Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

These are my own words, (not wiki):


You have no scientific authority to be changing definitions.

WTF? "Scientific authority" ya say????? Just what is that, some sorta priesthood in yer religion that wiki occupies?:laugh2:


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Which theory is constantly changing and which theory still fits all observations from thousands of years ago right up to today?

Does yer brain werk?????


try just about every one.

"Facts" change ya say? Theories that are irrufutably proven change? You are one cracked feller: Pete. :laugh2:


science is a compounding process.

Science confirms valid theories. Failed theories need to change and morph into new ones. Facts are facts as I said you would know a fact from yer arse. :laugh2:


darwin improved on what he knew to form his ideas and now we improve on darwin's to make modern evolution theory.

A Leader in yer religion eh?


Einstein has been dead for almost 60 years. He was a physicist not a biologist, he has no authority in the matter.

Yeah his theories still are valid, such a stoooopid feller eh?What's with this "authority chit? :laugh2:


Michael Behe is a fringe scientist who hasn't written an article in over a decade. Not even his university supports him.

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community,[3][4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Most belivers get the grants fer more study in universities. Behe is a real hero who committed heresy in the eyes of those true believers.


Let me guess, you're going to cry conspiracy. So predictable.

Nope Religion. Yer a true believer blinded by faith. I understand science, (real science which is not supposed to be biased), and I also understand faith.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
You obviously can't sort out what is fact from yer arse.

To me Jesus Christ is a fact. I acknowledge freely that it is based upon my personal faith not science, even though science supports ID, (not the nature of the Designer).


Most of your arguments are based off opinion or ad hominem.

Yers are from religion which blinds ya sooooo much ya can't see the logic of my position.



Good thing science doesn't work that way or we'd still be in the stone age.

Nope yer religion has perverted science, butt science will eventually set us free some day. As I have said. It takes far more faith ta believe in the theory you call a "fact".

[pete311]

This debate is going to die unless you have actual responses to my replies. The above is a collection of my "religion", conspiracies and "chit". awesome. I have nothing to add until PmP replies.

[PostmodernProphet]

Metamorphosis is not evolution. Again the caterpillar is the larvae stage of the butterfly.

good lord......I'm through with you.....I'm trying to have a serious discussion about the implications of evolutionary theory and you still think I am confusing evolution with metamorphosis.....again, all you do is make some off topic comment and paste something you obviously do not understand yourself.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope yer religion has perverted science, butt science will eventually set us free some day. As I have said. It takes far more faith ta believe in the theory you call a "fact".

/grins....if science is a religion, Pete is a lapsed believer who only shows up for holidays......

[pete311]

good lord......I'm through with you.....I'm trying to have a serious discussion about the implications of evolutionary theory

Maybe that is a sign of your communication skills. I gave you a reasonable answer to "why does it continue to spend a portion of its life as a crawling creature". If it wasn't sufficient I again am confused what you are asking for.

[OldMercsRule]

This debate is going to die unless you have actual responses to my replies.

Your debate style is to pull wiki quotes et al and try to fine tune semantics about yer religion. Science is not as politicaly correct as you discribe.

Most theories start where the hypothesis attempts to describe observation. The Greeks, Chinese and Persans obsevered similarities in life and theorized that life evolved from organism to organism.

That particular part of the theory still has merrit.

As mankind learned from observation the theory obviously didn't explain the source, (the fundamental flaw from the onset), and also lacked a cohesive verifiable mechanism to develope new organisms from earlier ones, (the second major flaw).

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

The origin of life. (By design or random occurance), is fundamental to the success or failure of both very old competing theories no matter ho you and Missile dance with the written quotes in wiki and elsewhere of fellow believers.

The mechanism of change is the second profound weakness that SCIENCE, (advances in cellular technology has shown). Modificantions of Darwin still don't fit all observations or explain where life came from. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory in flux.


The above is a collection of my "religion", conspiracies and "chit". awesome. I have nothing to add until PmP replies.

Look in the mirror yer a true believer.

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe that is a sign of your communication skills. I gave you a reasonable answer to "why does it continue to spend a portion of its life as a crawling creature". If it wasn't sufficient I again am confused what you are asking for.

you seem incapable of wrapping your mind around the questions of "why?"......as for your response, it should be obvious that since the two stages of the creature do not exist simultaneously, it never "competes with itself", regardless of form......thus your response is nonsensical.....

[pete311]

you seem incapable of wrapping your mind around the questions of "why?"......as for your response, it should be obvious that since the two stages of the creature do not exist simultaneously, it never "competes with itself", regardless of form......thus your response is nonsensical.....

It seems nonsensical only because you've misread the quote. It does not "competes with itself". That quote does not exist in my quote that I posted. The quote is saying that because the caterpillar has two distinct stages, each stage can coexist in the same space without competing against each other. Not itself. The ecosystem can then support twice as many of the same species.

[Missileman]

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.


Please provide a link where science has disproven natural selection.

[PostmodernProphet]

It seems nonsensical only because you've misread the quote. It does not "competes with itself". That quote does not exist in my quote that I posted. The quote is saying that because the caterpillar has two distinct stages, each stage can coexist in the same space without competing against each other. Not itself. The ecosystem can then support twice as many of the same species.

omigorsh......no, it can't... if there are sufficient leaves to feed X number of caterpillars there can only be X number of caterpillars....the fact that they later turn into butterflies doesn't mean they didn't eat the same number of leaves......

[pete311]

Look in the mirror yer a true believer.

Any time I am wrong I will admit it. If the facts stop making sense and experts start to move in a different direction, so will I. You however will not, because you are deluded.

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute focused, independent thought for nebulous group-think. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

[OldMercsRule]

Please provide a link where science has disproven natural selection.


Yer fellow true believer: Pete gave this 17 year old cite, to try to show how yer precious religion has morphed from Darwin's kindergarten kool aid that you tend ta cornsume. There are other more recent cites if you care to go back and review my posts in this thread.

You need to hit the books yerself as I already know yer religion is under serious stress and don't need to do yer homewerk for ya as yer obviously not readin' the cites in me posts.

My point still stands: Evolution is a very old theory that fails to properly fit observations. It is not irrufutably proven nor is it a "fact".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]



Many people do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists.

The idea that life on Earth has evolved was widely discussed in Europe in the late 1700's and the early part of the last century. In 1859 Charles Darwin supplied a mechanism, namely natural selection, that could explain how evolution occurs. Darwin's theory of natural selection helped to convince most people that life has evolved and this point has not been seriously challenged in the past one hundred and thirty years.

It is important to note that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" did two things. It summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

#1 It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
#2 It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
#3 It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.


In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.
The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

[OldMercsRule]

Any time I am wrong I will admit it. If the facts stop making sense and experts start to move in a different direction, so will I. You however will not, because you are deluded.

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute focused, independent thought for nebulous group-think. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

N' you look down yer nose at me while calling a theory in flux a "fact". :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Maybe you should consider the log in yer own eye before ya show me the speck in mine, eh: Einstein?

[PostmodernProphet]

Any time I am wrong I will admit it. If the facts stop making sense and experts start to move in a different direction, so will I. You however will not, because you are deluded.

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute focused, independent thought for nebulous group-think. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

lol....contrast this
"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute focused, independent thought for nebulous group-think. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe."

with this
"If the facts stop making sense and experts start to move in a different direction, so will I."

and tell me if you see any parallels......

[Missileman]

Yer fellow true believer: Pete gave this 17 year old cite, to try to show how yer precious religion has morphed from Darwin's kindergarten kool aid that you tend ta cornsume. There are other more recent cites if you care to go back and review my posts in this thread.

You need to hit the books yerself as I already know yer religion is under serious stress and don't need to do yer homewerk for ya as yer obviously not readin' the cites in me posts.

My point still stands: Evolution is a very old theory that fails to properly fit observations. It is not irrufutably proven nor is it a "fact".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]



Many people do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists.

The idea that life on Earth has evolved was widely discussed in Europe in the late 1700's and the early part of the last century. In 1859 Charles Darwin supplied a mechanism, namely natural selection, that could explain how evolution occurs. Darwin's theory of natural selection helped to convince most people that life has evolved and this point has not been seriously challenged in the past one hundred and thirty years.

It is important to note that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" did two things. It summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

#1 It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
#2 It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
#3 It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.


In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.
The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

This link clearly states that natural selection is still a recognized mechanism of evolution. Do you have a link that supports your claim or were you spouting bullshit?

[OldMercsRule]

This link clearly states that natural selection is still a recognized mechanism of evolution. Do you have a link that supports your claim or were you spouting bullshit?

I linked in prior posts hit the books.

[Missileman]

I linked in prior posts hit the books.

I'll take this as an admission you were just spouting unsubstantiated bullshit.

[OldMercsRule]

;)
I'll take this as an admission you were just spouting unsubstantiated bullshit.


Nope yer a lazy researcher and don't read cites in my posts. ;)

[Missileman]

;)


Nope yer a lazy researcher and don't read cites in my posts. ;)

NONE of your posts contain a link to science disproving natural selection because it hasn't happened. Not that a liar such as yourself will admit it.

[OldMercsRule]

oops not ready yet

[Missileman]

oops not ready yet

That hasn't stopped you so far in this thread...delay is NOT going to improve your chances of posting an honest, intelligent response.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Nope yer a lazy researcher and don't read cites in my posts


NONE of your posts contain a link to science disproving natural selection because it hasn't happened. Not that a liar such as yourself will admit it.

Hmmmmm not only are ya a lazy researcher butt yer lazy in yer quotes as well. Here is exactly what I said:



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Most theories start where the hypothesis attempts to describe observation. The Greeks, Chinese and Persans obsevered similarities in life and theorized that life evolved from organism to organism.

That particular part of the theory still has merrit.

As mankind learned from observation the theory obviously didn't explain the source, (the fundamental flaw from the onset), and also lacked a cohesive verifiable mechanism to develope new organisms from earlier ones, (the second major flaw).

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

The origin of life. (By design or random occurance), is fundamental to the success or failure of both very old competing theories no matter ho you and Missile dance with the written quotes in wiki and elsewhere of fellow believers.

The mechanism of change is the second profound weakness that SCIENCE, (advances in cellular technology has shown). Modificantions of Darwin still don't fit all observations or explain where life came from. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory in flux.


Originally Posted by Missileman
Please provide a link where science has disproven natural selection.

Typical of yer lazy debate style: ya missquoted me as is obvious from a review of what I said, (directly preceding yer false characterization).

N' now yer gettin' huffy n' calling me names based on yer own words not mine. What a clown. :laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

Hmmmmm not only are ya a lazy researcher butt yer lazy in yer quotes as well. Here is exactly what I said:





Typical of yer lazy debate style: ya missquoted me as is obvious from a review of what I said, (directly preceding yer false characterization).

N' now yer gettin' huffy n' calling me names based on yer own words not mine. What a clown. :laugh2::laugh2:

What I am quoting:


Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival. <---AKA Natural Selection


Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components

Again...post a link where science has disproven natural selection as you claim.

[OldMercsRule]

What I am quoting:

<---AKA Natural Selection



Again...post a link where science has disproven natural selection as you claim.

Yer bein' lazy. I never said what you claimed I said.

[Missileman]

Yer bein' lazy. I never said what you claimed I said.

You've posted it twice now.

[OldMercsRule]

You've posted it twice now.

You have miss quoted me more then that. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

You have miss quoted me more then that. :laugh2:

I've quoted you word for word and in context...

[OldMercsRule]

I've quoted you word for word and in context...

Ya make chit up as yer doin' now. :laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

Ya make chit up as yer doin' now. :laugh2::laugh2:

Really? Am I mis-quoting you when I post that you wrote:


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

Maybe you're confused. The first line in this quote is a simple explanation of evolution through natural selection. You claim in the next line that Darwin's proposal (evolution through natural selection) has been disproven by science.

This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. You aren't familiar enough with the theory of evolution to recognize the first line is a simple explanation for evolution through natural selection AND posted the second line through an act of ignorance.

or

2. You ARE aware of what the first line is AND you have evidence that science has disproven natural selection as you claim in the second line.

Which is it?

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Ya make chit up as yer doin' now.



Really? Am I mis-quoting you when I post that you wrote:


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.


Maybe you're confused. The first line in this quote is a simple explanation


If ya don't get current ideas about "evolution" then do ya: Clown? Yer buddy n' fellow true believer: Pete dug out this old quote I reposted fer ya a few posts back. You musta been tooooooo lazy ta read it. Try again.

"Many people, (Like Missile) do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists."

"However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist, (or dumber like Missile) because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. (Missile certainly is superficial if nothing else) It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient." (fer dumbers)

"During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html



of evolution through natural selection. You claim in the next line that Darwin's proposal (evolution through natural selection) has been disproven by science.

This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. You aren't familiar enough with the theory of evolution to recognize the first line is a simple explanation for evolution through natural selection AND posted the second line through an act of ignorance.

or

2. You ARE aware of what the first line is AND you have evidence that science has disproven natural selection as you claim in the second line.

Which is it?

or

3. You missquoted me by attampting ta plug in yer pedestrian kindergarten understanding of evolution, (yer religion), where I never stated "natural selection" was disproven. Re read the above statement (which I stand behind). Not yer rephrase of what I said.

Cites in this thread back up my statement as well n' you are to much of a lazy clown to read them. :laugh2:

[cat slave]

What an interesting thread.

With all due respect to all and no offense intended to anyone, I personally
buy into the idea of "ancient aliens", Von Dani ken etc.

As we learn (which is a minute amount) how vast and unfathomable the universe is I just believe we are not the epitome of life or design...comparatively speaking that is.

The wonderful array of animals...well, I dont know about them but Im
glad we are here now and not living with dinosaurs.

[Missileman]

If ya don't get current ideas about "evolution" then do ya: Clown? Yer buddy n' fellow true believer: Pete dug out this old quote I reposted fer ya a few posts back. You musta been tooooooo lazy ta read it. Try again.

"Many people, (Like Missile) do not understand current ideas about evolution. The following is a brief summary of the modern consensus among evolutionary biologists."

"However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist, (or dumber like Missile) because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. (Missile certainly is superficial if nothing else) It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient." (fer dumbers)

"During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html




or

3. You missquoted me by attampting ta plug in yer pedestrian kindergarten understanding of evolution, (yer religion), where I never stated "natural selection" was disproven. Re read the above statement (which I stand behind). Not yer rephrase of what I said.

Cites in this thread back up my statement as well n' you are to much of a lazy clown to read them. :laugh2:

You can keep running around in circles if you want, but it's irrefutable that I quoted what you wrote you word for word and in context. It is irrefutable that due to context you were referring to :


Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

when you wrote:


Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

Darwin's proposed "mechanism" for evolution IS NATURAL SELECTION.

If you are going to deny that you said science has disproven it, then it's irrefutable that the only person mis-quoting you is YOU...jackass!

[Missileman]

What an interesting thread.

With all due respect to all and no offense intended to anyone, I personally
buy into the idea of "ancient aliens", Von Dani ken etc.

As we learn (which is a minute amount) how vast and unfathomable the universe is I just believe we are not the epitome of life or design...comparatively speaking that is.

The wonderful array of animals...well, I dont know about them but Im
glad we are here now and not living with dinosaurs.

Some scientists are toying with the idea that all life may have come perilously close to extinction a couple times billions of years ago and that the slate was wiped clean but for some bacteria trapped in salt crystals.

[OldMercsRule]

You can keep running around in circles if you want, but it's irrefutable that I quoted what you wrote you word for word and in context. It is irrefutable that due to context you were referring to :


Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where benifitual changes resulted in better chance of survival.

when you wrote:


Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

Darwin's proposed "mechanism" for evolution IS NATURAL SELECTION.

Those are YOUR WORDS: not mine, n' the bold doesn't change that fact.


If you are going to deny that you said science has disproven it, then it's irrefutable that the only person mis-quoting you is YOU...jackass!

I deny that "natural selection" was the specific mechanism in my statement: clown. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

What an interesting thread.

With all due respect to all and no offense intended to anyone, I personally
buy into the idea of "ancient aliens", Von Dani ken etc.

None taken.

The discovery of chunks of Mars on Antartica, and the knowledge that bacteria can survive extremes, (including extremes in space) as learned from NASA trips back and forth with unintentional viral and bacterial specimens that survived re-entry, shows that life could transfer from one place in the universe to another life friendly place, (like earth).


As we learn (which is a minute amount) how vast and unfathomable the universe is I just believe we are not the epitome of life or design...comparatively speaking that is.

I dunno that I could say that I "believe" what ya just said, butt: I accept the possibility, which doesn't cornflict with my belief in the fact that Jesus could have designed things that way as an all powerful GOD.

That is the whole point of my debate: nothing is "irrefutably" proven. The mechanisms of theories are in flux, (except Inteligent Design), which still fits all we see.

God may chose to let us see his face again prior to our death, or maybe not.


The wonderful array of animals...well, I dont know about them but Im glad we are here now and not living with dinosaurs.

10-4 :D:D

[Missileman]

Those are YOUR WORDS: not mine, n' the bold doesn't change that fact.



I deny that "natural selection" was the specific mechanism in my statement: clown. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Then perhaps you might supply some other mechanism of evolution that was proposed by Darwin.

[OldMercsRule]

Your debate style is to pull wiki quotes et al and try to fine tune semantics about yer religion. Science is not as politicaly correct as you discribe.

