clarity.

Since you brought up "most people":

85% of humans believe in a higher power/God.

Atheists are the minority. And not all atheist are educated/science minded so the numbers are really tiny there.

If you're equating scientist with atheist and claim "everyone's doing it" you're are doing the field a huge disservice.
In fact, IMO it's downright dangerous.

I'd love to hear you explain which race is most Evolved/advanced.

The more you create a divide between you and the people who rely on you, the less likely they are to believe you and give you a job.

And people are starting to wonder who's side modern science is on. Ours/humanity or The Natural Selection Process.
Which, of course, is always up for revision...

Encourage kids to test the tested...When convictions are made in a US court of law they have to be"beyond a reasonable doubt"

We are light years away from that stage and we should have the balls to admit it.

Thanks for your reply!

My guess is that no one will touch this thread, now.

My guess is that using multiple identities to conceal yourself on this forum is not encouraged by the site administrators.

You are trolling, as you did before when you wasted peoples' time. You have no honest interest in discussion.

Since you brought up "most people":

85% of humans believe in a higher power/God.

Atheists are the minority. And not all atheist are educated/science minded so the numbers are really tiny there.

If you're equating scientist with atheist and claim "everyone's doing it" you're are doing the field a huge disservice.
In fact, IMO it's downright dangerous.

I'd love to hear you explain which race is most Evolved/advanced.

The more you create a divide between you and the people who rely on you, the less likely they are to believe you and give you a job.

And people are starting to wonder who's side modern science is on. Ours/humanity or The Natural Selection Process.
Which, of course, is always up for revision...

Encourage kids to test the tested...When convictions are made in a US court of law they have to be"beyond a reasonable doubt"

We are light years away from that stage and we should have the balls to admit it.

Thanks for your reply!

My guess is that no one will touch this thread, now.

I wouldn't equate atheism and science, but scientists who know about evolution and still believe in creationism are fooling themselves. The number of atheists vs. the numbers of believers doesn't matter one bit when it comes to figuring out which POV is more logical.

-There is no such things as MORE evolved, since evolution doesn't seem to have any direction.

-Modern science is devoted to discovering things and figuring things out. Natural selection is not opposed to humanity. That is a false dichotomy.

- Science is not a courtroom. Absolute proof of things is mostly lacking, but that doesn't mean our discoveries are wrong. Creationists (and religious people in general) seem have an intolerance of ambiguity.

Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.

I doubt thats true otherwise I would have heard that assertion from scientists before.


As amazing as a Swiss time piece is, with all of our intelligence , we can't come close what is done in nature.

And?


Our most efficient known machine is a jet engine which is thousands of times less efficient than a single cell organism.

Please explain which definition of 'efficiency' is being used, show a comparison of known machines and their efficiency, and show the efficiency of a single cell organism (which I am assuming will mathematically demonstrate machines being thousands of times less efficient).


Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?

Huh? Humans can design things and lightning can strike tar ponds. How is one more logical than the other?


Does evolution even posses the scientific criteria to be considered a theory?


You bet.


Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals?


You bet. When do you personally consider animal A animal B different animals?

My guess is that using multiple identities to conceal yourself on this forum is not encouraged by the site administrators.

You are trolling, as you did before when you wasted peoples' time. You have no honest interest in discussion.

Ice, don't be like that. And why would I hide my Identity? Is someone after me?

Really, though, when somebody asks "how do you know we came from apes?" and you answer"the trees are budding early this year" along with some name calling, it's not much of a discussion.

You come here at your own will to waste time, after all, It's titled :Design. So how am I trolling?

You know what the most successful organisms on earth are?
Bacteria. Complexity doesn't equate with successfulness. There's evidence that the bloated genomes of eukaryotes, and the resulting diversity, is more a result of small population size and genetic drift.

If you guys can understand the math, I recommend you read some of the null models of evolution out there. It will blow your fucking mind. Diversity as accident? Shit, not only is their no God, but there isn't even a real mechanism governing which animals succeed and which ones don't.

Good argument if the counter argument is a perfect God as the designer; but that's not what the OP said. It didn't assume a perfect creator, just a creator. Something more on the order of the "cosmic clockmaker".

It's still really, really poor design. In fact, it's such poor design, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm).

Bacteria is one component.

If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.

For all we know the simplest may be the most complex.

Ice, don't be like that. And why would I hide my Identity? Because it's the only way you can bait people into responding to your trolling as if it were honest discussion.
You come here at your own will to waste time, after all, It's titled esign. So how am I trolling? It's not called "Design, Ice Age's Christian Creationist version". Its' called "design: all faith aside" by somebody else potentially interested in actual discussion. Raven was more quickly perceptive than I.

