Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by john smith, Nov 23, 2005.
LOL , good point, probably both! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You know what Mountainhare, thats actually a very good point.
Ahhh, but dont forget Mountain, fossils were merely 'put' there to test our faith in 'God'! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or so i'v been told!!
Although i may not agree with the sentiment i have to congratulate you on that wonderful desciption!! I actually read it twice ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Very well, Jan. I'll assume, pending your response, that you attribute what you call "micro-evolution" to "genetic variation". I'll also assume, pending your response, that you'll acknowledge the possibility (if not likelihood) of accumulated "genetic variation" over time. I am asking you to explain to me how, and to what extent, such variation is limited or constrained.
You also claimed that you could offer a plausible explanation of why and how the stratographic distribution of fossils might be predicted by a Creationist model. I'd appreciate hearing that explanation.
Res ipsa loquitur.
From that site:
"The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides."
Just for curiousity, how come, when micro-evolution changes things now and then in the DNA, why of hundreds of other polymers, do all organisms use those three? If the others are just as good, wouldn't we see a random distribution? And if what caused the different species didn't cause different polymers then what process could make seperate the two, so that one gets the effect and the other stays the same?
I'm a programmer, so I know that when I change one thing in the program that usually means I have to change alot of other things as well, now if the whole structure has changed (as there is in different species) then there must have been a crucial part that had been changed (seen from a programmers eyes).
Or do you mean to say that the whole changed first?
Couldn't it be, that what made them change was their motive for sexual drives? That one started to like a certain look and mated with that certain look, while the others stayed the same and didn't like that look? The likeness would be accepted only by the group and not by the rest, so that they surely developed against a extreme of that look, until they recognised themselves as different species? Since the sexual motive is not allways logical and for the best of survival the environment would make sure they were further changed in order to handle it (since sexual drives can make profound short-term changes, while the environment in generations cut the edges to make them fit).
Also, from that site:
"Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). Discovering any new animals or plants that contained any of the anomalous examples proffered above would be potential falsifications of common ancestry, but they have not been found."
Again, when things serve equally well, why isn't there at least some creatures that use another system? If so much can change why can't that change? And why are there only one origin of life?
Even if we found that RNA (or whatever it is) can arise from ordinary matter, then it would have to be complex enough to duplicate, anyone solved that yet?
There is no negligence. It was deliberate. Don't you even understand the use of irony?
Especially when its used against someone who will miss it entirely.
Wake up Sonny Jim.
Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicit?
That's why you use sub-routines.
Of course it depends on what you class as speciation.
By that same logic it could be said, any rational individual who does hold a literal interpretation of scripture does not automatically infer common decent from the evidence and facts available. So what is your point?
You say macro-evolution is a "fact" and there is an abundance of evidence. Please demonstrate how you have come to this conclusion via the scientific method that is all i ask.
One step at a time.
I have already explained why I said that, and see no further reason to harp on it.
Anyhow, unless you can produce this so-called un-equivocal evidence in support of macroevol, it doesn't matter whether a dog can turn into a cat or not. Does it?
Where is the evidence?
There is no difference in the term "believe", you are just demonstrating different situations.
Yes the statements are different, and they mean different things, but the mechanism of belief is identical.
Then highlight some of the evidences, let us see why it you believe/know macro-evolution to be a scientific fact.
I know enough to know macroevol is not a scientific fact, and you have yet to demonstrate how it is so.
Please show the evidence, blockhead, then we will see. Won't we.
No. The facts have been observed, and have been interpreted as microevol.
This may take a little while. If you could begin by reading through these works it should get you started. I'll post the Bs tomorrow.
Acta Biomaterialia 2005 Volumes 1
Advances in Applied Microbiology Volumes 1 – 57
Advances in Botanical Research Volumes 1 – 42
Advances in Carbohydrate Chemistry and Biochemistry Volumes 1 – 59
Advances in Cell Aging and Gerontology Volumes 1 – 17
Advances in Developmental Biology Volumes 1 – 15
Advances in Developmental Biology and Biochemistry Volumes 1 – 13
Advances in Enzyme Regulation Volumes 1 – 44
Advances in Genetics Volumes 1 – 55
Advances in Insect Physiology Volumes 1 – 21
Advances in Marine Biology Volumes 1 – 48
Advances in Microbial Physiology Volumes 1 – 50
Advances in Molecular and Cell Biology Volumes 1 – 36
Advances in Protein Chemistry Volumes 1 – 71
Advances in Virus Research Volumes 1 – 64
Anaerobe Volumes 1 – 11
Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. Microbiologie Volumes 1 – 139
Annales de l'Institut Pasteur. Virologie Volumes 1 – 131
Annales de Paléontologie Volumes 1 – 91
Annales des Sciences Naturelles - Zoologie et Biologie Animale Volumes 1 – 21
Annales d'Urologie Volumes 1 – 39
Annals of Botany Volumes 1 – 88
L'Anthropologie Volumes 1 – 109
Applied Geochemistry Volumes 1 – 20
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics Volumes 1 – 444
Arthropod Structure & Development Volumes 1 – 34
Edit: Just a little tip. You can probably speed things up for yourself if you just read the abstracts. Of course, if you are quite sceptical, that may not be enough. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah, I see! Not only do you have your own custom definition for 'science' and 'belief', you also have a custom definition for species. Why am I not surprised?