Most theories start where the hypothesis attempts to describe observation. The Greeks, Chinese and Persans obsevered similarities in life and theorized that life evolved from organism to organism.

That particular part of the theory still has merrit.

As mankind learned from observation the theory obviously didn't explain the source, (the fundamental flaw from the onset), and also lacked a cohesive verifiable mechanism to develope new organisms from earlier ones, (the second major flaw).

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where beneficial changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

The origin of life. (By design or random occurance), is fundamental to the success or failure of both very old competing theories no matter how you and Missile dance with the written quotes in wiki and elsewhere of fellow believers.

The mechanism of change is the second profound weakness that SCIENCE, (advances in cellular technology has shown). Modificantions of Darwin still don't fit all observations or explain where life came from. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory in flux.



Look in the mirror yer a true believer.

Read the above post that seems to have twisted yer panties into a big bunch, pay attention to the red part :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Read the above post that seems to have twisted yer panties into a big bunch, pay attention to the red part :laugh2:

That's part of the mechanism commonly known as natural selection...ta hell with the color...pay attention to the words.

[OldMercsRule]

That's part of the mechanism commonly known as

Only "commonly known" by true believers who are dumbers n' can't read plain English.


natural selection

Yer words not mine.


...ta hell with the color...pay attention to the words.

Good advice: clown. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Only "commonly known" by true believers who are dumbers n' can't read plain English.



Yer words not mine.

No fuckhead...Darwin's words.

[OldMercsRule]

No fuckhead...Darwin's words.

I didn't use Darwin's words in my claim you did: clown.



Yer brain is stuck eh?



Crawl outa kindergarten take yer thumb outa yer mouth n' hit the books. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:



honk honk



Pffffffffffft

[Little Dragon]

Natural selection is part of current evolution theory. They found other mechanisms which aid evolution. This is all part of a single theory. More than just one factor. This being said, natural selection has not been disproven. Evolution theory has just had some things added to it. Does this clear anything up?

Oh and by the way, Merc, you're spelling but wrong. Butt refers to one's rear. Thought you'd like to know :)

[Missileman]

I didn't use Darwin's words in my claim you did: clown.



You referenced Darwin's theory, which is evolution through natural selection. Is your refusal to stand by your own statement an indication that you think Darwin's theory is as scientifically valid today as when he proposed it?

[OldMercsRule]

Natural selection is part of current evolution theory.

Ya think???? :D


They found other mechanisms which aid evolution.

Nawh the true belivers jus' made up more chit to fit their pre cornceived notions. (I know I miss-spelled chit, n' I like corn toooooo, [from time to time]) ;) As the observational theory/religion of evolution was a failing to fit observations after few thousand years or soooo. The religion of evolution is a big success as dumbers like Missile clearly demonstrate. Are you a true believer toooooo? :eek:


This is all part of a single theory.

Nope it is much more then jus' a theory it is a religion. Takes far more faith then most religions do, BTW. :D


More than just one factor.

Ya think?????? ;)


This being said, natural selection has not been disproven.

Never said it was. Missile tries ta put those werds in me mouth. :)


Evolution theory has just had some things added to it.

Yup the religion needs ta add things since it is a observational based theory that doesn't fit observations.


Does this clear anything up?

Nope...... butt thanks fer the post, n' welcome to Debate Policy!!!


Oh and by the way, Merc, you're spelling but wrong. Butt refers to one's rear.

Ya mean me arse????? :D:D Thanks n' you can call me Murky.


Thought you'd like to know :)

I like ta know a few things so people don't think I'm a real dumber stuck on stooooooooooopid, like me bud: Missile.;)

[OldMercsRule]

You referenced Darwin's theory, which is evolution through natural selection. Is your refusal to stand by your own statement an indication that you think Darwin's theory is as scientifically valid today as when he proposed it?

I stand by me own statements: clown.

I jus' don't stand by yers!!! :laugh2::laugh2:

[HappyCamperKitteh]

That was an interesting video. The theory of evolution is getting closer and closer to being fact, I'd say. I don't know if this particular video does just that, but it's still a nice bit of info. I kind of like to view the theory of evolution like the evolution of technology -- new and progressive inventions coming up based on older inventions.

Computers, Internet, network virtualization, refrigeration, thermostat heating and so on... It all stems from somewhere.

[OldMercsRule]

That was an interesting video.

Yes it was.


The theory of evolution is getting closer and closer to being fact, I'd say.

Nawh it is still a theory that needs periodic revision, (as many theories do). The religious nature of this particular theory, as demonstrated by the video and some who have posted on this thread is the real objectivity problem faced by science (and those who get grants to further work) with regard to evolution. ;)


I don't know if this particular video does just that, but it's still a nice bit of info. I kind of like to view the theory of evolution like the evolution of technology -- new and progressive inventions coming up based on older inventions.

Computers, Internet, network virtualization, refrigeration, thermostat heating and so on... It all stems from somewhere.

You seem to have a healthy attitude about evolution.

BTW, welcome to Debate Policy

[Little Dragon]

See Murky, part of the problem is that many people don't understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is different than the common use meaning of theory. What you are referring to is a hypothesis. In the sciences, a theory is the highest achievement, something that only happens when a hypothesis is validated. Theories are how science explains facts. Details of how evolution occur may change with new evidence. And some details may be disputed like whether a fossil is more one thing than another, however the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable. The only reason to avoid accepting it is a desperate clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.

Why is it so important to cling to a literal interpretation of the creation story? Couldn't it be metaphorical? Why must belief about god be so narrow?

[OldMercsRule]

See Murky, part of the problem is that many people don't understand what a scientific theory is.

I may only have one functional brain cell, butt: I fully understand the use of semantics to elevate one's argument in debate.


A scientific theory is different than the common use meaning of theory.

Only when true believers need semantics to defend a hypothisis based observational theory that doesn't fit unfolding observations and needs constant adjustment over thousands of years.


What you are referring to is a hypothesis.

Most theories start with a hypothesis Little Dragon.


In the sciences, a theory is the highest achievement, something that only happens when a hypothesis is validated.

Nope, a theory can start with a hypothesis if the hypothesis fits all observations over time it can become a valid theory, and remain so until observations disprove said theory requiring a modification of the underlying hypothesis.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

Science Dictionary
theory (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


Theories are how science explains facts.

Nope. Theories based on observations, (which can misslead from time to time and are subject to change with advances in observational techniques), explain OBSERVATIONS not FACTS. Yer lettin' the dominant religion of the theory of evolution cloud yer arguments here: Little Dragon.


Details of how evolution occur may change with new evidence. And some details may be disputed like whether a fossil is more one thing than another, however the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable.

I dissagree.

Evolution is likely IMHO, and does fit many observations, (especially intra species range of variation in dogs horses and bacteria), ta name a few instances. Inter species jumps, (where bacteria become horses or some such), is and has been the major challange that the video shows interesting recent observations in sequencing which may help validate some sort of yet unspecified mechanism for evolution.

The mechanism of evolution is not yet understood and is subject to frequent change.

Without a valid proven mechanism evolution is a very fragile theory.

ID is one possible mechanism (that I happen to have unscientific personal faith in), and ID does IN FACT fit all observations up to the present point in time of the existance of life, and the existance of the universe.

I am not debating the nature of God here.


The only reason to avoid accepting it is a desperate clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.

Where did I cling "to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story"? You can't read my mind, just my words which I try to choose carefully when I debate. Since I only have one functional brain cell I would give up mind reading: period.

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.


Why is it so important to cling to a literal interpretation of the creation story? Couldn't it be metaphorical? Why must belief about god be so narrow?

That is the second time you said that.

Please produce a post where I said that.

I feel my particular belief in Christ, (same God as the God of Abraham), is in fact broad. I don't believe in Allah, Buddha, Brahms, Vishnu, or Shiva.

[Missileman]

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.
[/COLOR]

ID is at best a religious hypothesis...it sure as hell isn't a valid scientific theory. It hasn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support it's conclusion. It is nothing more than a declaration that an observation of complexity is proof that it was designed...more specifically, designed by the Christian god. It offers no proof of the existence of this designer, nor any proof that these structures can't occur naturally. Not a single serial number, or model number, no blueprints or schematics, no eyeball machine, not a single indication has been discovered that a designer was involved at all.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.


ID is at best a religious hypothesis...it sure as hell isn't a valid scientific theory.

Semantics.



It hasn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support it's conclusion.

Every bit of evidence supports it.



It is nothing more than a declaration that an observation of complexity is proof that it was designed.

The work we see everywhere we look is best explained by design.

The theory of chaos, and the complexity we see in particle physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, cosmology, and life forms all point to design. Impossible from random chaos.

Intelligent design thus far does in fact fit observations over a cornsiderable period of time and a substantial growth of observational technology; as should any good and valid theory.


more specifically, designed by the Christian god.

As to the nature of God I believe it is Jesus via my own faith, butt: that is not part of this debate and the Christian God is clearly not provable unless Jesus allows us to prove the nature of God.


It offers no proof of the existence of this designer, nor any proof that these structures can't occur naturally.

There are theories that the structures we observe everywhere we look can not occur "naturally" without design.


Not a single serial number, or model number, no blueprints or schematics, no eyeball machine, not a single indication has been discovered that a designer was involved at all.

Only those blinded by their own religion can't see the work of the maker.

[Little Dragon]

If you don't do your homework and actually find out how those complex structures came to be naturally, then you have no room to speak, Murky. You are incredibly ignorant on the subject of evolution and without excuse. The information to understand it is out there, but you refuse to look at it because you are clinging too strongly to your belief.

The complexity argument has been dealt with. Do some research and maybe you'd understand how it could have happened naturally. Believe it or not, science has answered these things.

And claiming evolution doesn't fit observations is another way you show your ignorance. Evolution fits the observations quite well actually. We can even trace ancestry through DNA, seeing a match among different species up until they split. It fits the observation/evidence of comarative anatomy, paleontology (we even have found a number of transitional fossils), geological distribution, comparative physiology and biochemistry among others.

You already accept the fundamentals of evolution (variation, inheritance, selection, time), you just refuse to accept what it leads to over deep time. It's time to wake up and join the modern world! You could even keep your belief in god, it would only change in one detail.

[OldMercsRule]

If you don't do your homework and actually find out how those complex structures came to be naturally, then you have no room to speak, Murky.

The complexity we now observe in every area we look has not been explained in a unified theory and validated Little Dragon.

Many have tried over thousands of years and so far they have failed.

BTW: I can "speak" when I wanna speak and there is plenty of "room" for my discourse. Your argument about semantics failed now yer lecturing me that I can't speak and to do "home work"; do your own homework.


You are incredibly ignorant on the subject of evolution and without excuse.

Hmmm...... first ya try look down yer nose semantic tricks, (that fail), then haughty lectures about yer opinion that I have "no room to speak" in the presence of yer holiness, and the need to do "homework" to yer snarky standards, and now ya think ya can read me single functional brain cell and determine I'm "incredibly ignorant" of yer religion. How nice. BTW so far: FAIL :lame2:


The information to understand it is out there, but you refuse to look at it because you are clinging too strongly to your belief.

Produce yer so called "information". :link:


The complexity argument has been dealt with.

OH? Jus' 'cause you say so? Prove it. :link:


Do some research and maybe you'd understand how it could have happened naturally.

Yer not my momma. Yer makin' the claims; prove 'em! :link:


Believe it or not, science has answered these things.

Then it should be very easy fer such a smart feller like you to show an ignorant person such as me the light. Let's see what ya have. Maybe I will worship evolution like you eh? :link:


And claiming evolution doesn't fit observations is another way you show your ignorance.

Nope it is the truth.


Evolution fits the observations quite well actually.

Show me. :link:


We can even trace ancestry through DNA, seeing a match among different species up until they split.

Let's see the proof. :link:


It fits the observation/evidence of comarative anatomy, paleontology (we even have found a number of transitional fossils), geological distribution, comparative physiology and biochemistry among others.

I'm waiting........


You already accept the fundamentals of evolution (variation, inheritance, selection, time), you just refuse to accept what it leads to over deep time.

Random one at a time mutations can't produce the complexity we observe. Where did life originate?????? :link:


It's time to wake up and join the modern world!

I'm awake.


You could even keep your belief in god, it would only change in one detail.

:eek:

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by Little Dragon
The only reason to avoid accepting it is a desperate clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.



Where did I cling "to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story"? You can't read my mind, just my words which I try to choose carefully when I debate. Since I only have one functional brain cell I would give up mind reading: period.

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.




Originally Posted by Little Dragon
Why is it so important to cling to a literal interpretation of the creation story? Couldn't it be metaphorical? Why must belief about god be so narrow?

That is the second time you said that.

Please produce a post where I said that.

I feel my particular belief in Christ, (same God as the God of Abraham), is in fact broad. I don't believe in Allah, Buddha, Brahms, Vishnu, or Shiva.

[Little Dragon]

I wanted to post links but unfortunately this site doesn't allow it until you have 5 posts. Though nothing is stopping you from researching evolution.

Sorry I made the erronous assumption about you believing the creation story. Usually, as far as I know anyway, people who reject evolution do so because they feel they must adhere strickly to a literal bible interpretation.

Also, I.D. is not a theory, but a religious hypothesis-really it's just a religious belief. And it is untestable. It's like saying invisible, completely undetectable fairies help plants grow and that fits observations since we can't understand how they grow.

[OldMercsRule]

I wanted to post links but unfortunately this site doesn't allow it until you have 5 posts. Though nothing is stopping you from researching evolution.

Post another post and do your lincs. We can then debate the finer points of what you find to support your position.

Why would I dig up your arguments for you??? That is preposterous if you think fer a nano second or two.

I have researched the subject and know enough to be dangerous to your stated positions, (although I'm no scientist), and have already responded to similar positions that you now raise in this very thread. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that.

I am willing to defend my positions again, and you may have a better or maybe different take then the true believers I, (and PostmodernProfit), have dispensed with thus far.

I may have only one functional brain cell, butt: it is more then sufficient to defend my premis that evolution in not irrefutably proven. In any way shape or form. It is a theory that needs periodic modification: no more no less.

Evolution has had to be significantly revised repeatedly since the Greeks, Pursians, Chinese et al proposed it based upon observation. Darwin's version gained the most popularity and gained true believers who now dominate evolution theory and ignore evidence in a very unscientific way. The theory has had significant revisions since Darwin due to the weak mechanism that does not fit modern observation, (and the theory has been an observational one from the onset).


Sorry I made the erronous assumption about you believing the creation story.

Accepted, let's move on.

I'm a believer in Jesus Christ butt: not a literal bible thumper like Snowman and possibly PostmodernProfit seem to be. I have some problems with the old book, butt: it doesn't affect my belief in Christ as details like that really are not important to believers who leave the judgement in such matters to God, (as I do).

The nature of the Intelligent Designer is not debatable or provable as it is not a matter of fact it is a matter of faith. ( I repeat: the nature of the designer is moot); not the theory that ID is the mechanism and viable explanation for a valid unified theory.



Usually, as far as I know anyway, people who reject evolution do so because they feel they must adhere strickly to a literal bible interpretation.

Guess I'm not usual.

Many cosmologists accept ID, some are Jews some Christian, and most of the bright stars are named with Arabic names as Islamic schollars dominated astronomy up to the 15th century give or take.


Also, I.D. is not a theory, but a religious hypothesis-really it's just a religious belief.

Nope. It is a viable theoritical explanation for the order we observe in all things. Random chaos begats chaos not the well ordered universe we see in ever increasing detail in a macro and micro sense, (to include life on this planet).


And it is untestable.

Many theories are untestable. Ya don't think we can hold a black hole in our hands do ya?

Many aspects of Einstien's relativity are untestable, and many aspects that have now been tested took many years for us to develope a method to test, (as time slowing down with significant speed that was tested in a moon shot). The obvious intricate order we see offers proof of design unless we find a way to explain order from random chaos which we have not: no matter what you say.


It's like saying invisible, completely undetectable fairies help plants grow and that fits observations since we can't understand how they grow.

We do understand how plants grow. The nature of God or as the evolution true believers state: the spaghetti monster et al is moot to this debate. The debate is over whether evolution is irrufutably proven, (which it clearly is not).

ID is a valid potential explanation as a unification theory: like it or not.

[Missileman]

Evolution has had to be significantly revised repeatedly since the Greeks, Pursians, Chinese et al proposed it based upon observation. Darwin's version gained the most popularity and gained true believers who now dominate evolution theory and ignore evidence in a very unscientific way. The theory has had significant revisions since Darwin due to the weak mechanism that does not fit modern observation, (and the theory has been an observational one from the onset).

Baloney...they do however ignore UNSCIENTIFIC evidence. Declarations by IDers are unscientific and not evidence at all.





The nature of the Intelligent Designer is not debatable or provable as it is not a matter of fact it is a matter of faith. ( I repeat: the nature of the designer is moot); not the theory that ID is the mechanism and viable explanation for a valid unified theory.

This is where your argument is and will always remain as substantial as a flea fart. The establishment of the existence of the designer is prerequisite to making claims of design. If there is no designer then, despite your observations, there is no design.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Evolution has had to be significantly revised repeatedly since the Greeks, Pursians, Chinese et al proposed it based upon observation. Darwin's version gained the most popularity and gained true believers who now dominate evolution theory and ignore evidence in a very unscientific way. The theory has had significant revisions since Darwin due to the weak mechanism that does not fit modern observation, (and the theory has been an observational one from the onset).