And already we are hearing about atheism - apparently the faith wasn't put that far aside.

You are trolling.
Bacteria is one component. If you are talking about ecosystems, bacteria provide several components.
Bacteria. Complexity doesn't equate with successfulness. "Bacteria" taken as a whole are extremely complex - everything from photosynthetic primary production to major components of large cell assemblies such as trees and people.

Bacteria is one component.



For all we know the simplest may be the most complex.

What the hell are you talking about?

No bacteria...no life.

"Bacteria" taken as a whole are extremely complex - everything from photosynthetic primary production to major components of large cell assemblies such as trees and people.

Not really. They're all quite "simple" when compared to eukaryotes. That's what makes them such great model organisms. Small, compact genome, relatively simple cell cycle, only one cell, etc.

No bacteria...no life.

How is this relevant to anything?

if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.

BINGO

Problem Solved:

DESIGN

The fact that our ecosystem depends on bacteria isn't a sign of irreducible complexity. This relationship evolved like everything else. Bacteria can be observed evolving in real time. There's a recent thread about an infection that doesn't respond to anti-biotics. This is an example of bacteria adapting to our use of drugs to kill them.

BINGO

Good luck removing bacteria....
Ahahaha, oh man, that IS ironic. When you try and remove bacteria from, say, someone with tuberculosis, the bacteria will evolve, right before your fucking eyes and become resistant.

Removing bacteria would be nigh impossible, since whatever you tried to get rid of it with would just have it popping right back. Same with insects and pesticide resistance.

Spidergoat,

But it is STILL bacteria, just as it always was- from the beginning. That fact that it does not evolve away from that should tell you something. It cant.

Good luck removing bacteria....
Ahahaha, oh man, that IS ironic. When you try and remove bacteria from, say, someone with tuberculosis, the bacteria will evolve, right before your fucking eyes and become resistant.

Removing bacteria would be nigh impossible, since whatever you tried to get rid of it with would just have it popping right back. Same with insects and pesticide resistance.

Well there are all types of bacteria. Some good, some bad.

Well there are all types of bacteria. Some good, some bad.

And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?

Spidergoat,

But it is STILL bacteria, just as it always was- from the beginning. That fact that it does not evolve away from that should tell you something. It cant.

The bacteria that exist today are not the same as those in the past. The basic model is successful, I admit. All other animals evolved from something like bacteria. The nucleus of our cells are adapted bacteria that formed a symbiotic relationship with the cell. At least in that sense, we are evolved bacteria.

Roman Said:And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?

They are just bad because they kill living things instead of keep them alive like the 'good' ones.

http://www.google.com/search?q=good+bacteria&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Roman,

They are just bad because they kill living things instead of keep them alive like the 'good' ones.

http://www.google.com/search?q=good+bacteria&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Right....
Ok, do you know what Escherichia coli is? It's also known as E. coli. Great model organism, very well studied. It's a major symbiont of mammals and birds, us included. We have billions of them in our guts. We need them to keep out invading bacteria and help us digest our food. I bet you've also heard of people getting sick from E. coli.

Now, how do you reckon that happens? How does E. coli help one person and then suddenly kill a bunch of people?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "e".

The bacteria that exist today are not the same as those in the past. The basic model is successful, I admit. All other animals evolved from something like bacteria. The nucleus of our cells are adapted bacteria that formed a symbiotic relationship with the cell. At least in that sense, we are evolved bacteria.

But i dont know of any proof that bacteria evolved into something else.:shrug:

pwnd by google (http://www.google.com/search?q=bacterial+resistance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Right....
Ok, do you know what Escherichia coli is? It's also known as E. coli. Great model organism, very well studied. It's a major symbiont of mammals and birds, us included. We have billions of them in our guts. We need them to keep out invading bacteria and help us digest our food. I bet you've also heard of people getting sick from E. coli.

Now, how do you reckon that happens? How does E. coli help one person and then suddenly kill a bunch of people?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with an "e".

Thanks for your insight. The bigger question at hand is: At what point does bacteria type organism turn into a fish for instance.

Roman,

I really dont know what that is supposed to show????? (pwnd by google)

Remember who it was that made this statement?

"And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?"

Wasnt me.

Not really. They're all quite "simple" when compared to eukaryotes. But you were talking about all of them, taken together.

But it is STILL bacteria, just as it always was- from the beginning. That fact that it does not evolve away from that should tell you something. It cant. That's like saying the fact that a mouse doesn't fly when you throw it off a cliff tells you that a mammal can't fly.