So you admit that when observing the evidence, you make the a priori assumption that what occurred in your scripture is literal and true? Ahh, I see, that explains why any evidence which implies common descent, and doesn't fit into your preconceived framework, is ignored or branded as a 'lie'.
No, I'm not doing that until you demonstrate that you actually have even basic knowledge of what the scientific method consists of.
Jan, do you admit that direct observation of an event or object is not necessary for a theory or fact to be considered scientific? .
Once you say 'Yes', we can go further. However, it is pointless if you can't even grasp simple concepts, such as how science uses evidence and facts to make inferences.
No, you haven't explained why you said that. You concocted a blatant strawman on what constituted as macroevolution, and are now attempting to deflect the audience's attention from your blunder.
Multiple posters have spoon fed you evidence for evolution time and time again, but you continuously ignore them. I also posted my 'Chromosome Challenge for Creationuts', which you have failed to even acknowledge. What's wrong? Oh wait, I forgot, any evidence which blows your a priori assumption that 'common descent never occurred' out of the water.
So you are claiming that evolution is not a scientific fact? I wait with bated breath for you to support that conjecture.
Incidentally, Jan isn't a Fundamentalist Christian, I think he simply disbelieves evolution because he simply "can't believe" that all the myriad complexities of life are the result of random processes. From a theistic point of view, he is reassured that there appears to be plenty of evidence that there was a Creator God, he doesn't necessarily believe every word of Genesis 1 (nor indeed Genesis 2, which gives a different account of Creation).
I've been watching the utterly, utterly brilliant new natural history programme from the BBC, Life in the Undergrowth, all about the invertebrates - insects, molluscs, snails, spiders; these are the truly alien life forms that first colonised the land 300 million years ago. Watching the incredible convolutions that any and all of these species go through just for the simple act of mating beggars belief. It even raises doubts in the most atheistic evolutionist about how natural selection could have worked to create these creatures and their habits.
Nevertheless, from a theistic point of view it is far easier to maintain the evolution and macro-evolution system of creation than the non-evolutionary "all speciation was designed" view. Take the subject of the opening part of last week's Life in the Undergrowth programme - the Giant Mayfly. The Mayfly is of course almost proverbially famous for being short-lived, but in fact it lives for a couple of years - as a larva. When it (and all its mates, the entire population pupate at the same time) reaches its adult stage and sheds its old body, it no longer has a mouth or stomach parts, and has a couple of hours at most of flying time to find a mate and procreate before it runs out of the fat store it has spent two years building up.
On the one hand, why would a Creator make a creature that couldn't eat and continue to live after mating? Perhaps, though, this is the perfectness of the Design! In that case, why do not more creatures, or all creatures expire as soon as they have procreated? Other insects are "made use of" in their adult stage, regulating the ecology of plant life and other insects, but not the mayfly. Was the Designer trying out different ideas in an experimental frame of mind? Is the Designer not perfect?
Another case highlighted in the same edition. Cabbage White butterflies were shown throughout their life cycle. At one point a female wasp came along and, using her sting as a needle and ovipositor, injected some of the caterpillars with her eggs. The gruesome result was shown at the end of the segment, with wasp grubs having "chestbursted" their way out of the caterpillar - which was notably not a lot larger than it had been on injection day (unlike its uninjected colleagues), all its feeding having gone to nourish the baby wasps. I believe that Darwin himself may have initially expressed his delight when realising, upon having deduced the theory of Natural Selection, that it was no longer necessary to indict Almighty God with the crime of having created some seriously spiteful and sadistic habits amongst the creatures of the world. (Though it may have been Bertie Russell).