Baloney...they do however ignore UNSCIENTIFIC evidence.

Evidence is evidence: Balogna boy. Semantic games don't werk with me.

The obvious complex and intricate order observed everywhere with increasing clarity as observation technology progresses is a huge contrast to chaos. The order came from somewhere, and that is the basis of the theory.

Real science is unbiased and open to any possibility, (NOT JUST CONVENIENT POSSIBILITIES THAT LEND THEMSELVES TO PEDESTRIAN VERIFICATION), and the true believers of evolution are on a mission to deny design which clearly is a valid theory and remains so until a valid unification theory that explains the order and incredible complexity from random chaos is presented as an alternative, which has not happened.


Declarations by IDers are unscientific and not evidence at all.

Observations are evidence Balogna Boy. Semantics don't werk.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
The nature of the Intelligent Designer is not debatable or provable as it is not a matter of fact it is a matter of faith. ( I repeat: the nature of the designer is moot); not the theory that ID is the mechanism and viable explanation for a valid unified theory.


This is where your argument is and will always remain as substantial as a flea fart.

:D Now that is some funny chit. LOL


The establishment of the existence of the designer is prerequisite to making claims of design.

Then why can't evolution explain where life came from? As I've said it takes much more faith to be a true believer in evolution then ID.

The designer could be an everpresent, omniscient, omnipotent constant............... (as the Jesus Christ I believe in surely is).

There in the begening........ there all the time... through out time........... there at the end of time.........


If there is no designer then, despite your observations, there is no design.

There is a designer: Balogna Boy. :D ;)

[Little Dragon]

Why would I dig up your arguments for you??? That is preposterous if you think fer a nano second or two.


You're the one who has a problem accepting established science. If you don't understand something, you should research (and not on creationist websites) before claiming it to be wrong. You should have taken it upon yourself to learn about what you don't understand. Some may volunteer their time to try to point things out to you, but it's really not their responsibility, it's yours.



I have researched the subject and know enough to be dangerous to your stated positions, (although I'm no scientist), and have already responded to similar positions that you now raise in this very thread. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that.


I find that odd, if you really had researched it like you say. You must not have done much research or you got it all from creationist websites.




I may have only one functional brain cell, butt: it is more then sufficient to defend my premis that evolution in not irrefutably proven. In any way shape or form. It is a theory that needs periodic modification: no more no less.


I'll give you that nothing in science is actually proven, and theories are always open to revision. However, if we change some aspect of gravitation theory, will gravity disappear? Evolution is a process that has been observed, and has left a rather impressive trail of evidence behind.



Evolution has had to be significantly revised repeatedly since the Greeks, Pursians, Chinese et al proposed it based upon observation. Darwin's version gained the most popularity and gained true believers who now dominate evolution theory and ignore evidence in a very unscientific way. The theory has had significant revisions since Darwin due to the weak mechanism that does not fit modern observation, (and the theory has been an observational one from the onset).


The only people ignoring evidence are creationists! If scientists are ignoring evidence, how has the theory been revised at all? How do they have so much detailed information about what they observe? I'd call that looking at the evidence. And the evidence continues to support evolution. And to make the attempt at clearing something up yet again, that evolution is a process which occurs (it's even been observed in the lab) is a fact, how it occurs or other details like what a fossil is can be revised.




Many cosmologists accept ID, some are Jews some Christian, and most of the bright stars are named with Arabic names as Islamic schollars dominated astronomy up to the 15th century give or take.[/COLOR]


I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't fit into cosmology. This seems to be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.



Nope. It is a viable theoritical explanation for the order we observe in all things. Random chaos begats chaos not the well ordered universe we see in ever increasing detail in a macro and micro sense, (to include life on this planet).


I'll have links on this in my next post.



Many theories are untestable. Ya don't think we can hold a black hole in our hands do ya?

Many aspects of Einstien's relativity are untestable, and many aspects that have now been tested took many years for us to develope a method to test, (as time slowing down with significant speed that was tested in a moon shot). The obvious intricate order we see offers proof of design unless we find a way to explain order from random chaos which we have not: no matter what you say.


Scientific theories must meet certain criteria, including testability. Link coming in next post.

[Little Dragon]

Evidence of common descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Common descent
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/The_incontrovertible_evidence_of_common_descent

The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent

List of transitional fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

------------------------------------------------
Simulated evolution gets complex, snowflake example of self-organization
http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/simulated-evolution-gets-complex/

Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g&feature=related

Surprising relationship between chaos, order
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060426_chaosfrm.htm
------------------------------------------------

Scientific Theories - The Criteria for Science, Scientific Theories
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

[Missileman]

Evidence of common descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Common descent
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/The_incontrovertible_evidence_of_common_descent

The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent

List of transitional fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

------------------------------------------------
Simulated evolution gets complex, snowflake example of self-organization
http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/simulated-evolution-gets-complex/

Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g&feature=related

Surprising relationship between chaos, order
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060426_chaosfrm.htm
------------------------------------------------

Scientific Theories - The Criteria for Science, Scientific Theories
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

Be prepared for an answer from Merc along the lines of:


As I told Noir: I don't debate web sites or media articles,

[PostmodernProphet]

cutandpastecutandpastecutandpaste.......

[OldMercsRule]

You're the one who has a problem accepting established science.

How would you know that?


If you don't understand something, you should research (and not on creationist websites) before claiming it to be wrong.

What did I claim to be wrong? My only claim was that evolution was not irrifutably proven.


You should have taken it upon yourself to learn about what you don't understand.

How would you know what I understand or don't understand?


Some may volunteer their time to try to point things out to you, but it's really not their responsibility, it's yours.

This is a debate forum.


I find that odd, if you really had researched it like you say. You must not have done much research or you got it all from creationist websites.

Again you are assuming things not in my posts.


I'll give you that nothing in science is actually proven, and theories are always open to revision.

THANK YOU, WE AGREE: AND YOU JUST MADE MY POINT!


However, if we change some aspect of gravitation theory, will gravity disappear? Evolution is a process that has been observed, and has left a rather impressive trail of evidence behind.

No disagreement.



The only people ignoring evidence are creationists!

Some creationists may ignore evidence, many true believers in evolution theory ignore evidence and the author of this thread and the video he led with is a great example of the bias of the true believers.


If scientists are ignoring evidence, how has the theory been revised at all?

Not alll scientists ignore evidence, some scientists accept the possibility of ID.


How do they have so much detailed information about what they observe? I'd call that looking at the evidence. And the evidence continues to support evolution.

I have not denied evolution, some evidence does support it, and it very likely is one of the methods used by the Intelligent Designer.


And to make the attempt at clearing something up yet again, that evolution is a process which occurs (it's even been observed in the lab) is a fact, how it occurs or other details like what a fossil is can be revised.

No not yet a fact. That is the religion of evolution talking.

Observed variation is intra species not inter species. (Bacteria insects etc.)

A cockroach may become resistent to certain chemicals, and the resistent varity then survives that environment, butt: the cockroach never becomes a horse.

Variability within the population of any species that allows survival of said species could be design of a survival mechanism could it not?


I'm pretty sure evolution doesn't fit into cosmology.

Evolution is an incomplete theory as it fails to explain where the original organism came from.

That has always been a weakness of the theory.

It is quite logical to seek a unification theory as the unification mechanism is always a fatal flaw until explained.

Thus far only ID explains where everything came from.


This seems to be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

No fallacy at all.


I'll have links on this in my next post.

Great.


Scientific theories must meet certain criteria, including testability. Link coming in next post.

How does one test for black holes, dark matter, cosmic strings? Semantical hurdles. Some theories do not lend to easy testing. Observation of irreducible complexity is observed evidence of ID, as is the observation of intricate order everywhere we look.

[OldMercsRule]

Evidence of common descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Common descent
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/The_incontrovertible_evidence_of_common_descent

The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#common_descent

List of transitional fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

------------------------------------------------
Simulated evolution gets complex, snowflake example of self-organization
http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/simulated-evolution-gets-complex/

Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g&feature=related

Surprising relationship between chaos, order
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060426_chaosfrm.htm
------------------------------------------------

Scientific Theories - The Criteria for Science, Scientific Theories
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/tp/CriteriaScientificTheory.htm

These lincs are some real silly chit.

Missile is right: I'm not gonna debate C & P.

Because yer new here and yer post does show some real silly chit from true believers from various places, I will comment on the silly religious, (religion of evolution :bow3: ), things shown in yer cites. :lol:

Note the admission of the lack of "intermediate" fossils, and the admission of the lack of proof of species to species jump from sequencing so called "intermediate" organisms, (can't sequence extinct fossils so they use current species and make chit up about past similarities of the appearance of some features), and the incredible claim that snowflakes :uhoh: , birds and fish are some sorta demonstration of order from chaos. :rolleyes: Ya really need to be dense about chaos to make that leap.


Ya really need to be a true believer and not recognize how yer strong faith encourages ya to jump to huge leaps to string together all that chit and actually think yer religion of evolution is a proven "fact".

Note the creation of the special language to deal with evolution that would rule out Einstein's relativity ta name one well known and still valid theory that was very difficult to "test" for many years.

BOTTOM LINE: any free thinker who can effectively employ basic logic, (as should have been learned in junior high school) can read these lincs and ponder the HUGE number of leaps of faith necessary to blindly support the religion of evolution that is clearly NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN, in any way shape or form.

Then entertain one alternative possibility: could the observed order we see in all things and all systems result from a constant that provided design?

Which proposal takes more faith?

Use yer logic to ponder the answer, which should be self evident.

[Little Dragon]

I think you've demonstrated your lack of acceptance of established science by insisting evolution is a weak theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at some of those links. Not so weak. You also can't be bothered to understand how the problem of irreducable complexity (a creationist myth) has been solved.

It's clear you don't understand evolution. You display confusion about what it even is. You don't even understand that evolution and abiogenesis, the start of life, are seperate theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Evolution doesn't need to explain how life started. For that see the link about abiogenesis. There are some good theories to explain how life started, abiogenesis is the leading one. Evolution only explains how life changes once it already exists. So evolution theory not explaining how life started doesn't make it a weak theory. It's actually the strongest theory in science. Again, look at some of those links to get an idea.


Again you are assuming things not in my posts.

I was referring to this:
I have researched the subject and know enough to be dangerous to your stated positions


THANK YOU, WE AGREE: AND YOU JUST MADE MY POINT!

Don't get carried away, while I'm agreeing that technically nothing can be proven, it can still be accepted as a scientific fact. And until evidence comes along that overturns that fact, it would be pretty unreasonable to be in denial of the fact. For example it's held as a scientific fact that the earth is spherical, and that the earth goes around the sun. It's held as a scientific fact that we have gravity. Evolution is as much a fact as those things. Nothing can be completely proven and forever unopen to revision or being overturned.

"Noun: scientific fact
1.An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"
http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=scientific+fact


You think you're not biased at all? If you weren't biased and determined to hold onto your belief, I think you would have at least given scientific explanations for the things you don't understand (like complexity) a chance. Your position quite literally comes from a place of ignorance. Because you don't understand how things could be complex (science has explained this!), you assume a magic genie in the sky did it. I call this deliberate ignorance, and it's something I despise.


Not alll scientists ignore evidence, some scientists accept the possibility of ID

A very small percentage. Something like 99.99% don't. The few who do accept it because they are devoutly religious.

Evolution is not a religion. Scientists accept evolution because it is a scientific theory with a lot of support. All the evidence points to it. That's not religion, that's science. People desperately clinging to their belief in a magic deity having a hand in creating life despite a complete lack of evidence, that that's religion!



Observed variation is intra species not inter species. (Bacteria insects etc.)

A cockroach may become resistent to certain chemicals, and the resistent varity then survives that environment, butt: the cockroach never becomes a horse.

Variability within the population of any species that allows survival of said species could be design of a survival mechanism could it not?


What happens there is individuals who are not resistant die and don't pass on their genes, while the ones who are pass on their genes outnumbering the nonresistant. That's evolution at work.

Evolution theory does not say that cockroaches become horses or any other such nonsense. This is yet another example of you displaying ignorance of what evolution is. Cockroaches could never become horses or vise versa. They're on completely different branches of the evolutionary tree. Existing species don't become one another. If you actually understood evolution, you'd know that. Life doesn't leap from branch to branch, that's absurd! Evolution is like a large, complex tree that is the result of billions of years of life slowly evolving and branching off in different areas or species. Once an evolutionary branch has sprouted, a course is set: it doesn't backtrack down the branch and then follow another one, or leap from it's branch to another magically. What we're talking about here is the accumulation of beneficial mutations stacking up and leading off into new branches over millions and billions of years. I can't explain this as well as a biologist or evolutionary scientist can, but I hope you're getting the idea.


No fallacy at all.

You thought it somehow relevant that some cosmologists agree with I.D. Cosmologists are in a completely different field of science and lack expertise in the field of biology and evolution. This is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Look it up.



How does one test for black holes, dark matter, cosmic strings? Semantical hurdles. Some theories do not lend to easy testing. Observation of irreducible complexity is observed evidence of ID, as is the observation of intricate order everywhere we look.


Some theories are more testable than others. However we can detect black holes by how they affect other matter. Other theories predict that they exist and the prediction fits observations (affecting surrounding matter, giving off radiation). As for cosmic strings, that appears to be in the hypothesis stage still (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Dark matter also fits observations, like gravitational lensing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmcbjLVPKc&feature=related But there has to be some evidence that fits predictions and observations to work with. I.D. is formed on a religious opinion that comes from ignorance of how things work and form.

[Little Dragon]

More evidence of evolution: vestigial structures.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/

Why do wales have bones they don't need?

"In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body.[15] These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/whale.jpg

For a list of illustrated examples of vestigial structures:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB182/Lecture02/lect2.html

Or do you think this is a conspiracy too?

[OldMercsRule]

I think you've demonstrated your lack of acceptance of established science by insisting evolution is a weak theory.

It is a weak theory that takes devotion and imagination and a whole collection of true believers to weave a web of language n' supportin' theories et al. The recognition of that "fact" (rhetorical), doesn't mean I deny established science. I jus' have an open mind about what science shows, as it is not my religion, (I already have one of those). ;)


Nothing could be further from the truth.

Spoken like a true believer, ("truth"). A weak OBSERVATIONAL BASED theory needs constant revision to comport with observation as does evolution.

Einstein's theory of relativity, (and special relativity), is an example of a very strong theory as only in a few area's (some minor issues about light, gravity and more significant issues dealing with quantum mechanics in partical physics), are the only issues after over a century of time. The theory still stands largely intact and explains observations.


Look at some of those links.

I looked at yer lincs, and found a very silly collection full of excuses for past problems with the theory, (the wiki cites), I particularly found the cites about chaos a real hoot and I had ta clean up me keyboard after spittin' coffee all over the place. :D

The cumulative jumps needed to maintain yer faith is flat out incredible.

I dunno how ya do it butt: ya do.


Not so weak.

As a true believer you wouldn't recognize "weak" if it bit ya in the arse. :D


You also can't be bothered to understand how the problem of irreducable complexity (a creationist myth) has been solved.

OH....... how sooo...... grasshopper???? Ya still can't resist a little mind readin' from time to time.... I see. :D Why don't ya try me?



It's clear you don't understand evolution.

Just because I'm not a true believer in evolution or any theory other then the (ONE*) behind the theory of ID, doesn't mean I don't understand yer religion as a somewhat viable butt: weak theory subject to constant revision and fierce defense from true believers: as you.

I even cornditionally accept some of the corncepts of evolution as a very old weak observational theory, (jus' not blind devotion; as you and Missile as true believers do).

I do me best to keep an open mind about all theories, (*not my faith in Jesus Christ that I will admit is not open to revision at a personal level).

In this debate about yer religion I have tried to keep the nature of God (or the Designer if you prefer), out of the debate as it serves no purpose.

I admit my faith; you fail, thus far: to admit yers.


You display confusion about what it even is.

Nope it is very clearly a religion of devoted believers and fervent followers.


You don't even understand that evolution and abiogenesis, the start of life, are seperate theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Semantics and support, (part of the web created by true believers for the support of their religion). I knew you would eventually bring this up. Good job, Missile was way too lazy and Noir gave up long ago. :D :thumb: Another very weak, (even weaker then evolution as this is the fatal flaw to evolution) repackaged as a "theory" that has not been demonstrated or proven or even fully theorized, butt: it is very necessary to prove yer religion is a viable theory. Origin of life is a fatal flaw to yer religion.


Evolution doesn't need to explain how life started.

Sure it does at that is one of the fatal flaws. The other is mechanism for change once life is kick started.


For that see the link about abiogenesis. There are some good theories to explain how life started, abiogenesis is the leading one.

I've seen it. Created after Darwin's "warm pond" silly chit fell on it's face. Still a very weak unproven moat around yer religion.


Evolution only explains how life changes once it already exists. So evolution theory not explaining how life started doesn't make it a weak theory.

Sure it does. The moat doesn't help. As the moat fails tooooooo, and the failure breaks down the walls defending the religion of evolution regardless of the true believer's defences.


It's actually the strongest theory in science.

A true Believer shows colors in debate!!!!! Yip YIP YAHOOOOO!!! :lol:


Again, look at some of those links to get an idea.

I looked at the silly lincs full of true believer chit.