We have plenty of evidence of bacteria evolving "away from" their former identities, in such things as the mitochondria and nucleus of the eukaryotic cell for example.

No bacteria...no life. My guess is that a fungus or two would pick up the slack after a while. Or an archeon. Evolution can be extremely rapid in the case of a large, empty niche and the right invader.

You seem to be arguing that something that hasn't happened in less than fifty years in a Western scientific lab can't happen, and all the evidence of it's having happened is bunk.

We have plenty of evidence of bacteria evolving "away from" their former identities, in such things as the mitochondria and nucleus of the eukaryotic cell.

My guess is that a fungus or two would pick up the slack after a while. Or an archeon. Evolution can be extremely rapid in the case of a large, empty niche and the right invader.

You seem to be arguing that something that hasn't happened in less than fifty years in a Western scientific lab can't happen, and all the evidence of it's having happened is bunk.

That sounds good but the evidence does not support it at all.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacterialh.html

The ecosystem, both on land and in the water, depends heavily upon the activity of bacteria. The cycling of nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur is completed by their ceaseless labor.

But let me get your argument- you're saying that because things rely on other things, and you take some of those things away, and those things perish, the system must have been designed for it to work like that.

That's... that's really piss poor. Design may be sufficient, but it certainly isn't necessary.
Simple thought experiments will demonstrate why your logic sucks.

Say there is a pile of rocks, and the rock at the bottom is removed. The rock pile falls down. Was the system designed?

Likewise, while a creator could have designed the system so one thing relies on the other, evolution also explains how one thing can rely on another. Creation isn't required to explain something that relies upon another thing. You get trapped in a cave, and run out of food, and die. Due to your logic, the police should start looking for people to arrest, since someone must have set you up. Right? Right.

I hope you haven't bred.

Roman,

I really dont know what that is supposed to show????? (pwnd by google)

Remember who it was that made this statement?

"And how do you think some of them became "bad"? God made em? Giant space robots?"

Wasnt me.

They became "bad" due to mutations in their genome that made them virulent. AKA evolution. I was asking you to postulate how, or who, made them bad, since they weren't always bad to begin with.

But you were talking about all of them, taken together.

So? They're still not very complex. Diverse, yes. Complex? Not... really.

Thanks for your insight. The bigger question at hand is: At what point does bacteria type organism turn into a fish for instance.

Well, we've turned diptera into what look like hymenoptera in laboratories. We've got pigeons that are so round, you can roll them. We've got turkeys so fat, they can't breed. We've got chiuahuas and great danes....

Life's pretty mutable, if selection is strong enough.

Roman,

Do you realize that nothing in your post pertains to evolution?

Roman,

Do you realize that nothing in your post pertains to evolution?

You really don't know enough about biology to argue this stuff, but I'll try to help you out, anyway.

In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time. Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

But i dont know of any proof that bacteria evolved into something else.:shrug:

Well, they did. Some of them evolved the ability to swim. All life on Earth came from these first kinds of cells. That's the basic premise of evolution, that more complex beings came from simpler ones.

You really don't know enough about biology to argue this stuff, but I'll try to help you out, anyway.

In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. This process causes populations of organisms to change over time.

No new species.

Inherited traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms.

No new species.

[Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer]. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

No new species.



:shrug:

That sounds good but the evidence does not support it at all. What is "it", and how does your link provide evidence against "it" ?

If you are claiming that removal of all bacteria would cause the end of life on earth, yoru link provides no evidence to support you. You need to show much more - such as why fungi and archaeons, for example, would not remain and flourish.

If you mean to conclude from that assertion that bacteria are a component of a designed system, you need a completely different approach. Lots of evolved systems - even chance systems - have necessary components.

It can't be backed up yet..or maybe ever.

Well, they did. Some of them evolved the ability to swim. All life on Earth came from these first kinds of cells. That's the basic premise of evolution, that more complex beings came from simpler ones.

Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet?

Define species, Johnny.

Even an elephant?

He means genus and he's right.

Define genus, please.

Spidergoat,

In your estimation how long would it take for bacteria to evolve into an elephant?

Can you explain the process?

The point is a dog is a dog and nothing points to it once being a cat or microbe.

The point is a dog is a dog and nothing points to it once being a cat or microbe.

Your ignorance of biology is astounding.
There is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence of cats and dogs, and yes, even microbes, sharing common ancestors. In the case of cats and dogs, they share so many similarities that the only way to explain why a dog isn't more doglike and a cat more catlike, is evolution.

But because you haven't taken any biology courses since highschool, it's understandable that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Roman, insults will not help you. Your just not presenting anything new or even a good argument.

