does evolution exsist
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
- Status
yes, i know what a racemic mixture is.
maybe you should do some reading to understand why it would be impossible for life to form under such conditions.
while you're at it try to figure out why all but one of lifes protiens are left handed while all carbohydrates are right handed, then put that information together in relation to DNA.
When I see a term that others may not know, I cite a source defining it. In future, I will make that clear in my posts.
lots of theories? glad to hear you say that. that statement alone says science is basicly grasping at straws.
the scientific law of biogenesis has been proven over and over and over by countless thousands of scientists.
in fact there not one single instance of it being shown to be false.
evolution on the other hand has never been shown to be true, despite countless thousands of scientists working on the problem.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Belief in evolution is based purely on preconceived assumptions about nature, and lazy extrapolation.
(And when I say evolution, I mean one animal turning into another animal.)
(And when I say evolution, I mean one animal turning into another animal.)
There are hundreds of sources on the internet alone and even more examples that are examined in various books and magazines (google it and see for yourself). For now, I'll just give you one:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22942303/...-of-allopatric-speciation-in-Darwin-s-finches
For a more accessible summary of the above article, see: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
of course! that explains how birds got their wings.
some organism had an instinct to fly and in a couple of thousnd years did exactly that.
See what I mean? This nonsensical example is the result of your inability to comprehend the actual mechanisms of evolution. Speciation has been observed. Examples like the one I linked to above may only document relatively small changes (that creationists might call microevolution) but they occurred over a very short period of time. What do you think happens over the course of millions of years?
The people who performed the radiometric dating on all the stromatolites that we've found so far. I can't seem to find all their names. It's probably a global conspiracy!
Last edited:
Actually what PE states is that organisms only appear to show relatively rapid jumps in evolution followed by periods of relative stasis, but that this inst necessarily a depiction of the evolutionary process.
However this is due to "evolutionary time" progressing more rapidly than "geological time", and thus when we examine fossil records we tend to only see the coarser detail preserved and not the finescale changes that Darwin's original description of phyletic gradualism predicted.
PE doesn't refute PG, it merely explains why we don't often see PG preserved in the fossil record.
that said there are plenty of fossil sequences that are remarkably complete and do preserve a great deal of the detail of the transitions between clades.
For example we have a tremendously detailed picture of the transitions between reptiles and mammals, ungulates and ceteans, and homosapiens from other apes.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is not how it happened at all.
- 1. Analysis of trace chemicals in the fossils of feathers in the first feathered dinosaurs--the ancestors of modern birds--shows that they were riotously colored. Exaggerated coloration is an element in mating rituals.
- 2. Because of their lightness and the way they are attached to the skin, feathers can be fluffed up to create insulation against cold weather. There are many cases of tropical birds in domestication, escapees from zoos, and even in second-generation feral colonies, easily surviving freezing northern winters.
- 3. Wings can provide "lift" in either direction. Slow-motion photography of modern flightless birds shows that they use their wings to create negative lift. This allows them to run up steep inclines, in some cases greater than 90 degrees, to evade predators.
Grasping at straws is something you do out of desperation. Science is not desperate. It would be more aptly characterized (if you had to characterize it) as curious, rational, meticulous and patient. I'm sure you just love to fantasize about scientists running around in labs frantically performing random experiments in the hopes that they'll be able to come up with anything that will save them from having to believe in God. But that's just not how things really are.
Abiogenesis is simply the study of how life might be able to arise from inorganic matter as a result of natural chemical processes. Already there are reproducible experiments that simulate some of the early conditions on Earth where amino acids (organic matter) are produced as a result of chemical reactions (inorganic matter). No-one has created life in a lab yet of course, but such encouraging results are what motivate scientists to keep trying. It's about curiosity, not God.
first, you don't need to tell me what i know or don't know.
second, the first link contained nothing but ads and unformatted text that was printed over the top of other text making it totally unreadable. the second link was a blog posted yesterday.
third, the finch that was mentioned was not given a scientific name which implies that it was not a different species.
fourth, i am not a creationist which a lot of posters will atest to.
fifth, i am currently without internet access which makes it difficult for me to do any real research.
sixth, there are at least 15 different methods for dating the earh. each of which have their own assumptions.
seventh, you should take this stuff seriously because its our children that are being lied to. yes, lied to.
i stand by my statements that science has never observed life coming from nonlife nor have they witnessed, or demonstrated, that one lifeform can change into another.