I got the "idea": Little Dragon, (as the ol' brain cell functions just fine).

Evolution is actually one of the weakest theories out there, (not quite as weak as "man made" global warmin'), bein' as 99.9% or some such of the temperature of this planet is the relationship to the ball o' gas we revolve around.

That said: evolution theory does have one of the strongest support systems with the most followers, and the greatest religious ferver of all theories, due to the age of the theory and the fact, (rhetorical), that anti religious folks can have their very own religion ta cornpete with traditional faith based religions, (that freely admit they are based upon faith), which followers of evolution have are hard time admitting.


I was referring to this:


I have researched the subject and know enough to be dangerous to your stated positions

THANK YOU, WE AGREE: AND YOU JUST MADE MY POINT!


Don't get carried away, while I'm agreeing that technically nothing can be proven, it can still be accepted as a scientific fact.

That depends.


And until evidence comes along that overturns that fact, it would be pretty unreasonable to be in denial of the fact. For example it's held as a scientific fact that the earth is spherical, and that the earth goes around the sun. It's held as a scientific fact that we have gravity.

Those are facts.


Evolution is as much a fact as those things. Nothing can be completely proven and forever unopen to revision or being overturned.

Nope. Nowhere near as established as those facts are. Yer religion is talkin' to ya.


"Noun: scientific fact
1.An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)"
http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=scientific+fact

That supports gravity and the shape of the earth.


You think you're not biased at all?

Never said I wasn't biased. Ya can't read minds jus' stick to readin' me words.


If you weren't biased and determined to hold onto your belief, I think you would have at least given scientific explanations for the things you don't understand (like complexity) a chance.

I always keep an open mind and ponder contra postions to those I hold. Ya can't read me mind, as I keep tellin' ya.


Your position quite literally comes from a place of ignorance. Because you don't understand how things could be complex (science has explained this!), you assume a magic genie in the sky did it. I call this deliberate ignorance, and it's something I despise.

Take a deep breath. Try ta think good thoughts. Go get a new pair of clean undies that are a bit more comfy. This is only a debate, (even if it is about yer religion). Nobody knows who "Little Dragon" is.

Sorry ya don't like me.

I think yer hard feelin's are problems with mind readin' and gettin' huffy with the fact that I'm not a true believer in yer religion of evolution.


A very small percentage. Something like 99.99% don't. The few who do accept it because they are devoutly religious.

Horse poop. Another religous myth.


Evolution is not a religion.

Sure it is. Yer cites and yer huffy emotions prove it is.


Scientists accept evolution because it is a scientific theory with a lot of support.

It is very old weak observational theory that has a lot of religous support, n' huffy fellers with tight undies.


All the evidence points to it.

Nope, all does point to ID though. :D


That's not religion, that's science.

It is both butt: the religion aspect outweighs the science.


People desperately clinging to their belief in a magic deity having a hand in creating life despite a complete lack of evidence, that that's religion!

The evidence of ID is observational, (same with evolution). The difference is evolution doesn't fit observations.


What happens there is individuals who are not resistant die and don't pass on their genes, while the ones who are pass on their genes outnumbering the nonresistant. That's evolution at work.

Some elements of evolution make sense within a population and lead to the ranges observed (inter) species. Intra species is the fatal flaw in evolution.


Evolution theory does not say that cockroaches become horses or any other such nonsense.

:D Something similar has to happen for your religion to werk.


This is yet another example of you displaying ignorance of what evolution is. Cockroaches could never become horses or vise versa. They're on completely different branches of the evolutionary tree. Existing species don't become one another. If you actually understood evolution, you'd know that. Life doesn't leap from branch to branch, that's absurd! Evolution is like a large, complex tree that is the result of billions of years of life slowly evolving and branching off in different areas or species. Once an evolutionary branch has sprouted, a course is set: it doesn't backtrack down the branch and then follow another one, or leap from it's branch to another magically. What we're talking about here is the accumulation of beneficial mutations stacking up and leading off into new branches over millions and billions of years. I can't explain this as well as a biologist or evolutionary scientist can, but I hope you're getting the idea.

The single celled life form (which is not simple at all) and does have irreducible complexity, must eventually become man. If that doesn't happen, (and there is zero evidence it does), then yer religion fails. It does fail no matter how tight yer undies are.


You thought it somehow relevant that some cosmologists agree with I.D. Cosmologists are in a completely different field of science and lack expertise in the field of biology and evolution. This is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Look it up.

Remember: yer not my momma. If there is no unification theory the profound weakness of yer religion of evolution ABSOLUTELY fails. If the origin of matter, elements, and energy didn't happen there surely would not be any life. Elementary My Dear Watson. :D


Some theories are more testable than others. However we can detect black holes by how they affect other matter. Other theories predict that they exist and the prediction fits observations (affecting surrounding matter, giving off radiation). As for cosmic strings, that appears to be in the hypothesis stage still (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Dark matter also fits observations, like gravitational lensing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmcbjLVPKc&feature=related But there has to be some evidence that fits predictions and observations to work with. I.D. is formed on a religious opinion that comes from ignorance of how things work and form.

Nope it is a logical explanation for order from random chaos.

[OldMercsRule]

More evidence of evolution: vestigial structures.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/

Why do wales have bones they don't need?

"In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body.[15] These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/whale.jpg

For a list of illustrated examples of vestigial structures:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB182/Lecture02/lect2.html

Or do you think this is a conspiracy too?

Yup.

True believers are desperate to show inter species jumps that have never been shown.

I do accept some aspects of evolution: Little Dragon.

That said: the theory is not proven, (where this debate started before you arrived).

The theory is very weak, (where this debate now is), and the theory needs constant revision.

The primary weakness are.

#1 Where did life come from, (by direct implication: where did matter, space, time come from)?

Order from random chaos is the PROFOUND issue for your religion.

#2 How do complex structures that must all work at the same time, (reproductive mechanisms of single celled life et al), happen from one at a time over time mutations, (that 50% would actually be bad mutations).

#3 How does pond scum become a horse?

A lesser butt still a big weakness:

#4 How did the Cambrian explosion happen?

[Little Dragon]

You have anything but an open mind. You don't give any of the mountain of evidence for common descent a chance. You won't read the actual scientific data. Instead you trust extremely biased creationist websites written by people who have an agenda and know absolutely nothing about evolution and wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the ass. Here's a good example of all the misinformation and lies creationists tell to indoctrinate people who don't know any better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUSTbb4DBk8&feature=related

I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as valid, well established fact. Because that's what it is, like it or not. The fact of evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. This is an observed fact, something which actually occurs. The model in evolutionary theory explains the fact and it's effects through time. No faith is required here or in science as a whole, because evidence is required, not blind faith. Only religion requires blind faith.

As for abiogenesis, that is a seperate theory from evolution. No semantics at all. Abiogenesis explains how life most likely started, evolution explains how it changed once it started. So if you want to know what explanation science has for how life started, read up on abiogenesis. What on earth is so darned hard about this?

I find it very odd how you keep referring to valid scientific data as "silly chit". What that tells me is you not only have no idea what that "silly chit" is and don't want to understand it but that you are somehow threatened by it (I know you'll deny this). You have a very clear and strong emotional aversion to anything which you feel will contradict your religious belief. This of course removes you far from the realm of rational thought and discussion and places you squarely in defense mode, where you'll make sure no new information can get through that would threaten your belief.



Sorry ya don't like me.


I said I despised deliberate ignorance.

If I get a little "huffy", it's due to frustration over creationists or IDers who reject every shred of evidence or good reason put before them. They show limitless egocentricity and arrogance by believing and claiming to know more than hundreds of thousands of scientists. They prefer their ignorance and delusions over reality. Now try to imagine a large part of the country believing the earth is the center of the universe and that the world is actually a flat circle with a dome over it and the stars are actually little lights fixed in the sky dome. Imagine a lot of people believe this and think it should be taught in schools. Imagine that these people reject every bit of evidence to the contrary. And these people are in positions of power, making important decisions that affect everyone. They see no reason to explore, learn, discover anything new because of their belief. And the few rational people who go against the grain of society and accept the evidence that contradicts the popular belief are considered to be following some misguided religion. It's somewhat akin to living in an insane asylum.



Horse poop. Another religous myth.

""Overall, the nation has a big problem," said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported. "

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm

Why do creationists feel the need to ignore literally billions of years of changes from single celled forms to multicellular forms? Do you honestly think that everything ceases to undergo change after a certain amount of time?


I see the irreducible complexity argument a lot from creationsists. However, this has long been debunked. What they fail to realize is that just because something is the way it is now, doesn't mean it couldn't have worked differently in a different form a million years ago. Things change and work differently over time, exploit different niches, etc. See this following video for an explanation of how the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been debunked. It's only 6 minutes.

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

[Little Dragon]

I have a question and I think it's a pretty good one. If creationists have so much trouble seeing how something as complex as a single cell can exist from nothing (which btw, evolution theory does not claim, nor abiogenesis theory), then how do they manage to believe that a god (especially one specific to the culture they grew up in), something so large and powerful and undoubtedly at least as complex as the entire universe, can exist from nothing?

Does that not seem even harder to believe? We're talking about an unimaginably intelligent being (yet not possessing a brain-or perhaps it's just invisible) who has the ability to see every particle and space between particles at all times and the ability to affect them however such a being chooses. Imagine the enormous processing power! A being who could have created everything in existence and all while being completely undetectable. How does that exist?

It seems more like it's the creationists that believe incredibly complex things can just exist from nothing. In science we start from the bottom up, starting out with the simplest of things and interactions which slowly but inevitably build up over very large amounts of time and opportunities. It's really quite ironic! :laugh:

[OldMercsRule]

You have anything but an open mind.

About evolution theory: sure I do.

About my belief in Christ: yer right, my mind is made, (that is why I understand yer religious mind set about yer religion).


You don't give any of the mountain of evidence for common descent a chance.

Show me where I have denied evolution theory. I have not.

You are building a strawman to knock down.

A common debate style that sloppy debaters use.

I have debated the "irrefutable proof" title of this thread and your claims that evolution is the strongest scientific theory in existence, and that evolution is a "fact", NOT THAT EVOLUTION theory lacks all merit. I accept that there is some merit to the flawed theory, (yer religion).

I read a lot more then you claim I do and you can't read my mind so you have no way of knowing anyway.


You won't read the actual scientific data.

How would you possibly know that? I've read lots of "data", that you may characterize as scientific, butt: you clearly can't tell that from yer arse.

Ya can't read me mind, (no matter how simple a mind it is), stick to readin' me words.


Instead you trust extremely biased creationist websites written by people who have an agenda and know absolutely nothing about evolution and wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the ass.

You have no idea what I trust or don't trust and again: YA CAN'T READ EVEN THE SIMPLIST OF MINDS, so stick to readin' words.

This is a debate.

I use tools in a debate.

The best tools to combat your religious beliefs about evolution are sites that make succinct arguments about the logic of ID.

I provided lincs to youtube vids at the end of this post for demonstration as you also frequently do.

I have also used me own werds to deal effectivly with your religious arguments.

ID is a logical explanation for order from chaos.

Snow flakes do not demonstrate anything about chaos. :laugh2:


Here's a good example of all the misinformation and lies creationists tell to indoctrinate people who don't know any better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUSTbb4DBk8&feature=related

What does that have to do with the price of beans in Boston? I don't debate youtube vids. BTW this is silly chit.


I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as valid, well established fact. Because that's what it is, like it or not.

Yer obviously a true believer.

Evolution is a very old theory in need of constant revision, with a failed and continually revised mechanism for change from distinct seperate organism to distinct organism that is in constant state of flux, (a fatal flaw). The second vid of the three at the end of this post deals with the subject in an easy to understand way.

The theory fails to explain the origin of the phenomena the theory tries to explain, (another serious flaw). True believers then create a sub theory, (that is not complete or valid in any way), to attempt to isolate their religion and their fellow believers from one of the most challenging flaws of their religion: Where did life come from? You can dance all ya want, :dance: the debate about how life began still remains. All the other flaws must be solved as well before evolution is anywhere near a "fact" status: Einstein.

That is your religion talking. Sorry ya can't see it.


The fact of evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. This is an observed fact, something which actually occurs. The model in evolutionary theory explains the fact and it's effects through time. No faith is required here or in science as a whole, because evidence is required, not blind faith. Only religion requires blind faith.

Genetic drift within a population of a species doesn't deal with the fatal flaw of species to species jumps that must occur over time to create new organisms. The second vid at the end of this post deals with this flaw.

There is no argument that organisms have a range (within populations) that does allow for some adaptability that aids survival of THE SPECIES IN QUESTION.

The cockroach to horse issue is the real problem you still face.

The religion of evolution that you believe in makes huge jumps in logic that don't fit observations.

It really takes a huge amount of faith to accept evolution as "fact", and you clearly have that zeal. :laugh2:


As for abiogenesis, that is a seperate theory from evolution. No semantics at all. Abiogenesis explains how life most likely started, evolution explains how it changed once it started.

No it doesn't. It is just a defensive creation for yer religion. Fancy rhetoric. (N' real silly chit).


So if you want to know what explanation science has for how life started, read up on abiogenesis. What on earth is so darned hard about this?

I already read the silly chit. Worthless. :laugh2:

The flaw in yer religion still stands, n' silly chit doesn't save ya from the question of where life comes from.


I find it very odd how you keep referring to valid scientific data as "silly chit". What that tells me is you not only have no idea what that "silly chit" is and don't want to understand it but that you are somehow threatened by it (I know you'll deny this).

In yer religious stupor you wouldn't know "valid scientific data" from "silly chit" from yer arse.

Just 'cause it has a fancy name doesn't mean chit ta anybody with at least one functional brain cell.

It also doesn't dodge the fatal flaw until you can show a valid explanation of where life came from. ;)


You have a very clear and strong emotional aversion

Whaaaaaaaaat?????? The feller who gets his undies in a big twist tells me about "strong emotional aversion"????? YA CAN'T READ MINDS.


to anything which you feel will contradict your religious belief.

I've done my best to keep my religion out of this debate, and you try to bring it in.

A valid evolution theory doesn't contradict Jesus creating all that there is.

If it is ever proven I have no problem accepting evolution as the method Jesus chose.

If Jesus is all powerful, (I know you don't accept that which I do accept) why would he be precluded from using evolution?

An omnipotent God wouldn't!!!!!!!

God can do what needs to be done and chose a method that works best, (which maybe evolution).

I accept the UNPROVEN possibility of evolution, the difference is that my single brain cell functions well enough ta know it is not anywhere near the status of: "fact", and that you seem to accept your religion of evolution as much as I accept Christ.

You just refuse to admit it.


This of course removes you far from the realm of rational thought and discussion and places you squarely in defense mode, where you'll make sure no new information can get through that would threaten your belief.

Wow you are cracked. Liberals call what ya just did "projection". Yer the one with tight undies that are in a big wad. I'm not defending Jesus. I am debating your religion of evolution. It is not "fact" or "irrefutably proven", or the "best theory" ever. It is jus' a very old flawed observational based theory that needs constant revision to fit new observations as we learn things.


I said I despised deliberate ignorance.

My ignorance is not deliberate. How smart do ya think a feller with one functional brain cell is????:D


If I get a little "huffy", it's due to frustration over creationists or IDers who reject every shred of evidence or good reason put before them.

Nope yer cornfusing "evidence" with religious ferver. I see ferver that you incorrectly see evidence supporting yer flawed religion. You wouldn't know "evidence" from yer arse. :D


They show limitless egocentricity and arrogance by believing and claiming to know more than hundreds of thousands of scientists.

Who is "they". Ya creatin' more strawmen?????

Dr Michael Behe showed a great deal of courage to resist the group think of true believers in his field. (See vid #1 at the end of this post.) :D


They prefer their ignorance and delusions over reality.

Hmmmmm.... ya think? I can't speak fer "they", butt: I prefer what you call my ignorance over the delusion of yer religion. :D


Now try to imagine a large part of the country believing the earth is the center of the universe and that the world is actually a flat circle with a dome over it and the stars are actually little lights fixed in the sky dome. Imagine a lot of people believe this and think it should be taught in schools. Imagine that these people reject every bit of evidence to the contrary. And these people are in positions of power, making important decisions that affect everyone. They see no reason to explore, learn, discover anything new because of their belief. And the few rational people who go against the grain of society and accept the evidence that contradicts the popular belief are considered to be following some misguided religion. It's somewhat akin to living in an insane asylum.

Wow yer strawmen are intense.

Real silly chit.

Better change the undies again.

BTW: I don't know who "they" are. Sounds like yer smokin' somethin' real strong, n' werkin' yerself up into a frenzy. ;)



""Overall, the nation has a big problem," said Alters. "Approximately half of the U.S. population thinks evolution does (or did) not occur. While 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution, 40 to 50 percent of college students do not accept evolution and believe it to be 'just' a theory," he reported. "

http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm



Maybe they see the religion of evolution fer what it is. That ever occur to you????


Why do creationists feel the need to ignore literally billions of years of changes from single celled forms to multicellular forms? Do you honestly think that everything ceases to undergo change after a certain amount of time?

Of course not.

I accept the possibility that elements of evolution may be at werk.

I just recognize evolution for what it is.

An old flawed theory under cornstant revision, that attempts to quantify observations and does a piss poor job of it, that many like you and yahoos like Missile worship as gospel.