Yes, I agree.

It would seem that I would be easily persuaded but when you only point to tiny adaptations of the same creature, common joe can't be expected to believe everything on earth came from bacteria..please help me!

Spidergoat,

In your estimation how long would it take for bacteria to evolve into an elephant?

Can you explain the process?

I would estimate about 2-3 billion years. It was like an arms race. First the bacteria evolved movement, then they ate each other and defense against eating provided some advantage. Eventually, they discovered how to go on land to escape predators...

Yes, I agree.

It would seem that I would be easily persuaded but when you only point to tiny adaptations of the same creature, common joe can't be expected to believe everything on earth came from bacteria..please help me!

Not from bacteria exactly, but from single celled organisms that resembled bacteria. Bacteria are actually quite advanced, they are like little chemistry factories. They first discovered how to turn sunlight into food. They evolved to live in extreme environments...

Roman, insults will not help you. Your just not presenting anything new or even a good argument.

Is it an insult if it's true?

Here are some questions you are unable to answer:
Why do seemingly dissimilar organisms share so many similarities? Why has one structure, the vertebrate limb, been adapted to fly, swim, walk, burrow, and run, rather than having unrelated, more efficient designs for say, a, ostrich vs.a mole?

Explain a whale's vestigial hip.
Explain the double membrane of mitochondria, and triple membranes of some chloroplasts. Why do organisms with as diverse metabolisms as archaea (of which some reduce with iron and produce magnetite), protists (some that photosynthesize), and humans share so much rRNA? Why conservation of core molecular machinery across such vast phyla? Why do we repeatedly see maladapted structures based on old, ancestral traits, rather than completely different and better functioning ones?

Why does each Hawaiian island have different types of flies on them, found only on those islands, and nowhere else in the world?

I could be wrong, but I believe we are seeing evolution in action with bacteria. In a biology class I took we grew cultures of bacteria and placed antibiotics in the culture. The more deadly the antibiotic was to the bacteria the farther away they would move from it and leave a clear circle around the drug, but when we placed penicillin in the culture by the next day the bacteria hadn't avoided it they just crawled all over it, had absolutely no effect. We might have overused penicillin and now the bacteria have developed an immunity to it. They reproduce faster than other animals so you can more readily see changes in their characteristics from generation to generation. Although I am studying to become a neurobiologist I entirely accept the concept of evolution. You have to take all scientific theory with several grains of salt because when it comes to biology the rules are in a constant state of change.

Yes! That's why we need a new flu vaccine every year.



Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals?

No.... Because it never happened?

You will never see a whale turn into a tiger. Evolution happens very, very gradually. With one mutation, it's not quite a different species; a number of mutations need to occur. As with humans: we mutated to have blue eyes, but the blue-eyed population is not a different species, because if a blue-eyed person mates with a brown-eyed person they can still produce fertile offspring. How many mutations? Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse).

(someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)

No.... Because it never happened?

You will never see a whale turn into a tiger. Evolution happens very, very gradually. With one mutation, it's not quite a different species; a number of mutations need to occur. As with humans: we mutated to have blue eyes, but the blue-eyed population is not a different species, because if a blue-eyed person mates with a brown-eyed person they can still produce fertile offspring. How many mutations? Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse).

(someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)

You've got it right.
Johnny and iceage don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, so it leads to a little confusion.

Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.

Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.

Can you answer a single one of those questions, using your design paradigm?

Again, nothing in your post proves evolution of species. If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process.

wooden wheel
rubber wheels
no wheels.

DESIGN. The whole process does not just say design it screams DESIGN.

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.

Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet? Probably not Archaea. Otherwise, the evidence is that yes, most of the living things around here have "bacteria" in their evolutionary history.

Keep in mind that "bacteria" covers a hell of a range of organisms, from some kinds of multicellular pond scum to flagellate dwellers in midocean trenches.

If you are going to design a car it will have four wheels, if it did not have wheel it would hover above the ground= that is the design process I believe 3 and 6 wheeled cars are not that rare - from the very beginning of the "design" process. The ubiquity of the four wheeled variety is not a designed feature of the car system - it's what survived, as being fit.
You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. Their own stories haven't been that much better, on average.

It's an important point of view, but it fails to explain a great deal, and its claim to be the default assumption at all times is not reasonable.

I would estimate about 2-3 billion years. It was like an arms race. First the bacteria evolved movement, then they ate each other and defense against eating provided some advantage. Eventually, they discovered how to go on land to escape predators...

Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?:shrug:

And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense? There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious. The only thing provable is variation and just by reproducing you can show variation from one generation to another.