Fair enough. Here's a challenge, then, if you're up to it. Explain, in your own words, what the mechanisms of evolution are. You don't have to agree with them of course, but if you can do it accurately it will demonstrate that you at least know something about what you are attacking. If you can't, however, then your criticisms are all straw man fallacies. That's what they all appear to have been thus far, as evidenced by your continued misrepresentations.
Feel free to wait until you've got a more accessible Internet connection.
I'm using Linux and I had similar issues in Opera. The article did however render properly for me in Firefox so I assumed most people wouldn't have any problems. In any case I would suggest trying a different browser. There's a lot of great stuff on http://www.scribd.com so it might be worth it.
The Grants are just being cautious because although the new species is currently reproductively isolated from other species on the island, it's still possible that interbreeding with other species will eventually occur. Even so it has been argued that because they are currently reproductively isolated that they already qualify as a new species, even if they do interbreed with other species at some future point in time.
Regardless of whether or not the new species has yet been given a name (the Grants are calling them "Big Birds" for now) they still serve as an example of speciation because they are functioning as a new species. They share some similarities with other finches, but there are significant differences, and they are only breeding with each other.
Fair enough. Perhaps it might do some good to clarify further.
I can appreciate your predicament. I promise I wont assume anything if you don't reply for a while. If you'd like to pick up this discussion again at a later time it's fine with me
Modern radiometric dating is based on well established scientific principles. That there is more than one way to do it is simply the result of us having discovered more than one way to do it. But they all work on the same basic principle and assuming the methods used are suitable for dating something of that age, are all in very close agreement.
Well now you've gone and got yourself in the unfortunate position of having to cite us some specific examples of scientists who have been caught "lying" about evolution. To suggest that the theory of evolution itself is a lie would require a global conspiracy of epic proportions so you'll have to do better than that.
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
The above definition fits well with the context in which you've used the word.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
It would only require a relatively few amount of people in positions of scientific influence who are in the pockets of the conspirators. Momentum of conformity takes care of the brainwashed millions who tend not to question authority and credentials, and thus rationalize "credible" information into their limited understanding of reality.
Scientific journals, the media, universities.... these are all entities controlled by money. The elite few control the bulk of the money so it's easy to control scientific consensus if you have an agenda. So what could the agenda be? Why would the elites want us to only consider two opposing, extreme options(evolution or creationism)?
Could it be to keep us from the truth, which might be somewhere in the middle of these two paradigms? There's a bigger picture here.
Whether you believe in evolution or creationism, there is a point you reach in your understanding of your chosen discipline where gaps of logic exist, and this is where faith in the paradigm takes over. That's called brainwashing.
Don't think a smart person would fall for these brainwashing tactics? Consider the republican/democratic parties. Consider all the highly intelligent pundits who swear by one of these two obtuse, opposing outlooks on how to run a country. The "intelligent" person "knows" better- that one of these two options is obviously the right one. Consensus says so. Critical thinking is not necessary.
I regret mentioning the word now. Lesson learned.
Wrong. Anyone, anywhere can do evolutionary science. It is not controlled by an elite, unlike religious "truth".
I do not eat green eggs and ham. God could very well be real, but dude Evolution is real . And the earth is a lot older than you think. I don't mean Micro Evolution either, but full blown Evolution, How can you dispute it when we can witness the birth of new stars in the universe. How can you dispute it when you realize the light coming from distant stars is 100s of light years away. Man has always had a problem of thinking he is the center of every thing, Maybe that is why you can't let go of the old thought of thinking we are special . Oh yeah I forgot We are Special. The Earths Greatest Mystery. We can think for our selves.
Stop stalking Me
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
- Status