Some day science may werk it out if you religious types let actual observations determine the validity of the theory.


I see the irreducible complexity argument a lot from creationsists. However, this has long been debunked. What they fail to realize is that just because something is the way it is now, doesn't mean it couldn't have worked differently in a different form a million years ago. Things change

Conditions may change butt valid laws of physics et al do not.


and work differently over time, exploit different niches, etc.

More silly chit. This is yer religion talking again. Sorry ya can't see it.


See this following video for an explanation of how the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been debunked. It's only 6 minutes.

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

I don't debate videos.

Counsel chose the wrong example, (bacterial flagellum) to demonstrate the issue to the Court. The additional self correcting mechanism shown in the tape could be countered by Dr. Behe, butt not a layperson as the Judge was and is.

Courts are funny places and very unpredictable.

Why wouldn't a jurist in a courtroom not have the same issue with their brain that you do? Judges are not scientists, and rhetorical tricks carry weight especially if the judge is a member of yer evolution religion with a mind as closed as yers is.

Here is my own collection of youtube vids; I don't expect you to debate them, (as I refuse to debate yours).

Your mind is clearly sooo closed n' full of religious kool aid that you will not likely even view or cornsider them. Others may however.

The first one is Dr. Michael Behe talking about irreducible cornplexity, the second is about the fossil record and the distortions of the true believers of yer religion, the third is again the cornplexity issue and the god of Islam is mentioned near the end of the nicely done tape.

I'm not a believer in Allah, butt: the case made in the tape is a solid one.

Enjoy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_eK9WCrFQA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dWimXdtzWs&feature=related

[OldMercsRule]

I have a question and I think it's a pretty good one. If creationists have so much trouble seeing how something as complex as a single cell can exist from nothing (which btw, evolution theory does not claim, nor abiogenesis theory),

I know, (Darwin, the Greeks et al had no idea of the complexity of life until the mid 1950s when DNA was discovered). BTW the scientists who discovered DNA admitted that it blew Darwin's theory into the weeds, (and they were true believers prior to their discovery). Complexity of life is a foundational fatal flaw to your religion of evolution.


then how do they manage to believe that a god (especially one specific to the culture they grew up in), something so large and powerful and undoubtedly at least as complex as the entire universe, can exist from nothing?

You need to study the big bang theory if you are truely curious.

Stick yer head in the sand if ya don't care, no matter to me.

Danger: it could cause a profound challange to your existing belief system.

That is another observation that has fundamentally changed the previous incorrect view of a constant and vast universe that Darwin and others built their theories around before we knew different.

We now know to reasonable certainty that the Universe came from a singularity, where all matter, energy, time et al was in one small point in nothingness some 14 billion years ago give or take.

God/Jesus (or the Designer if you prefer), had to be outside of the singularity and far more omnipotent then time or the forces the Designer unleashed and somehow started the very complex expansion we now can observe, (the universe is still expanding and accelerating in the rate of expansion). :eek:

As Stephen Hawking said in a "Brief History of Time" 1988 (p181 of his book), the exact rate of expansion had to be perfect to a very exacting degree or the universe would have expanded too fast or fallen back into itself due to gravity that diminishes with distance.

It is far to perfect to have happened by chance, unless ya believe in silly chit like evolution, (n' maybe the tooth fairy). :D :D


Does that not seem even harder to believe?

Nope, the hurdles in yer religion are far more complicated, and far less logical. N' ya need ta make up lots of silly chit ta make yer religion fit what we see and discover as technology advances.

I believe in one very powerful God. Real simple, (takes only one functional brain cell). :D ;)


We're talking about an unimaginably intelligent being (yet not possessing a brain-or perhaps it's just invisible) who has the ability to see every particle and space between particles at all times and the ability to affect them however such a being chooses. Imagine the enormous processing power! A being who could have created everything in existence and all while being completely undetectable. How does that exist?

You just discribed God/Jesus.

We surely do not posses the ability to totally understand an omnipitent entity you just partially described, butt: we sure see the incredible work done.

God is timeless, no limits in God's power, omniscient.

There is nothing beyond the capability that God has.

Very difficult to get ones arms around, butt once yer there ya never need ta make up silly chit ta 'splain what ya see in new discoveries micro to macro.

You can see the work of God on a dark night away from the city lights.

Have a good star chart and think how you are looking back in time.

Deneb is a facinating star in the summer sky as is is so large and powerful it defies imgination, and it is only one very small piece of God's vast work.

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

Just hope that the axis of rotation is not pointing at us when she comes to the end of her life and creates the rare heavy elements we and other life on this small planet are made of, (as no other "normal" star can do), when she becomes a type II supernova.


It seems more like it's the creationists that believe incredibly complex things can just exist from nothing.

Explain the big bang any other way.

God is omnipotent and timeless. The truth shall set you free.


In science we start from the bottom up, starting out with the simplest of things

That is the profound problem we now know about. Nothing is simple at all: Einstein.


and interactions which slowly but inevitably build up over very large amounts of time and opportunities. It's really quite ironic! :laugh:

Not possible.

Again: explain the big bang in the matrix you just stated.

Can't possibly work.

[Little Dragon]

So Murky, why do whales have vestigial bones they don't need? Did god decide to put them there just for shits n giggles?

[OldMercsRule]

So Murky, why do whales have vestigial bones they don't need? Did god decide to put them there just for shits n giggles?

"Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84"

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Evolution true believers are desparate to prove their religion, and make chit up all the time. There is zero examples of intermediate fossils discovered since Darwin's time, an abject failure of the theory if it were not a full blown religion the theory would have fallen out of favor long ago.

Your wiki cites several posts back made excuses for the lack of evidence. (Real silly chit). :D :D ;)

Vestigial this and that is an attempt by the true believers to build, (create if it makes ya feeeeeeel better), evidence out of made up chit from living organisms due to the PROFOUND lack of fossil evidence of intermediate organisms.

These unscientific frauds are eventualy disproven when uses of the so called "vestigial" item by the living organism is eventually discovered.

Evolution is not anywhere near "fact". :laugh2:

Evolution is not the "strongest scientific theory" in existence. :laugh2:

Evolution is not irrefutably proven. :laugh2:

These silly statements are proof the theory has become a religion. :lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

So Murky, why do whales have vestigial bones they don't need? Did god decide to put them there just for shits n giggles?

??...they don't.....they have bones that serve the purpose of providing strength and structure to their flippers.....the fact they exist doesn't make them "vestigial"......scientific fact shows simply that they exist........a secular theory calls them "vestigial".....

[Little Dragon]

The following is from websites with real and detailed information which unfortunately creationists choose to ignore. Really all I'm trying to do here is help you and others become better informed.


"There are a lot of misconceptions out there about evolution, and one of them is presented right in Gallup's question - evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same thing, even though they're commonly used interchangeably. But in the same sense that gravity exists whether Newton's theory of gravity is correct or not, evolution exists no matter what the verdict is on Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution is defined as "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." The fact that genetic drift does take place is not up for debate - we've witnessed minor genetic changes in various organisms. "

http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/griesenbrock/entry/29292/

The theory of evolution merely states that these changes extend further over long periods of time-nothing is going to stop or limit them. There's nothing there to say, "Ok, that's enough, stop changing and adapting before you stop resembling your kind!"

"One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation-evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations. However, the word has a number of different meanings in different fields, from evolutionary computation to molecular evolution to sociocultural evolution to stellar and galactic evolution. It can even refer to metaphysical evolution, spiritual evolution, or any of a number of evolutionist philosophies. When biological evolution is conflated with other evolutionary processes, this can cause errors such as the claim that modern evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis or the Big Bang.[8]"

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

"Critics state that evolution is not a fact. In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation; in colloquial contexts, however, a fact can simply refer to anything for which there is overwhelming evidence. For example, in common usage theories such as "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts", even though they are purely theoretical. From a scientific standpoint, therefore, evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the scientific definition, evolution is an observable process that occurs whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time. Under the colloquial definition, the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists.[28][29][30]"

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

The point here is that evolution as an observable process is a scientific fact. So if you're going to debate evolution, at least admit that you're debating the theory or model of evolution, not the fact of evolution.

Now some info on vestigial structures!

"Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges

"Vestiges of previous, slightly different forms can still be found in many species. For example, whales still have leg bones, though they don't actually have back legs. The genetic code for legs is still there, but it's been deactivated over time and the legs have wasted away. Still, in a occurrence called atavism, whales and dolphins will occasionally grow hind limbs. That's because we can trace the evolution of whales back to four legged creatures that lived 50 million years ago. A more common example is the evolution of raptors into birds. They had more than 200 millions years to make this leap, yet a mutation in chickens can still result in the development of teeth. Nature has had billions of years to make these sorts of profound changes, starting with unicellular life, meaning many millions of generations have come and gone. Evolution operates on a time scale we're just not used to. "

http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/griesenbrock/entry/29292/

"Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. In many, it is merely the size of a thin piece of string, about 1 mm in diameter, and often pinched off about midway. All whales have a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears - a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

"Primarily due to intense medical interest, humans are one of the best characterized species and many developmental anomalies are known. There are several human atavisms that reflect our common genetic heritage with other mammals. One of the most striking is the existence of the rare "true human tail" (also variously known as "coccygeal process", "coccygeal projection", "caudal appendage", and "vestigial tail"). More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988). Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column, coccyx, and various malformations. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

"The term atavism (derived from the Latin atavus, a great-grandfather's grandfather; more generally, an ancestor) denotes the tendency to revert to ancestral type. An atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.[2] Atavisms occur because genes for previously existing phenotypical features are often preserved in DNA, even though the genes are not expressed in some or most of the organisms possessing them."

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

"Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it."

http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/


I think your problems with evolution theory are rooted in not understanding it, getting your info about it from biased sources that don't know the subject matter and are completely unqualified to give any kind of assessment of it, and in simple incredulity-that is, finding the idea of larger evolutionary changes just plain hard to believe.

It's ironic: you can believe in supernatural beings that have no explanation for their existence whatsoever, but you can't bring yourself to believe that natural processes, which science understands quite well now, can lead to big changes over time. If you accumulate anything, whether it be beneficial mutations or coins, what you're going to end up with after a billion years is going to be radically different than how it started. It boggles my mind that some people have such an impossible time comprehending changes adding up to more complexity over a very very long time period. It seems absurdly obvious and takes little thought and imagination to realize this simple piece of common sense. The only thing that I can see making it such a huge problem is people feeling threatened by it. But why? Is it going to change anything really?

Off the topic of evolution, have you ever bothered to just read what abiogenesis is? Maybe you'd have a little bit easier time if you understood what happened before evolution started taking place.

You have to understand that no theory in science makes any absurd claim that anything made some sort of great leap. While the rate of change varies depending on environmental or other factors, overall, changes are made in steps. Life forms can only work with the foundation that was there already, forever building upon that foundation and undergoing modification depending on variation and selective pressures. Which is why you don't see any magical transformations.

Naturally early life simply went in different directions, exploiting different niches and accumulating different adaptations. This has no choice but to lead to speciation. And the life forms that we see today wouldn't exist unless that happened. DNA reflects this. DNA for all life matches up to a certain point, which shows that it descended from a common ancestor. DNA also shows other cool things like endogenous retrovirus dna within our own, that is, genes from retrovirus infection from an ancestor species that descendant species share (exact same strains in the exact same places which could only have happened if an ancestor to those species was infected).

"Every viral infection is unique. The complete genome of an animal is so huge, and the insertion point of a virus’s DNA is so random that it is statistically impossible for any two individuals to have the same exact endogenous retrovirus in the same exact spot on the genome unless they both inherited it from a common ancestor who had the original infection. And the infection of a germ cell is so rare that ERVs make up only somewhere between 1% and 8% of the entire human genome."

"There are at least seven different known instances of shared ERVs between chimps and humans... i.e. ERVs which are the identical viral DNA inserted into the identical spot of the genome. 100% of all chimps and 100% of all humans have these same ERVs. This is only possible if 100% of all chimps and all humans are descended from the single individual that had these original infections."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2441367/posts



And to end this rather long post, I'll add in this interesting page for your perusal since it does a rather nice job of illustrating transition (with pictures). It also has a few short videos which I recommend watching, they're short.
http://truth-saves.com/Transitional_Fossils.php

[Little Dragon]

I found this interesting page on vestigal parts as well.

"The Blind Mole Rat, Cave Salamander and Mexican Tetra are all blind yet their eyes are not damaged or flawed. So why are they blind? Simple, their skin covers their eyes. Unlike most creatures that have eyelids which can open and close, these little creatures don’t have such luxuries. Their eyes are permanently encased behind a solid layer of flesh making vision impossible. Where is the intelligent design in that? That’s like a camera with a lens cap that isn’t designed to come off.

These are not primitive eyes or mere light sensitive cells. They are fully developed complex eyes just like that of any other mole, salamander or fish. The actual reason for this is that these creatures spend virtually all of their time with little to no exposure to day light. As generations have passed their eyelids evolved to completely cover the eye permanently. Since their eyes were no longer need without exposure to light they become entirely covered by skin so its sensitivity would no longer be irritated by the dirt."

It appears these animals are a clear example of ones that are in transition. But in reality everything is in transition. Some transition phases are just more obvious than others.

More interesting examples follow this one.

http://truth-saves.com/Vestigial_Organs.php

[PostmodernProphet]

Off the topic of evolution, have you ever bothered to just read what abiogenesis is? Maybe you'd have a little bit easier time if you understood what happened before evolution started taking place.

trust me, you don't want to be foolish enough to pretend abiogenesis is science.....I know enough about abiogenesis to argue it until your gums bleed......

[Little Dragon]

trust me, you don't want to be foolish enough to pretend abiogenesis is science.....I know enough about abiogenesis to argue it until your gums bleed......

"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis."

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

A scientific theory with experiments in a scientific laboratory....sounds scientific to me, lol.

If you can show that abiogenesis is completely impossible and isn't worth being explored, do enlighten me with your superior expertise.

[OldMercsRule]

The following is from websites with real and detailed information which unfortunately creationists choose to ignore. Really all I'm trying to do here is help you and others become better informed.

Have you noted the religious ferver of those lincs Little Dragon? I have already read them and I don't intend to debate them. I will note that one of yer Wiki cites had information about a large number of "scientists" IN BIOLOGY who lend some credibility to ID.

Did you see that little gem???

"One poll reported in the journal Nature showed that among American scientists (across various disciplines), about 40 percent believe in both evolution and an active deity (theistic evolution).[158] This is similar to the results reported for surveys of the general American public. Also, about 40 percent of the scientists polled believe in a God that answers prayers, and believe in immortality.[159] While about 55% of scientists surveyed were atheists or agnostics, atheism is far from universal among scientists who support evolution, or among the general public that supports evolution. Very similar results were reported from a 1997 Gallup survey of the American public and scientists.[160]"

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

N' wiki is dominated by true believers of yer religion.




The theory of evolution merely states that these changes extend further over long periods of time-nothing is going to stop or limit them. There's nothing there to say, "Ok, that's enough, stop changing and adapting before you stop resembling your kind!"

Varibility within populations of like organisms has been known since the Greeks, Pursians and Chinese proposed the first observational evolution theories. I certainly don't dispute the observation of blondes, brunettes, blue eyes, brown eyes, fat, skinny, tall, short et al in human populations. Some of those characteristics surely aid survival in some situations. That said: the proposition of a cockroach, (a very old insect with some 4000 species dating back at least 145 million years), 345 million years if ya count claimed pre modern roaches, becoming a horse dating back 45 million years is not possible under any senerio.

I know ya get huffy when I use this type of jump to illistrate the flaw in the religion of evolution, butt it is valid. I don't care if ya use a few billion years a roach isn't going to become a horse, and a human being from a prokaryote is an even bigger jump in logic. With zero evidence butt: lots of religious ferver n' fire in the ol' belly.



The point here is that evolution as an observable process is a scientific fact.

Variation in a population of like organisms, (which most logical people could accept), is not the same as a horse from a cockroach or human from a prokaryote. Evolution theory of all life from a common ansestor is not a "scientific fact" or anything other then a religious belief that has zero evidence of ever happening.


So if you're going to debate evolution, at least admit that you're debating the theory or model of evolution, not the fact of evolution.

Semantics. I have debated the religion of evolution, while accepting some aspects of the religion.


Now some info on vestigial structures!

I don't debate C & P.

Most of the true believers of the religion of evolution make the mistake you make and assume simplicity where it doesn't exist.

"Vestigial" structures were assumed to have no function at all and since zero intermediate fossils turned up were the fraud used to further the religion of evolution.

Once a function was discovered for the previously assumed "vestigial" structure, the definition was changed to preserve the religion. I know how true believers defend their religion: Little Dragon. I am a true believer in Christ.


I think your problems with evolution theory are rooted in not understanding it, getting your info about it from biased sources that don't know the subject matter and are completely unqualified to give any kind of assessment of it, and in simple incredulity-that is, finding the idea of larger evolutionary changes just plain hard to believe.