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

How do you know it was not a different species? And you know as well as i do that fossils only show so much and i would not exactly call it complex.

You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.

No, I haven't heard of them.

You ever read anything by the nullists? They take adaptationists to task for telling so many just-so stories. 'Course, no one outside of science cares about them because Dawkins is such a loudmouth, and no one likes math.

:bugeye:

Evolution is qualitatively different than design. All innovations were gradual improvements. Sometimes an animal discovers a new use for an old tool. Originally, bats did not use sound to "see" in the dark, this has been confirmed in the discovery of fossil bats without complex ear parts.

Not all innovations were/are improvements. Some must've failed along the way. Take mutations that occurred as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy: those are failures. Mutations happen naturally as well. You could take Down's Syndrome as a "failing" mutation.

No, I haven't heard of them.

Here's (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11790&page=83) a link to the abstract of probably one of the most important papers to come out in biology in the past decade.

I'm not sure if you can access the whole paper. It's called:
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Lynch, 2007, PNAS.

Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. is also a pretty good one, as it looks at a non-adaptionist way sex could have evolved. That one's by Otto and Lenormand, published in Nature Review Genetics.

You've got it right.
Johnny and iceage don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection, so it leads to a little confusion.


Yes, I dropped out of highschool because I can't stand being lied to. I have no edgemacation.

And if I'm Iceage then you're a monkey's uncle....Uh,I mean NOT a monkey's uncle (if that's more offensive).

I do enjoy getting a free lesson in biology, though.

Do you see hoe rediculuos that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?:shrug:
The most obvious and radical change was the evolution of cooperation between cells. One step is represented by the sponges, which are separate cells living in large colonies. You can put a sponge in a blender, pour the slurry into a tank, and it will reassemble into a working sponge.

The next step was greater integration into a body, where the cells cannot live on their own.

The reason this all happened is variation and iteration with natural selection. Variation, you admit, is possible. If a variation gave an animal a survival advantage, it's numbers grew. Greater numbers mean more possibilities for advantageous variations. Mobility would be a great advantage, as well as size, and the ability to sustain various chemical reactions through the use of catalysts.

Note, I said billions of years, not millions.

Creatures also evolved various schemes that assist evolution, we could call that the evolution of evolvability. They became modular. A snake just repeats the center section of it's body to become a longer animal.


And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense? There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious. The only thing provable is variation and just by reproducing you can show variation.
Yes. Just like there are still wasps, even though some became ants.


How do you know it was not a different species? And you know as well as i do that fossils only show so much and i would not exactly call it complex.
I'm sure it was. But at some point there were no bats at all. Then later, there were no bats fossils found with echolocation, and now all of them have it. It's a logical assumption.

If species die out, but there are no new ones, why are there so many species now? The species existing now have no ancient fossils, so where did they come from? Some species existing now share a resemblence to some fossils, even down to things like the number of bones present. There's no explanation for this other than that modern ones came from ancient ones.

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.

Yes, I dropped out of highschool because I can't stand being lied to. I have no edgemacation.

And if I'm Iceage then you're a monkey's uncle....Uh,I mean NOT a monkey's uncle (if that's more offensive).

I do enjoy getting a free lesson in biology, though.

Check in with your local mental institution, they'll tell you all the truths you'd like to hear. :D

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.

I have read it a few times. But if i did believe it at one time i certainly dont any longer.

Check in with your local mental institution, they'll tell you all the truths you'd like to hear. :D

In my area education is devolving and MDs give you psych drugs for a sinus infection.

Is that because we are random organisms with no purpose?

In my area education is devolving and MDs give you psych drugs for a sinus infection.

Is that because we are random organisms with no purpose?

Of course not. It's because you're designed with a specific purpose, and some people have fallen under evil influences and want to interfere with that purpose. ;o)

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.

I think we're all doing a fine job. I bet we can even explain High School physics to them.

Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.Any particular ecosystem may fail if an important component is removed, but it will just turn into a different ecosystem. It may not be as "beautiful" by our subjective standards, but it still "works." That asteroid that darkened the skies and wiped out the dinosaurs also wiped out many other species, a significant fraction of the total in existence at the time. IIRC, something like one fourth. It utterly destroyed entire ecosystems. But plenty of living things survived. Mutations that wouldn't have had a chance of survival suddenly found themselves perfectly adapted to a new world and throve. Within a few million years the earth was remade by evolution into a new kind of place. Endothermic (warm-blooded) animals and angiosperms (seed-bearing plants) became the apex species on land and similar changes took place in the sea. To use your model, many of the key components of the watch were removed. The watch was never rebuilt, but in its place a digital clock arose.As amazing as a Swiss time piece is, with all of our intelligence , we can't come close what is done in nature.You express a weakness that virtually all humans have: the inability to understand huge numbers. You can't grasp how the law of averages works when it has billions of years to work. Our entire civilization, starting charitably with the first farms which technically don't even count as civilization, is only twelve thousand years old. Give us two or three billion years and see what we might come up with!Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?What is "logical" about design? Where does the designer live? What does he eat? Why don't we see him? What kinds of processes does he use to perform this design?