In any case, the result is the same. A busy-bee God specially creating each individual species is less great than a God who created the evolutionary processes that we see in operation. A God who created the wasp that injects its eggs into baby caterpillars is less great than the loving God of mercy and compassion that would be worthy of worship. (Being an anti-authoritarian myself, I automatically exclude the vengeful, hate-filled God that for all I know might well be the One that exists, if any, from the deserving of worship.)
not at all, but sometimes they do shut up because they don't want to say something that's in there.
If they don't shut up, at least I can say I gave them the link and they'll look stupid for not having read it.
all that at the price of posting a link.
Did you read my question?
For your convenience I'll repost your previous reply to me and my question:
have you ever read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ?
no need to read the whole thing, just each of the evidences. You probably won't understand a word, but at least you can't say there isn't enough evidence.
Ok. Instead of discussing the whole 29 "evidences" for macro evolution, I thought it would be more manageable to concentrate on one of the sites most celebrated examples of transitional fossils (in their words). Example 3 : Human - Apes. I would have posted their picture for convienience but I don't want to get done for plagiarism.
My first question, in your view is that list of skulls from A-N in chronological order?
What do you regard as a new species?
Its a simple enough question.
No, I wanted to know what your point was.
You misunderstood and peaked too soon.
Don't worry your not the first, and you won't be the last.
Then I have no option but to assume you have nothing to offer, and your belief system is based on what is termed as "microevol", and wishful thinking.
Either say what you have to say or don't, but don't try and implicate me as a reason for you not (being able to) demonstrating your belief system as a scientific fact.
It seems that is what you would like to have happened. However, i really don't give a shit, I know what I meant, and I'm quite sure any reasonable, rational and intelligent human would see that.
But you aint sayin shit. You claim this idea is a scientific fact, but you cannot offer one shred of evidence that makes it so.
If ever the analogy of "the emporers new clothes" was suitable, it is most certainly now.
I can't be arsed to read your thread. If you want to back up the claim that macroevol is a scientific fact, you can do so. If you can't, then I assume you only believe it to be a fact, it is as simple as that.
Now don't be stupid.
Either demonstrate why macroevol is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, or go back to insulting christians and creationists, in the hope it masquerades the fact that it is not.
Hi Geoff ,
Just saw you were looking at this thread ...
Don't know if I'm going to comment or not. Macroevolution is as proven as it gets, frankly.
Let's evaluate Dave's little windmill from a different direction.
Early opponents of macroevolution demanded fossil series. We have located them. This is pretty surprising considering the total coverage of the fossil record thus far is abysmal. What more does one want? People do seem to be putting the evidence out well, including that site. Macroevolution is a reality.
Unless Dave's arguing that we can't prove hypotheses from inference? That would level not just scientific thought, frankly, but all thought, everywhere. What could we base our understanding of reality from? How can I be sure that the fridge is keeping my eggs at the appropriate temperature? I'm not actually sitting in the fridge to see. Should I just base my acceptance of this idea on sheer hope or could I conclude that the system might get by without me watching every step? Is the sun up? I can't see it right now - should I run and look? Should I invest in candles? Should I call my boss to tell him that I'm not sure I'm coming in, since I've no idea if the appropriate chemical reactions are occurring in my car? Or should I just turn the key and blame its failure to start the engine on "snow-demons"? I can't observe any of these events.
One could reduce Dave's argument into absurdity in a different way. We could theoretically make our temporal interval smaller and smaller and smaller until every specimen that ever existed was found. What, then, would be Dave's position? That the intervals were too small to constitute reproductively isolated units? I argue that the same rules that convince a jury ought to be good enough for a bloody theory. If macroevolution were OJ Simpson ("red in knife and golf club"), then Orenthal would be behind bars wondering what was so damn important about a pair of sunglasses anyway.
Macroevolution, as a hypothesis, has presented its evidence. It is strong. Unless one wishes to invoke multiple little creations of organisms here and there, then and now, to account for why we find Triceratops skeletons in the Cretaceous, but not the Permian, this effectively at the very least discounts special creation, which in the lack of any other presented thesis would appear to be Dave's argument - that is, biblical literalism.
Has creationist "science" another hypothesis to argue, rather than seeking absentee holes in the fossil record?
PS: Guess I did comment after all.
Whoops - forgot the skunk leaf.
There is a new development in the blasphemy case - I have put the thread in
Did you start reading from A yet? Ophiolite is going to post the B's today...
Instead of picking and choosing what to reply to and saying "nonsense". At least show that you have taken off your bible glasses and bothered to read up on Evolution.
I assume this is directed to me. In which case I would like to ask: Was my question to AlphaWolf not clear? I am trying to debate by asking simple questions, does this present a problem to you?
Separate names with a comma.