You have said I don't understand evolution and I am deluded by my sources a number of times. I get it, I'm no Albert Einstein with only one functional brain cell. That said, I do get what evolution is and can recognize a religion as I am a member of one. Muslims claim ya can't understand Islam, (submission), if ya don't speak and read fluent Arabic: Horse poop, (not horse poop from cockroaches either). :D:D


It's ironic: you can believe in supernatural beings that have no explanation for their existence whatsoever,

Jesus is a constant, omnipotent, omniscient, timeless GOD. That is much easier to believe then yer constantly changing religion where ya must suspend language, create new "theories" that don't werk to explain where life came from, n' make up silly chit n' change basic rules to meet new discoveries n' what not.


but you can't bring yourself to believe that natural processes, which science understands quite well now,

Science has disqualified most of yer religion.


can lead to big changes over time.

Order can never come from chaos. A cockroach can never be a horse and a prokaryote can never be a beautiful babe human woman, I don't care how much time ya take ta bake that cake. Yer religion fails. :D ;)


If you accumulate anything, whether it be beneficial mutations or coins, what you're going to end up with after a billion years is going to be radically different than how it started.

Sorry ya think a prokaryote could become a hot babe human woman. That is what religion does to ya sometimes.


It boggles my mind that some people have such an impossible time comprehending changes adding up to more complexity over a very very long time period.

It boggles my mind ya think a cockroach can become a horse.


It seems absurdly obvious and takes little thought and imagination to realize this simple piece of common sense.

I think ID is self evident as well.


The only thing that I can see making it such a huge problem is people feeling threatened by it. But why? Is it going to change anything really?

Who says I'm threatened? Ya can't read minds. Yer the one who got huffy.


Off the topic of evolution, have you ever bothered to just read what abiogenesis is? Maybe you'd have a little bit easier time if you understood what happened before evolution started taking place.

I already told ya I read that silly chit.


You have to understand that no theory in science makes any absurd claim that anything made some sort of great leap.

All life from a single ancestor is a great leap: Einstein. What would ya call the big bang? Kinda a "great leap" since everything can from one singularity eh?


While the rate of change varies depending on environmental or other factors, overall, changes are made in steps.

Yasureyabetcha. Ponder the Cambrian explosion.


Life forms can only work with the foundation that was there already, forever building upon that foundation and undergoing modification depending on variation and selective pressures. Which is why you don't see any magical transformations.

Cambrian explosion?


Naturally early life simply went in different directions, exploiting different niches and accumulating different adaptations. This has no choice but to lead to speciation. And the life forms that we see today wouldn't exist unless that happened. DNA reflects this. DNA for all life matches up to a certain point, which shows that it descended from a common ancestor. DNA also shows other cool things like endogenous retrovirus dna within our own, that is, genes from retrovirus infection from an ancestor species that descendant species share (exact same strains in the exact same places which could only have happened if an ancestor to those species was infected).

Yer religion impresses ya I get it.


And to end this rather long post, I'll add in this interesting page for your perusal since it does a rather nice job of illustrating transition (with pictures). It also has a few short videos which I recommend watching, they're short.

Silly chit ta base a religion on. :eek:

That said is does make a theory that does have limited merit. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

A scientific theory with experiments in a scientific laboratory....sounds scientific to me, lol.


are you aware that even the men who the Miller-Urey experiment are named after acknowledge that their experiment was based upon faulty presumptions regarding the make up of the environment at the time life is believed to have begun?......are you aware that the experiments in a scientific laboratory, even if they hadn't been faulty, did nothing to prove what abiogenesis claims happened?......are you aware that abiogenesis CANNOT be tested in any fashion whatsoever and therefor can never qualify as a scientific theory?......are you aware you have just demonstrated the ultimate in scientific ignorance while simultaneously arguing that science will prevail......

[Missileman]

[COLOR="blue"]Science has disqualified most of yer religion.

You keep making this proclamation, but as yet you haven't posted a single thing to substantiate it. I know that's the kind of baseless shit you've been reading on the ID sites, but that doesn't excuse you from backing up what you write. So, how about some evidence that science is in agreement with your position?

[OldMercsRule]

You keep making this proclamation, but as yet you haven't posted a single thing to substantiate it.

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0YXnAFBs8

James Watson and Francis Crick knew this earthshaking discovery blew yer religion of one random mutation at a time order from chaos silly chit into the weeds.

Noway this super cornplex double helix chain molicule could ever come from a bolt of lightning hitting a warm pond with some scum and some amino acids in the mix. :laugh2: :laugh2:


I know that's the kind of baseless shit you've been reading on the ID sites, but that doesn't excuse you from backing up what you write. So, how about some evidence that science is in agreement with your position?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWUF7zAw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_eK9WCrFQA&feature=related

Check it out: clown. :lol:

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

[Little Dragon]

are you aware that even the men who the Miller-Urey experiment are named after acknowledge that their experiment was based upon faulty presumptions regarding the make up of the environment at the time life is believed to have begun?......are you aware that the experiments in a scientific laboratory, even if they hadn't been faulty, did nothing to prove what abiogenesis claims happened?......are you aware that abiogenesis CANNOT be tested in any fashion whatsoever and therefor can never qualify as a scientific theory?......are you aware you have just demonstrated the ultimate in scientific ignorance while simultaneously arguing that science will prevail......

Here's some more detailed info on the topic:

"More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[17]"

"Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear."[18] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[19]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[20]

More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[21] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[22]

Critics[who?] of the Miller–Urey hypothesis point out recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[23] These critics argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller–Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[24]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

[PostmodernProphet]

Here's some more detailed info on the topic:

"More recent experiments by chemist Jeffrey Bada at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[17]"

"Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear."[18] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[19]

Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[20]

More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[21] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[22]

Critics[who?] of the Miller–Urey hypothesis point out recent research that shows the presence of uranium in sediments dated to 3.7 Ga and indicates it was transported in solution by oxygenated water (otherwise it would have precipitated out).[23] These critics argue that this presence of oxygen precludes the formation of prebiotic molecules via a Miller–Urey-like scenario, attempting to invalidate the hypothesis of abiogenesis. However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[24]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

??....I'm hoping you intend to make a point soon....nothing here contradicts what I stated in my last post, so I will just leave it stand until you raise an argument against it.....

[Missileman]

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0YXnAFBs8

James Watson and Francis Crick knew this earthshaking discovery blew yer religion of one random mutation at a time order from chaos silly chit into the weeds.

Noway this super cornplex double helix chain molicule could ever come from a bolt of lightning hitting a warm pond with some scum and some amino acids in the mix. :laugh2: :laugh2:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWUF7zAw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_eK9WCrFQA&feature=related

Check it out: clown. :lol:

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

I said scientists, NOT IDers. Meyers said in the second video that "you can infer" the involvement of a creator. What a load of horseshit. He's as much a scientist as you are a spelling champion.

BTW, there isn't anything in the first video that substantiates your claim that science has "disqualified" anything about evolution, let alone "most" of it. Is that really the best you can offer?

[OldMercsRule]

I said scientists, NOT IDers.

You think yer my momma or somethin'????

James Watson, Francis Crick aren't scientists yer sayin'????? :D


Meyers said in the second video that "you can infer" the involvement of a creator.

Sure can. It only takes one functional brain cell. ;)


What a load of horseshit. He's as much a scientist as you are a spelling champion.

N' Dr. Michael Behe???


BTW, there isn't anything in the first video that substantiates your claim that science has "disqualified" anything about evolution, let alone "most" of it. Is that really the best you can offer?

The complexity proven by the discovery of DNA in the 1950s, (that got cornsiderably more complicated after the human genome was sequenced in 1999), forced a total revision that is ongoing of yer Darwinian, neo-Darwinian et al religion over a five decade long period. :eek: The religion of evolution appeals to intellectually lazy people, (or those who get paid for research by grants corntrolled by believers who are paid to keep the status quo).

You obviously missed the boat as you were still stuck on whales deciding to live in the ocean :laugh2: after transforming from seals silly chit, as the lazy clown you obviously are. :laugh2:

I was agnostic until 1992 when I became a born again Christian, the likely validity of the big bang theory was prolly the biggest factor in my cornclusions, butt: the obvious complexity of living systems also weighed in.

Evolution is under growing pressure, that started in earnest with Hubble's, (and many others of less fame), discovery of an expanding universe, and gained momentum in the 1950s with Watson and Crick's werk.

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

The validation of the big bang theory has profoundly effected independent thinkers, (of which you clearly are not), as has the knowledge of the huge complexity of living organisms from the single cell up to cosmology has all cornsistently pointed to Intelligent Design.

A Stephen Hawking speech in 1988 states:

"This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe."

http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html

Your religion of evolution is obviously so well entrenched, and it clearly appeals to the intellectually lazy, (which people most are), so it will be a long time before evolution religion loses the huge obvious following of true believers who ignore or actively resist challanges to their belief system. That said, the religion of evolution has fatal flaws that are growing with each discovery of complexity previously assumed to be simplicity by Charles Darwin and many others in the 19th century.

"The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that."

Ya think Stephen Hawking is not a "scientist" too: clown???? :lol: :laugh2:

[Little Dragon]

??....I'm hoping you intend to make a point soon....nothing here contradicts what I stated in my last post, so I will just leave it stand until you raise an argument against it.....


"However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[17]"

The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[21] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[22]"

"However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[24]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Oh, here's some more from that page:

"In 2008,[7] a re-analysis of Miller's archived solutions from the original experiments showed that 22 amino acids rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used.[8]"

"Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[14]"

"Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[20]"

[Little Dragon]

"The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that."

Ya think Stephen Hawking is not a "scientist" too: clown???? :lol: :laugh2:

Ah, so you like Stephen Hawking quotes. I found some more for you :)

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]"

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]"

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."

"Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]"

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_SHawking.htm

And let me just chime in here about the mentally lazy thing. I really think it's those who give up on understanding the science of how things work and throwing their hands up in the air proclaiming "aww f-ck it, god did it!" Makes things real simple and easy, no thinking needed! When I was a believer, I found that I did far less thinking than I do now. Religion fits the mentally lazy like a glove. I base that on a lot of observation and personal experience.

[OldMercsRule]

Ah, so you like Stephen Hawking quotes. I found some more for you :)

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]"

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]"

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."

"Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]"

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_SHawking.htm

I knew that Hawking was publically neutral about God. That is the mark of a true scientist. Einstein was a believer as well, (I'm actually not sure about Hawking), and also kept arms length with his profound werk. That said: he, (Hawking), does state very provocative things in his quest fer a grand unification theory.

It is possible that a grand unification theory could emerge, (which Hawking has werked most of his life to accomplish), that could explain all things macro to micro with out the need fer Intelligent Design. Maybe the matter in the universe has a unifying mechanism that causes a huge gravity debt and then collapses at the end of the expansion and oscillates back and forth along the lines of the great Hindu faith.

That explanation clearly has not happened thus far, and would clearly need to explain cosmology down to the origin of life in all the complexity we now observe and the very cornplex nano/ particle world we also know about as well.


And let me just chime in here about the mentally lazy thing.

You do not appear to be mentally lazy, as many true believers of your religion likely are. Missile is very lazy talking about whales making up their own minds and silly chit like that.


I really think it's those who give up on understanding the science of how things work and throwing their hands up in the air proclaiming "aww f-ck it, god did it!" Makes things real simple and easy, no thinking needed!

You are making another point I already made. It takes far more faith to believe in yer religion of evolution then ID.

You repeatedly state yer assumption that I don't "understand science". You can not read my mind. My words surely don't indicate a lack of understanding so stick to those please.

Some people may come to ID without thinking as deep or going through the illogical hand stands those who follow Darwinian religion do, as it is clearly far more logical then evolution, (at this stage of our knowledge base).

When the universe was thought constant and steady in the 19th century, and single cells were assumed very simple, the pendulum was on yer religion's side, now with all the discoveries of complexity it has swung back. Energenic true believers like you, paid true believers who profit from research grants and the momentum from Darwin and the Scopes trial, and lazy true believers like Missile are all fighting a losing battle.

Not all people take the easiest and most logical route, (acceptance of ID), that is supported by all modern observations with an increasing knowledge base as we progress. That said: the times they are a changin'.


When I was a believer, I found that I did far less thinking than I do now.

I'm sure that is true. The defense of such an illogical theory as yer religion of evolution, that doesn't fit observation;....... yet is founded on observation takes a lot of werk, as you have shown here.


Religion fits the mentally lazy like a glove. I base that on a lot of observation and personal experience.

Maybe fer some. That doesn't fit my set of experiences.

[PostmodernProphet]

"However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.[17]"

The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a possibly much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[21] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[22]"

"However, the authors of the paper are arguing that this presence of oxygen merely evidences the existence of photosynthetic organisms 3.7 Ga ago (a date about 200 Ma earlier than previous estimates[24]) a conclusion which while pushing back the time frame in which Miller–Urey reactions and abiogenesis could potentially have occurred, would not preclude them. Though there is somewhat controversial evidence for very small (less than 0.1%) amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere almost as old as Earth's oldest rocks, the authors are not in any way arguing for the existence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere any earlier than previously thought, and they state: ". . . In fact most evidence suggests that oxygenic photosynthesis was present during time periods from which there is evidence for a non-oxygenic atmosphere".[23]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Oh, here's some more from that page:

"In 2008,[7] a re-analysis of Miller's archived solutions from the original experiments showed that 22 amino acids rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used.[8]"

"Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.[14]"

"Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment.[20]"

I'm a patient man....are you going to bring up something that contradicts what I said in my last post or aren't you?......so far I see you suffer from same problem as the typical secular poster.....you don't truly understand what we are discussing so you assume that as long as you past something from a scientific web site you are winning your argument....let me help you....abiogenesis goes far beyond the production of organic chemical compounds.....it speculates that at some point these compounds transformed into life......you can post all you want about experiments that create organic chemical compounds but the step you are missing and will forever miss is that transformation.....so I don't really care if it was 22 or 5 amino acids that were produced....the point is that life wasn't produced and never can be......and since that step can never be tested it will forever fall short of being a scientific theory...or even an hypothesis.....

[OldMercsRule]

To build on PmP's last reply, (which was quite good, IMHO), we know that massive stars have been observed to explode and generate, (scatter), the elements necessary as the building blocks for life and the elements for everything else we can find.

We know that there is a delicate observed order in cosmology with a precise rate of expansion of matter that has allowed all things we observe to exist from a very pricise order (or set of physical laws), that came from somewhere.

We theorize that order can not come from choas, and there has never been a demonstration to counter that well espablished theory.

We know from observation that rocky planets exist, (besides earth), and it is likely just a matter of time before we find another rocky planet outside our system with a stable orbit in a temperate zone of a stable star with a satelite with sufficient mass that could make liquid water and a stable atmosphere possible. Such a discovery will not invalidate ID regardless of conflict with the old book.

We know from observation that Mars rocks have ended up on earth and the opposite is also very likely. We know from observation that viruses and bacteria have survived a space trip and re-entry as well.

All that acknowledged, (by me, as I'm not speaking for PmP), the cornplexity of the DNA initially discovered in the 1950s and now known to be even more cornplex is the profound challenge fer yer (Little Dragon's), religion of evolution and the even weaker theoretical offshoots created for defense of the religion yer trying to hide within.

Bottom line.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN, (or even close), as I have maintained from the onset in this thread.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is nowhere near a "fact".

The theory of evolution is not the best theory in science or even close, that is a religious statement of faith belied by the glaring weaknesses discussed herein.

The theory, (religion), of evolution has been weakened cornsiderably by Hubble's discovery and the validation of the very likely big bang theory, and the discovery in the 1950s of DNA.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is growing weaker as modern observations progress, and the theory of ID is growing stronger, supporting all religions, (old and new), that believe in a higher power of an omnipotent God (or Gods).

[Missileman]

You think yer my momma or somethin'????

James Watson, Francis Crick aren't scientists yer sayin'????? :D



Sure can. It only takes one functional brain cell. ;)



N' Dr. Michael Behe???



The complexity proven by the discovery of DNA in the 1950s, (that got cornsiderably more complicated after the human genome was sequenced in 1999), forced a total revision that is ongoing of yer Darwinian, neo-Darwinian et al religion over a five decade long period. :eek: The religion of evolution appeals to intellectually lazy people, (or those who get paid for research by grants corntrolled by believers who are paid to keep the status quo).

You obviously missed the boat as you were still stuck on whales deciding to live in the ocean :laugh2: after transforming from seals silly chit, as the lazy clown you obviously are. :laugh2:

I was agnostic until 1992 when I became a born again Christian, the likely validity of the big bang theory was prolly the biggest factor in my cornclusions, butt: the obvious complexity of living systems also weighed in.

Evolution is under growing pressure, that started in earnest with Hubble's, (and many others of less fame), discovery of an expanding universe, and gained momentum in the 1950s with Watson and Crick's werk.

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

The validation of the big bang theory has profoundly effected independent thinkers, (of which you clearly are not), as has the knowledge of the huge complexity of living organisms from the single cell up to cosmology has all cornsistently pointed to Intelligent Design.

A Stephen Hawking speech in 1988 states:

"This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe."

http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html

Your religion of evolution is obviously so well entrenched, and it clearly appeals to the intellectually lazy, (which people most are), so it will be a long time before evolution religion loses the huge obvious following of true believers who ignore or actively resist challanges to their belief system. That said, the religion of evolution has fatal flaws that are growing with each discovery of complexity previously assumed to be simplicity by Charles Darwin and many others in the 19th century.

"The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that."

Ya think Stephen Hawking is not a "scientist" too: clown???? :lol: :laugh2:

And you STILL haven't posted anything to support your claim. The big bang hasn't a damned thing to do with evolution...neither does Hawking's musings on the existence of god. You made a proclamation that SCIENCE has disqualified most of evolution. Your opinion of the complexity of DNA isn't evidence that substantiates your claim, it's just your mis-guided opinion. Post something from a real scientist that says DNA nullifies the theory of evolution.