At the very best, if you manage to come up with answers to all of these questions, you are left with the one unanswerable question: Where did the designer come from? Who designed him? Your reasoning ends up being circular.

This is not "logic," this is one of the oldest classic bonehead fallacies."Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are: 1.Consistent (internally and externally); 2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) 3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena 4. Empirically Testable & Falsifiable 5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments 6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered) 7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) 8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.This is not a correct paradigm. #5 does not belong there. Science is the logical derivation of theories from empirical observation, but experimentation is not required. Astronomy is the oldest science and no one has yet performed an experiment in astronomy. (The "experiments" that have been performed all involve only new techniques of observation.)A give away is using the word ecosystem, we all know an ecosystem operates within specific parameters that cannot be substituted and allow for limited deviation to what would be considered optimal. But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES.We just went through that. One dies but another takes its place.OK, I'll save time by stating that even IF new species can be made by isolation and environment, with all of our fossils we have none detailing a transition from say a mouse to a bat... If it takes as long as suggested, wouldn't the land be covered with fossils of animals in ALL states of the transitional process? Yet we have none?Either you are joking or you are being disingenuous. Surely you understand how perfect conditions must be for anything to become a fossil. Weather, lack of predators/scavengers, geology. It's amazing that there are as many fossils as there are. Some of them turned to mush, like petroleum. Some turned to vapor, like natural gas. Some turned to a solid mass of indistinguishable molecules, like coal. Most just got ground up into the soil, dissolved in the water, evaporated into the air, eaten by scavengers, or ripped asunder by tectonic activity.Since you brought up "most people": 85% of humans believe in a higher power/God.Of course they do. Belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief programmed into us by the vagaries of evolution. An instinct that was a survival trait during conditions we can't imagine, a synapse that we all inherited through a genetic bottleneck, not all archetypes have been explained yet. But many of them have to be outgrown because they are remnants of the Stone Age. Religion, for example, may have been an advantage during our tribal era because it helped tribes bond. Today it is atavistic because it continues to hold us back in the tribal era and prevents us from coming together into larger communities.My guess is that using multiple identities to conceal yourself on this forum is not encouraged by the site administrators.No. If this turns out to be the case he will be permanently banned.You are trolling, as you did before when you wasted peoples' time. You have no honest interest in discussion.I'm not quite ready to dismiss this as trolling. But I do recommend that the Moderator combine this with the Sticky on Evolution Denialism. It's just the same discredited arguments all over, taking up our bandwidth.Thanks for your insight. The bigger question at hand is: At what point does bacteria type organism turn into a fish for instance.Oh come on now. You make yourself out to be an intelligent, educated person, and then you say something that sounds like a not particularly precocious twelve-year-old???Did I already say "disingenous?" Fourteen-year-olds know that bacteria did not turn directly into fish but went through a couple of billion years of intermediate forms as they became slowly more complex.Are you are saying that bacteria changed into every single life form on the planet?There were other single-celled species besides bacteria, but basically yes.Well, how similar is a donkey to a horse? They both evolved from the same ancestor (which was neither a donkey nor a horse). (someone correct me if my memory of bio classes betrayed me.)Eohippus, the ancestor of all the equines including the zebra. It arose in what is now North America but ultimately no species of that line survived here.Do you see how ridiculous that is? You are saying that all on its own bacteria, which you need a microscope to see turned into (ok, it took 2-3mill years) an elephant and some turned int horses and some a zebra. WHY?Because there were ecological niches for both species. Mutations only survive if they have a survival advantage over their ancestral species. This often happens during times of environmental distress.And dont forget that some did not change at all, because they are still here performing the same EXACT function. Dont you see that it makes no sense?I'm not sure that's true. We talk about alligators and cockroaches still being here, but they're not the same species of alligators and cockroaches. But even if they are, all this shows is that there were ecological niches available for both the ancestral species and the mutation. This does happen, after all. The polar bear is a mutation of the grizzly bear, the most recent speciation we have yet discovered, yet the grizzly bear still thrives in its original environment. There was a new environment for the polar bear so it evolved to fill it.There needed to be, at the very least, some external direction. It is so obvious.What kind of "external direction?" The "designer" that was mentioned earlier? The hypothesis that only results in circular reasoning? This is not science. This is starting to sound suspiciously like religion, which on this board is trolling. We have ghettos for religionists with antiscientific arguments and if they don't stay there we ban them. Postulating an unobservable supernatural universe is by definition antiscientific, because the essence of science is the premise that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by deriving theories logically from empirical observations of its past and present behavior. This premise has been tested for about five hundred years and it has not been disproven. There is no need to give up on science and postulate supernatural phenomena like "designers." In my area education is devolving and MDs give you psych drugs for a sinus infection. Is that because we are random organisms with no purpose?Yes, America is getting pretty stupid. It started with the Religious Redneck Retard Revival about thirty years ago. True academia has lost all respect and "science" is being taken over by corporations who have products to sell.