[Little Dragon]

Have you noted the religious ferver of those lincs Little Dragon? I have already read them and I don't intend to debate them. I will note that one of yer Wiki cites had information about a large number of "scientists" IN BIOLOGY who lend some credibility to ID.

Whether you like those sites or not, they still contain factual information. Oh, and if you distrust wiki so much, why use something from it to support your position? I guess it's valid if it suits your needs. And so what if some scientists believe in god? They still accept evolution. So not sure what that's supposed to prove there. And just how do you know what the beliefs of the wiki writers are by the way? That sounds awefully biased.
They seem pretty objective to me and they reference their information. Seriously, why can't you trust any other source of information that isn't on a creationist site? Are you perhaps afraid of something? Are there any sources of real information, not creationist propaganda sites, that you can trust?

It was creationists who had a religious ferver to attack evolution because it didn't fit into their religious views. They generated all the controversey and are causing others to respond to all the lunacy spreading among the ignorant. And while this may sound "huffy" to you, it's really just me calling it like I see it.

It is a bit frustrating putting forward what I feel are good arguments and evidence and only being met with the same repetitive childish comeback that doesn't even make sense or relate to what I've been saying or showing you. I want real discussion with someone who is honest with themselves and with me.


Varibility within populations of like organisms has been known since the Greeks, Pursians and Chinese proposed the first observational evolution theories. I certainly don't dispute the observation of blondes, brunettes, blue eyes, brown eyes, fat, skinny, tall, short et al in human populations. Some of those characteristics surely aid survival in some situations.

So you can understand and agree that there are variants in a population. And I'm assuming you can imagine some selective pressures favoring the more beneficial or efficient variants, thus increasing the population of those more efficient variants? This is the fact of evolution that we see all around us. We can even manipulate the process. We have seen and even been able to cause speciation events. Scroll down to "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation" on this page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


That said: the proposition of a cockroach, (a very old insect with some 4000 species dating back at least 145 million years), 345 million years if ya count claimed pre modern roaches, becoming a horse dating back 45 million years is not possible under any senerio.

This is just plain absurd, when did I ever say that happened? You need to read my posts more carefully. This certainly isn't possible, you're right about that! Insects are too far removed from mammals. I've explained this before, I guess you missed it. They can only work from the template they have. Insects will most likely stay insects, as far as I know. Mammals are on their own part of the tree, quite far removed from the insects'. Once life traveled a certain path, it's course was basically set, a template made to build on but it had reached a point of no return. Evolution isn't magical, it has it's limits. Insects will not be turning into mammals. Look at the phylogenetic tree here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif
also you may want to go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)



Variation in a population of like organisms, (which most logical people could accept), is not the same as a horse from a cockroach or human from a prokaryote. Evolution theory of all life from a common ansestor is not a "scientific fact" or anything other then a religious belief that has zero evidence of ever happening.

Acutally, humans are in the eucaryote category. You seem stuck on making absurd leaps while ignoring all the steps in between and the fact that life diverged into completely different paths that cannot change into one another. It's pretty clear to me that you still lack a fundamental understanding of evolution. Look at it this way, all the life we see now had to come from somewhere, and I'm betting the farm it wasn't by a magic trick from some sky fairy. You think evolution is absurd and yet you insist on a magical being willing things into existence fully formed from thin air!



Semantics. I have debated the religion of evolution, while accepting some aspects of the religion.

No, not semantics, this is perfectly straightforward. Can you have an honest and straightforward discussion? You must know on some level that we have the observable process of evolution as a fact, and the theory which explains the observable fact. I literally cannot be any more plain or clear than this.



"Vestigial" structures were assumed to have no function at all and since zero intermediate fossils turned up were the fraud used to further the religion of evolution.

Once a function was discovered for the previously assumed "vestigial" structure, the definition was changed to preserve the religion. I know how true believers defend their religion: Little Dragon. I am a true believer in Christ.

Can you please show me a source for that old definition? I have a hunch you got that from a creationist website too. Here's what I found with a little searching:

"Several evolution deniers have falsely claimed that biologists changed the definition of vestigial and rudimentary structures when functions were found for many vestiges (see Bergman and Howe 1990 pp 2-3; Sarfati 2002). "
"Regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory, a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp 601-609; Dodson 1960, p 44; Griffiths 1992; McCabe 1912, p 264; Merrell 1962, p 101; Moody 1962, p 40; Muller 2002; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 8-9; Wiedersheim 1893, p 2, p 200, p 205)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html

Amazing that you're still claiming there were no intermediate fossils found. There's plenty. I've given you links but you just ignore them. No amount of denial is going to make those pesky fossils go away, sorry.



Jesus is a constant, omnipotent, omniscient, timeless GOD. That is much easier to believe then yer constantly changing religion where ya must suspend language, create new "theories" that don't werk to explain where life came from, n' make up silly chit n' change basic rules to meet new discoveries n' what not.

Provide some evidence of this god, please. If you can't provide some really good evidence for your wild assertion, you don't have a leg to stand on. And evolution theory changing doesn't weaken it in the slightest, it makes it stronger. We have a better understanding of evolution than before and the evidence continutes to pile up. You never addressed ERVs btw. Reread that part of my post and give me a good refutation of that. Oh and while you're at it, please address the part about the blind mole rat having perfectly good eyes that are sealed under skin.



Science has disqualified most of yer religion.

I'm going to put this under the category of a big bold lie to suit your needs, since I've given you a lot of good evidence to the contrary, leaving you without excuse. The evidence is staring you in the face. You can't sweep all that evidence under the rug.


Order can never come from chaos. A cockroach can never be a horse and a prokaryote can never be a beautiful babe human woman, I don't care how much time ya take ta bake that cake. Yer religion fails. :D ;)

Order comes from chaos quite a lot actually. I've given you links that explain this phenomenon. Here's a nice video: http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/bbc-wonders-of-solar-system-episode-2.html You sure do make a lot of claims without backing them up.



I think ID is self evident as well.

Only to those who already assume a god. Creationists start with their belief in a god and try to force everything to fit (a bit like trying to force square pegs into round holes), while more rational people use the facts to try to understand things. I'm not even saying you can't be open to the possibility, but if you're going to foolishly go around proclaiming it's fact then you will be expected to back it up with some incredible evidence. Feel free to believe what you want, just don't go around calling it science.



All life from a single ancestor is a great leap: Einstein. What would ya call the big bang? Kinda a "great leap" since everything can from one singularity eh?

Not when it happens over billions of years in steps, nope, sorry. If you collect a beneficial change/mutation every million years, how many would you have after a billion years? Surely your answer wouldn't be one or zero now would it? You can't change physics and biology with your denial and dislike of them. And the big bang and biological evolution are two seperate things requiring completely different theories.

And as for the cambrien explosion..

"There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian.[5] However, recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[83] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

I recommend reading the whole page for a better understanding of the cambrian period.

[Missileman]

Bottom line.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN, (or even close), as I have maintained from the onset in this thread.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is nowhere near a "fact".

The theory of evolution is not the best theory in science or even close, that is a religious statement of faith belied by the glaring weaknesses discussed herein.

The theory, (religion), of evolution has been weakened cornsiderably by Hubble's discovery and the validation of the very likely big bang theory, and the discovery in the 1950s of DNA.

The theory, (religion), of evolution is growing weaker as modern observations progress, and the theory of ID is growing stronger, supporting all religions, (old and new), that believe in a higher power of an omnipotent God (or Gods).

Lower than bottom line: You think calling evolution a religion makes it less valid than YOUR religion? The vacuum in your skull is so intense, I suggest you take extra care when picking your nose. An accidental breach would result in the loss of your finger...quite possibly your entire arm.

[Little Dragon]

I'm a patient man....are you going to bring up something that contradicts what I said in my last post or aren't you?......so far I see you suffer from same problem as the typical secular poster.....you don't truly understand what we are discussing so you assume that as long as you past something from a scientific web site you are winning your argument....let me help you....abiogenesis goes far beyond the production of organic chemical compounds.....it speculates that at some point these compounds transformed into life......you can post all you want about experiments that create organic chemical compounds but the step you are missing and will forever miss is that transformation.....so I don't really care if it was 22 or 5 amino acids that were produced....the point is that life wasn't produced and never can be......and since that step can never be tested it will forever fall short of being a scientific theory...or even an hypothesis.....

How do you know life couldn't have been produced from completely natural processes? How do you perform tests that show a genie in the sky wiggled his nose and made full forms appear out of thin air? There's uncertainty about how life started sure, but to conclude it couldn't have happened naturally and that some magical entity must have done it is just plain absurd and extremely unlikely. I think science will accumulate more evidence eventually which will help them to figure it out. Or we may never know for sure. But unless I see some really spectacular evidence for some paranormal, magical origin, I have no reason to believe life started from anything other than natural occurances.

"Since fatty acids could have been available in the environment, a primitive fatty acid membrane could have surrounded the first self-replicating RNA molecules (due to their molecular properties, fatty acids can form vesicles spontaneously) (3); this would not have allowed passage of the RNA polymers so that they would have stayed together, but would have let the much smaller nucleotides through, fed in from a precursor genetic/catalytic system. Such a membrane would have had different characteristics of semi-permeability than modern lipid membranes, where a lot of molecule transfer is regulated through protein channels."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#complexity

A good primer video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[PostmodernProphet]

How do you know life couldn't have been produced from completely natural processes? How do you perform tests that show a genie in the sky wiggled his nose and made full forms appear out of thin air? There's uncertainty about how life started sure, but to conclude it couldn't have happened naturally and that some magical entity must have done it is just plain absurd and extremely unlikely. I think science will accumulate more evidence eventually which will help them to figure it out. Or we may never know for sure. But unless I see some really spectacular evidence for some paranormal, magical origin, I have no reason to believe life started from anything other than natural occurances.


let's make sure we're all clear on this.....are you now acknowledging that abiogenesis is a faith choice rather than science?.....if so, I agree with you and we can close this matter.....

[OldMercsRule]

And you STILL haven't posted anything to support your claim.

The discovery of DNA and the resulting previously unknown cornplexity of the basic cell as a building block to life was profound, and a major shock to yer religion: clown. :laugh2:

Just because yer to lazy to acknowledge the profound challange to Darwin and neo-Darwin religion doesn't mean I didn't post it.


The big bang hasn't a damned thing to do with evolution...neither does Hawking's musings on the existence of god. You made a proclamation that SCIENCE has disqualified most of evolution.

Sure it has.

How do ya think you could have religion about how life evolved in the first place if ya didn't have matter to begin with: eh clown? :laugh2:


Your opinion of the complexity of DNA isn't evidence that substantiates your claim, it's just your mis-guided opinion.

I reject yer self appointed status if judge and jury: clown. I will reply in debate as I please.


Post something from a real scientist that says DNA nullifies the theory of evolution.

Post what ya wanna post yerself. Yer not my momma. I post evidence as I see fit.

[Missileman]

The discovery of DNA and the resulting previously unknown cornplexity of the basic cell as a building block to life was profound, and a major shock to yer religion: clown. :laugh2:

You keep saying so, but still haven't posted anything credible that shows this is anything other than your highly un-informed opinion.




[[COLOR="blue"]Sure it has.

How do ya think you could have religion about how life evolved in the first place if ya didn't have matter to begin with: eh clown? :laugh2:



I reject yer self appointed status if judge and jury: clown. I will reply in debate as I please.



Post what ya wanna post yerself. Yer not my momma. I post evidence as I see fit.

Translation: You have no evidence to support your crap so you attempt to make it appear that you're willfully withholding it...:lame2:

[OldMercsRule]

Whether you like those sites or not, they still contain factual information. Oh, and if you distrust wiki so much, why use something from it to support your position?

Just because I point out the bias from the prevalent religion of evolution doesn't mean wiki doesn't have some useful purposes.


I guess it's valid if it suits your needs. And so what if some scientists believe in god? They still accept evolution.

You can't read their minds any more then you can read mine. You made a statement about 99.9% of scientists that the wiki proved wrong was and is my point that now stands.


So not sure what that's supposed to prove there.

That yer previous statement about scientific cornsensus in yer religion is cracked.


And just how do you know what the beliefs of the wiki writers are by the way? That sounds awefully biased.
They seem pretty objective to me and they reference their information.

The length of the wiki and the volume of corntortions and excuses fer lack of fossil record n' yada yada yada. The bias was obvious to me.


Seriously, why can't you trust any other source of information that isn't on a creationist site?

How would you know what I "trust" or don't "trust"; bias is everywhere, (including the cites I use in debate). Ya can't read my mind: Little Dragon.


Are you perhaps afraid of something? Are there any sources of real information, not creationist propaganda sites, that you can trust?

I "trust" myself and I "trust" Jesus Christ. All other things generally have bias of some sort, which doesn't mean I don't "trust" other sources, I am aware they have bias is all.


It was creationists who had a religious ferver to attack evolution because it didn't fit into their religious views. They generated all the controversey and are causing others to respond to all the lunacy spreading among the ignorant. And while this may sound "huffy" to you, it's really just me calling it like I see it.

I have not denied religion: you have.


It is a bit frustrating putting forward what I feel are good arguments and evidence and only being met with the same repetitive childish comeback that doesn't even make sense or relate to what I've been saying or showing you. I want real discussion with someone who is honest with themselves and with me.

Sorry to dissapoint ya. Sometimes debate is like that.


So you can understand and agree that there are variants in a population.

Sure.


And I'm assuming you can imagine some selective pressures favoring the more beneficial or efficient variants, thus increasing the population of those more efficient variants?

Sure.


This is the fact of evolution that we see all around us. We can even manipulate the process.

There are aspects of evolution that have some merit. I've said that. That said, it doesn't mean that one species can turn into a distinctly different species no matter how much time is involved. There is the profound issue of how life started in the first place.


We have seen and even been able to cause speciation events.
Scroll down to "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation" on this page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I don't debate C & P nor do I accept the definitions within.


That said: the proposition of a cockroach, (a very old insect with some 4000 species dating back at least 145 million years), 345 million years if ya count claimed pre modern roaches, becoming a horse dating back 45 million years is not possible under any senerio.


This is just plain absurd, when did I ever say that happened?

You didn't say precisely that, butt yer religion implys that with the "common ancestor" silly chit and I agree IT IS PLAIN ABSURD.


You need to read my posts more carefully.

I do read yer posts very carefully, I also make intentionally outlandish statements to get yer undivided attention about the absurdity of one distinct species becoming another, (ever heard of the term "common ancestor"????). Where did ya hear that before??? Hmmmmmmmmm??????? That means one unique orgainsm becomes another unique organism.

There are zero examples of intermediate organisms in the fossil record so I use two distict known species, ones that occupy different time slots in paleohistory to demonstrate how obsured yer religion and the corncept of a "common ancestor" actually is. Takes some serious faith to believe in such an "absurd" corncept, eh? Glad you can finally see me point. I was gettin worried about yer tight undies again.


This certainly isn't possible, you're right about that!

WE AGREE THEN. WOW.


Insects are too far removed from mammals.

Then yer sayin' they can't be common ancestors????? Do you know what ya just said????? Yer religion is then clearly false, and in need of another significant revision, as that is a primary foundation of the religion of evolution. N' you claim I don't understand yer religion of evolution.


I've explained this before, I guess you missed it. They can only work from the template they have. Insects will most likely stay insects, as far as I know.

I don't recall you ever making this valid ID theory point before maybe one of yer C & Ps did, butt: I don't think you ever did.

I would have been all over it. I remember ya gettin' real huffy butt: never cornceding a major point as ya just did. There is some hope fer you after all. Yer starting ta use yer brain.

I hope ya know the significance of what you just said. You just cornceded a major point. If insects are not related to horses they can't have a common ancestor!!!!! Elementary my Dear Watson.


Mammals are on their own part of the tree, quite far removed from the insects'.

The tree is cornstantly revised, and ancestors are related.


Once life traveled a certain path, it's course was basically set, a template made to build on but it had reached a point of no return.

Wow yer proposing a new revision of the religion. Sure takes a lot of faith ta stand on yer head eh?


Evolution isn't magical,

Sure it is. lots of magic in yer religion of evolution if all living things on this planet are ancestors, and the start of life is not explained.


it has it's limits.

The only limits are the limits of the true believers imaginations.


Insects will not be turning into mammals.

Glad to know that.


Look at the phylogenetic tree here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/phylo.gif
also you may want to go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)

Not gonna debate C & P.


Acutally, humans are in the eucaryote category. You seem stuck on making absurd leaps while ignoring all the steps in between and the fact that life diverged into completely different paths that cannot change into one another.

Ya have an earlier organism then the "prokaryote"???? Why would there not be a direct relationship, unless ya have an earlier root of the ol' religious tree eh????? I agree it is "absurd" ta make the leap yer religion makes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Relationship_to_eukaryotes

"Evolution of prokaryotes

Phylogenetic tree showing the diversity of prokaryotes, compared to eukaryotes.The current model of the evolution of the first living organisms is that these were some form of prokaryotes, which may have evolved out of protobionts. The eukaryotes are generally thought to have evolved later in the history of life.[15] However, some authors have questioned this conclusion, arguing that the current set of prokaryotic species may have evolved from more complex eukaryotic ancestors through a process of simplification.[16][17][18] Others have argued that the three domains of life arose simultaneously, from a set of varied cells that formed a single a gene pool.[19] This controversy was summarized in 2005:[20]

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere."