Is it an insult if it's true?

Here are some questions you are unable to answer:
Why do seemingly dissimilar organisms share so many similarities? Why has one structure, the vertebrate limb, been adapted to fly, swim, walk, burrow, and run, rather than having unrelated, more efficient designs for say, a, ostrich vs.a mole?

Explain a whale's vestigial hip.
Explain the double membrane of mitochondria, and triple membranes of some chloroplasts. Why do organisms with as diverse metabolisms as archaea (of which some reduce with iron and produce magnetite), protists (some that photosynthesize), and humans share so much rRNA? Why conservation of core molecular machinery across such vast phyla? Why do we repeatedly see maladapted structures based on old, ancestral traits, rather than completely different and better functioning ones?

Why does each Hawaiian island have different types of flies on them, found only on those islands, and nowhere else in the world?
I surely don't have all of those answers and, I'll admit it, but In my experience with Engineering and Manuf. when you find a good design you don't change it. If you want to make a lot of something, if the parts can't be interchangeable(1st choice) you at least keep them similar enough that you don't have to retool and hire a new engineering department. It would be wrong, though to tell my customer that everything on the machine came from the same source unless that source was me.

Yes, we even design things that adapt (evolve). like 4x4s and Virus protection software. Even robots designed in our Image.
And think of our image compared to others.Even though I know you think I'm nuts, I've nothing but respect for you.

This is not science. This is starting to sound suspiciously like religion, which on this board is trolling. We have ghettos for religionists with antiscientific arguments and if they don't stay there we ban them..


Hey, the topic tags said "social responsibilty" and such. How can you discard religion talk?(which I'm trying to avoid )

You all would sound smarter without all the insults. I mean, the last scentence would send shivers down my spine if I were Jewish. Ha!

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can.

If you want to know how evolution really happened, read the Secret Doctrine by Helena Blavatsky.

What is "logical" about design? Where does the designer live? What does he eat? Why don't we see him? What kinds of processes does he use to perform this design?

there are several builders, but i can't say what they are because science has not seen them yet. ancient myths/science speaks of them. back in those days we could see them.

life is big and not everything that our eyes can see are real. sometimes you have to find a way to see the invisible to find the answers to some questions. we know that there are invisible things like radio waves, so it's not insane to think that there are also beings who live in invisible worlds like we live here.

At the very best, if you manage to come up with answers to all of these questions, you are left with the one unanswerable question: Where did the designer come from? Who designed him? Your reasoning ends up being circular.

it's not more unanswerable than "where did matter come from?"

Belief in the supernatural is an archetype, an instinctive belief programmed into us by the vagaries of evolution.

people often say that things created by humans are unnatural. cars and computers for example. as if we humans were not part of nature. so... intelligence is "supernatural".

speaking of archetypes: An archetype (pronounced: /ˈarkətaɪp/) is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned, or emulated.

organisms are complex. before creating something complex, we make a model, a blueprint.

Yorda, Your views are interesting!
Welcome and thanks for posting.

there are several builders, but i can't say what they are because science has not seen them yet. ancient myths/science speaks of them. back in those days we could see them.You still haven't addressed the question of who built the builders so this is still circular reasoning, which violates the rules of science.life is big and not everything that our eyes can see are real. sometimes you have to find a way to see the invisible to find the answers to some questions. we know that there are invisible things like radio waves, so it's not insane to think that there are also beings who live in invisible worlds like we live here.Fine. That's a common science fiction plot and it makes fun reading. But it still does not answer the question of where did life ultimately come from. It just keeps begging the question. It's still circular reasoning and it still violates the rules of science.it's not more unanswerable than "where did matter come from?"You think not? A singularity which, once ever, split into matter and antimatter, which then dissipated and cooled according to the laws of physics, has a very low probability of occurring but it's not impossible beyond a reasonable doubt because it's still a remarkably simple system. What you're postulating is the same thing happening but yielding a remarkably complex system.people often say that things created by humans are unnatural. cars and computers for example. as if we humans were not part of nature. so... intelligence is "supernatural".We don't use layman's imprecise language on the science boards here. Cars and computers are components of the natural universe. So is human intelligence. It evolved naturally.speaking of archetypes: An archetype (pronounced: /ˈarkətaɪp/) is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned, or emulated.That's an artist's definition. I repeat: you're posting on a science board so please confine yourself to scientific terminology. I'm using the standard Jungian definition. Psychology is at least a "soft science."

I surely don't have all of those answers and, I'll admit it, but In my experience with Engineering and Manuf. when you find a good design you don't change it. If you want to make a lot of something, if the parts can't be interchangeable(1st choice) you at least keep them similar enough that you don't have to retool and hire a new engineering department. It would be wrong, though to tell my customer that everything on the machine came from the same source unless that source was me.

Yes, we even design things that adapt (evolve). like 4x4s and Virus protection software. Even robots designed in our Image.
And think of our image compared to others.Even though I know you think I'm nuts, I've nothing but respect for you.

But they're not good designs. They're designs that work, but any engineer will point out the flaws and say "If I was God (ie, had access to the molecualr tool kit) I would have made that better."

Furthermore, Creationism cannot possibly answer the problem of diversity. Other than the lack of falsifiability for Creationism (wtf is your working hypothesis, and what would demonstrate it false? a whale that turns into an elephant?), it lacks ability to explain most biological phenomena. It's entirely unsatisfying.

But they're not good designs.

Roman,Roman!

We've already established that we as humans can't do better. Please, If you talk to children don't limit them.

Roman,Roman!

We've already established that we as humans can't do better. Please, If you talk to children don't limit them.

Yet.
We're beginning to redesign things. Just you wait. We're going to make bacteria our bitch. Then we'll move onto organ systems, limbs.

Besides, they're such obvious problems without any explanation, besides evolution! What was your god smoking when he decided to make the panda? Some good shit, I bet.

But is that even an argument?
Humans can't do X;
therefore aliens/god did it.

That, my friend, is a non-sequitor.

You think not? A singularity which, once ever, split into matter and antimatter, which then dissipated and cooled according to the laws of physics, has a very low probability of occurring but it's not impossible beyond a reasonable doubt because it's still a remarkably simple system. What you're postulating is the same thing happening but yielding a remarkably complex system.

the mind (designer) is very simple. it's just a duality: me and not-me. singularity is even more simple, but singularity never really existed, because it (the nothing where everything comes from) already contains duality because it contains nothing and infinity, me and outside-me.

because the dualistic mind created everything, we see duality everywhere in nature, like male and female, night and day, matter and anti-matter, magnetism, matter and mind...

scientists explain those things with something they call "natural laws", but what does that word really mean and why are the "laws" the way they are....? natural laws is a word that means "habits of the mind".

scientists think that the mind is complex because humans are the most advanced species and our brain is very complex. but our brain limits us. it doesn't create the mind, it focuses it. if we didn't have a brain and a physical body, we could do much more amazing things (like designing a tiger), but then we couldn't focus the same way.

everything in dreams are created and designed by the mind. a dream is thoughts. the rest of life is also thoughts. it's impossible to prove that there is a world outside the mind. there is no outside or inside... there is just one reality that we call mind, and others call it matter, because of the dualistic mind.

Psychology is at least a "soft science."

it's the science of the mind.

The Origin of Species, by Darwin, can explain it better than I can. ”

I have read it a few times. But if i did believe it at one time i certainly dont any longer. Based on your objections here, you never understood it.

The common situation, among "denialists", is a perceived need to defend the role of a deity. Otherwise, one has to believe they would be no more likely to take the arguments they propose seriously than anyone else does.

There is no "Design: All faith aside", in other words. And you will notice here on this thread no appearance of a Design Theory. There is only some criticism (very misled criticism) of Evolutionary Theory. Design assertions are based on faith, not argument or evidence.

Thats right Iceaura, i am a deityologist. Come see John to learn about the Deity. If that is what you think then we cannot have a scientific discussion based on the merits of this thread.

"you never understood it. "

what part didn't i understand?

Thats right Iceaura, i am a deityologist. Come see John to learn about the Deity.We already have a perfectly good word for that: theologist. You don't have to make up your own.