It's pretty clear to me that you still lack a fundamental understanding of evolution.

:lol: Ya say that all the time. Me thinks ya don't get it yerself or you wouldn't have fallen into the trap I set with the "prokaryote" to human ancestory that I vew as silly chit and you view as gospel, if ya know what yer talking about with respect to yer religion, (which it looks like ya don't). :lol:


Look at it this way, all the life we see now had to come from somewhere, and I'm betting the farm it wasn't by a magic trick from some sky fairy.

Jesus is no "sky fairy". :D


You think evolution is absurd and yet you insist on a magical being willing things into existence fully formed from thin air!

Aspects of yer religion of evolution are "absurd"; remember our agreement??? I intend to hold ya to it, BTW.

I will go ya one better then that it all came from nothing , (air is a cornplex gas). See big bang n' ponder singularity. ;)


No, not semantics, this is perfectly straightforward. Can you have an honest and straightforward discussion? You must know on some level that we have the observable process of evolution as a fact, and the theory which explains the observable fact. I literally cannot be any more plain or clear than this.

Some of yer claims of "fact" are religious claims.

Jesus is a "fact" to me butt: I accept you have fallen away, (unless ya were a Muslim or some such), so I don't hold Jesus, (God), out to you as "fact" in defference to you I refer to God as the "Designer". ;)


Can you please show me a source for that old definition?

Dunno where I got it. Darwin used the term as an organ or apendage that had no use. When use was later discovered the term morphed.


I have a hunch you got that from a creationist website too. Here's what I found with a little searching:

"Several evolution deniers have falsely claimed that biologists changed the definition of vestigial and rudimentary structures when functions were found for many vestiges (see Bergman and Howe 1990 pp 2-3; Sarfati 2002). "
"Regardless of popular misconception, from the beginning of modern evolutionary theory, a complete absence of function has not been a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp 601-609; Dodson 1960, p 44; Griffiths 1992; McCabe 1912, p 264; Merrell 1962, p 101; Moody 1962, p 40; Muller 2002; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 8-9; Wiedersheim 1893, p 2, p 200, p 205)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html

Amazing that you're still claiming there were no intermediate fossils found. There's plenty. I've given you links but you just ignore them. No amount of denial is going to make those pesky fossils go away, sorry.

I don't debate C & P.

Here is one of mine if ya wanna go at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ&feature=related


Jesus is a constant, omnipotent, omniscient, timeless GOD. That is much easier to believe then yer constantly changing religion where ya must suspend language, create new "theories" that don't werk to explain where life came from, n' make up silly chit n' change basic rules to meet new discoveries n' what not.


Provide some evidence of this god, please.

That is the standard definition for Christians. I guess you were not Christian prior to you turning away, and I don't want to debate the nature of God. That definition stands for me.


If you can't provide some really good evidence for your wild assertion, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Jesus is based upon faith. I'm not gonna provide "evidence" for God.


And evolution theory changing doesn't weaken it in the slightest, it makes it stronger.

Agreed, the changes do make the religion of evolution stronger, it fails prior to continuous necessary revisions as the religion doesn't fit observations as they are discovered.


We have a better understanding of evolution than before and the evidence continutes to pile up. You never addressed ERVs btw. Reread that part of my post and give me a good refutation of that. Oh and while you're at it, please address the part about the blind mole rat having perfectly good eyes that are sealed under skin.

I don't debate C & P. Sorry.


I'm going to put this under the category of a big bold lie to suit your needs, since I've given you a lot of good evidence to the contrary, leaving you without excuse. The evidence is staring you in the face. You can't sweep all that evidence under the rug.

I already spanked Missile.

See that post.

The discovery of DNA, and the theory of the big bang are two profound matters science has discovered evidence of that has smoked yer religion and sent true believers on a scramble ta modify the religion.

Sorry the truth hurts ya soooo much. Here I thought those undies were gettin' comfy, better look fer a new pair. :eek:


Order comes from chaos quite a lot actually. I've given you links that explain this phenomenon. Here's a nice video: http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/bbc-wonders-of-solar-system-episode-2.html You sure do make a lot of claims without backing them up.

Any better then the snow flake silly chit???? :laugh2:


Only to those who already assume a god. Creationists start with their belief in a god and try to force everything to fit (a bit like trying to force square pegs into round holes), while more rational people use the facts to try to understand things. I'm not even saying you can't be open to the possibility, but if you're going to foolishly go around proclaiming it's fact then you will be expected to back it up with some incredible evidence. Feel free to believe what you want, just don't go around calling it science.

I try to leave semantics to you true believers.


Not when it happens over billions of years in steps, nope, sorry.

You called it "absurd" remember? So not ya think a cockroach can become a horse again???? I said I was gonna hold you to yer admission.

BTW the big bang didn't take billions of years.


If you collect a beneficial change/mutation every million years, how many would you have after a billion years? Surely your answer wouldn't be one or zero now would it? You can't change physics and biology with your denial and dislike of them.

I neither deny or dislike physics or biology. Ya can't read me mind.


And the big bang and biological evolution are two seperate things requiring completely different theories.

So yer sayin' evolution was goin' on when the universe and all mater and energy was a singularity. You really don't get it: do ya????


And as for the cambrien explosion..

"There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian.[5] However, recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing.[83] In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

I recommend reading the whole page for a better understanding of the cambrian period.

I've read it. You don't understand yer own religion, and that is clear from this post. Better hit the books. :D

[OldMercsRule]

Little Dragon, you really don't have the faintest idea of what chaos is do ya?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos

cha·os   /ˈkeɪɒs/ Show Spelled[key-os] Show IPA
–noun
1.a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2.any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3.the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.

Snow flakes or the gas or debris the solar system formed from are not chaos. You really need to hit the books: my freind. If you truly understood chaos you may have a clue why your religion is so cracked.

[Missileman]

[COLOR="blue"]I already spanked Missile.

.

In your dreams Hoover Head!

[OldMercsRule]

In your dreams Hoover Head!


What's a "Hoover Head" clown?

[OldMercsRule]

Well PostmodernProphet........ looks like the true believers of evolution got plumb tuckered out. :)

Little Dragon admitted one of the assumptions of his religion about common ancestry was "absurd" n' musta got sooooooo embarrased even new undies wouldn't help. N' even Missile has crawled under the ol' covers fer a few days. :laugh:

Bottom line:

Evolution is far from "fact" either: "proven" or "irrefutable", as it takes far more faith that true believers in evolution either ignore or deny to believe their absurd chit then conrventional theology. :D :D ;)

[Missileman]

Well PostmodernProphet........ looks like the true believers of evolution got plumb tuckered out. :)

Little Dragon admitted one of the assumptions of his religion about common ancestry was "absurd" n' musta got sooooooo embarrased even new undies wouldn't help. N' even Missile has crawled under the ol' covers fer a few days. :laugh:

Bottom line:

Evolution is far from "fact" either: "proven" or "irrefutable", as it takes far more faith that true believers in evolution either ignore or deny to believe their absurd chit then conrventional theology. :D :D ;)

It truly is amazing that you can't see the patent stupidity of your argument that it takes more faith to believe in one of two things, both of which you have deemed religion.

Even more amazing since you have admitted more than once that evolution does in fact occur. Must really chafe your ass that science can dismiss ID for lack of evidence but you can't do the same for evolution...:lol:

Bring some real evidence to the game or hang it up...your declarations of victory are as hollow as your skull which coincidentally is as hollow as the concept of ID.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well PostmodernProphet........ looks like the true believers of evolution got plumb tuckered out. :)

Little Dragon admitted one of the assumptions of his religion about common ancestry was "absurd" n' musta got sooooooo embarrased even new undies wouldn't help. N' even Missile has crawled under the ol' covers fer a few days. :laugh:

Bottom line:

Evolution is far from "fact" either: "proven" or "irrefutable", as it takes far more faith that true believers in evolution either ignore or deny to believe their absurd chit then conrventional theology. :D :D ;)

I've always found that the folks who claim science and religion are incompatible rarely understand either.....once they find themselves in a debate which requires they actually have to provide an argument to support their claims they run as fast as their furry little vestigial legs will carry them....

I must add it's been a pleasure watching you dismantle Missingman....you certainly do know your stuff....

[OldMercsRule]

It truly is amazing that you can't see the patent stupidity of your argument that it takes more faith to believe in one of two things, both of which you have deemed religion.

It is "truly amazing" you can't see the prima facie truth of the statement about yer faith, as ya must be in denial of yer religion where I readily admit mine.

Yer lazy style of debate where ya play word traps and talk about silly chit ya make up outta whole cloth like: whales "deciding" they gotta live in the ocean :laugh2: and cumin' from seals :laugh2: n' cracked chit like that as you have said in this debate shows me ya don't do yer homewerk and are a lazy clown. :laugh2:

Noir, Pete and Little Dragon at least tried to prove their case that evolution was more then just a run of the mill observational theory that failed to explain observations and needed constant revision and massive doses of faith to support their unbelievable claim evolution was "irrefutably proven" or was "fact".

In the end it musta been clear to even them such claims were pure horse poop. Every C & P they found was full of uncertainty and revision, yet you true believers keep up the faith. That Missile is a religion if you open up yer lazy eyes, and pull yer head outa yer arse!!!!


Even more amazing since you have admitted more than once that evolution does in fact occur.

Evolution is a troubled theory requiring constant revision that does explain some observations intra species butt not inter species. It fails to explain the source of life or the fossil record. Horses don't cum from cockroaches, and men and women don't cum from prokaryotes or eukaryotes. I believe Jesus created all things, and our knowledge base is showing that is more likely with each discovery to those with open eyes and minds. That said: the religion of evolution is well entrenched.


Must really chafe your ass that science can dismiss ID for lack of evidence but you can't do the same for evolution...

Real "science" is not biased and closed minded and does not dismiss a logical explanation for all we observe. True believers use their profound lack of understanding of real "science" to turn political semantics about "science" into a rhetorical weapon to defend their sacred religion of evolution as it becomes less credible with each discovery.


Bring some real evidence to the game or hang it up...

There ya go again..... semantics. You wouldn't know "real evidence" from yer arse. :laugh2::laugh2:


your declarations of victory are as hollow as your skull which coincidentally is as hollow as the concept of ID.

Ya think???? Prolly not in yer case......

[OldMercsRule]

I've always found that the folks who claim science and religion are incompatible rarely understand either.....once they find themselves in a debate which requires they actually have to provide an argument to support their claims they run as fast as their furry little vestigial legs will carry them....

I must add it's been a pleasure watching you dismantle Missingman....you certainly do know your stuff....

Thanks PmP.

I prolly don't know as much as you think I do, (only one functional brain cell). :)

We just picked an easy subject to defend and the true believers overstepped their postiton claiming "fact" n' all that horse poop which was very easy to dismantle. ;)

Some minimal debating skills and a few facts and some logic sends those who deny their faith to the hills fer cover unless they are toooooo lazy to see they have been spanked. :D:D

[Missileman]

Thanks PmP.

I prolly don't know as much as you think I do, (only one functional brain cell). :)

We just picked an easy subject to defend and the true believers overstepped their postiton claiming "fact" n' all that horse poop which was very easy to dismantle. ;)

Some minimal debating skills and a few facts and some logic sends those who deny their faith to the hills fer cover unless they are toooooo lazy to see they have been spanked. :D:D

ROFLMAO...that PMP thinks you're winning this argument is the ultimate testimony of just how weak your shit is.

[avatar4321]

You have very low standards for proof.

[Missileman]

You have very low standards for proof.

At whom is this directed?

[OldMercsRule]

At whom is this directed?


One would assume a comment about "proof" would be directed at those who claim their religion, (that they deny is a religion), is "fact" or irrefutably proven: Einstein. ;)

[Missileman]

One would assume a comment about "proof" would be directed at those who claim their religion, (that they deny is a religion), is "fact" or irrefutably proven: Einstein. ;)

That's really rich coming from you. You offer as "proof" of your belief in ID, a creator for which there is no proof of existing.

And you still are making the most stupid of arguments that one religion(your word) is less valid than another religion because it's a religion.

[PostmodernProphet]

ROFLMAO...that PMP thinks you're winning this argument is the ultimate testimony of just how weak your shit is.

dude....that you're the only one who thinks he hasn't, demonstrates something as well....

[OldMercsRule]

That's really rich coming from you.

Ya think????


You offer as "proof" of your belief in ID, a creator for which there is no proof of existing.

Wow yer sooo lazy ya didn't even read the thread you have been posting to.

My religion was not EVER the debate; the debate was about the title of the thread and the video in the first post that claimed evolution was irrefutably proven. All you true believers made silly claims that evolution was a "fact" and denied that yer faith in evolution was actually a religion, (which is obvious). Noir claimed he was gonna hit the books in the ol' library n' musta found out how cracked his argument was n' gave up. Pete and Little Dragon got huffy n' gave up. You jus' made up goofy chit, n' got huffy n' called me names as well.

You made those goofy claims about whales "deciding" to live in the ocean and then ya made up the chit that they also came from seals. :rolleyes: What a lazy clown. :laugh2:


And you still are making the most stupid of arguments that one religion(your word) is less valid than another religion because it's a religion.

Nope you can't read can ya? :rolleyes:

Show me where I said that: clown. :laugh2:

I said that ID still fits all observations and evolution does not, and needs constant revision. You always try to make claims that I said something where I did not. :rolleyes:

[Little Dragon]

Actually, I just got kinda bored and also sick of spinning my wheels trying to reiterate the same points to no avail. For example, evolution as an observed process is a scientific fact. Honestly Murky, I think that you're so fucking dense, you must have a massive black hole where your brain should be. Lol, sorry, I couldn't resist. Truth is, you haven't earned respect. You are a moron. You are too clouded by your beliefs to see anything put before you. I presented a good deal of information in a sincere attempt at making some sort of progress. Unfortunately, you are only interested in being childish: you have zero interest in the truth.

I'm curious, did your god seal the blind mole rat's eyes under skin as some kind of joke or something? I mean, how can you not wonder about these things?

[Missileman]

My religion was not EVER the debate; the debate was about the title of the thread and the video in the first post that claimed evolution was irrefutably proven. All you true believers made silly claims that evolution was a "fact" and denied that yer faith in evolution was actually a religion, (which is obvious). Noir claimed he was gonna hit the books in the ol' library n' musta found out how cracked his argument was n' gave up. Pete and Little Dragon got huffy n' gave up. You jus' made up goofy chit, n' got huffy n' called me names as well.

You keep calling evolution a religion(which it's not) over and over and over again like the designation diminishes it. I guess it's an attempt to bring evolution down to the level of ID...there's just one problem. Evolution is a fact...one that you can't deny, as much as you'd like to. Beneficial adaptation passed on to successive generations has been observed in real time. ID is a myth...one that science can(and does) deny, as much as you wish it couldn't.


You made those goofy claims about whales "deciding" to live in the ocean and then ya made up the chit that they also came from seals. :rolleyes: What a lazy clown.

That whole interchange was precipitated by your assinine assertion that the ancestors of the modern whale would have to develop a full tail before they could become aquatic to any degree. You can call it goofy, you can construct strawman after strawman, but it will not alter the fact that at some point, an ancestor of whales started spending time in the water...if they hadn't, there wouldn't be whales. That ancestor was a land animal and wouldn't have had a huge broad tail for swimming.

I also never said that whales are descended from seals. As I've stated previously I brought up seals as an example of a land animal with adaptations (flippers) that allow it to live aquatically, at least on a part-time basis. You continue to misrepresent what I said because it burns your strawman to the ground. :flameth:

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm curious, did your god seal the blind mole rat's eyes under skin as some kind of joke or something? I mean, how can you not wonder about these things?

yes, I wonder....I wonder how you can assume from a blind rat that sponges and humans have a common ancestor....

[OldMercsRule]

Actually, I just got kinda bored and also sick of spinning my wheels trying to reiterate the same points to no avail.

It's no fun tryin' ta spread the faith when ya meet someone who see's the religion yer a member of fer what it is n' calls ya a true believer as ya obviously are. :poke:


For example, evolution as an observed process is a scientific fact.

Nope not hardly. N' ya actually think that reverting back to semantics is a winning position for ya? :eek:


Honestly Murky, I think that you're so fucking dense, you must have a massive black hole where your brain should be. Lol, sorry, I couldn't resist.

Now you and Missile share the name calling tactic when ya get huffy.


Truth is, you haven't earned respect. You are a moron.

How smart could a feller be who only has one functional brain cell? ;)


You are too clouded by your beliefs to see anything put before you.

Change yer undies, n' hold up the mirror and take a good look. I don't deny my religion yer the one in denial. :D


I presented a good deal of information in a sincere attempt at making some sort of progress.

Yer C & P attemts may have been sincere, butt: ya obviously don't have an open enough mind ta read and understand the very uncertain chit in yer cites. If ya did you would see that every aspect of yer religion is uncertain and continuiously revised to match observations as discovered. Not a very successful observational based theory (in the scientific sense), VERY SUCCESSFUL AS A RELIGION, HOWEVER!



Unfortunately, you are only interested in being childish: you have zero interest in the truth.

"Truth" eh? Yasureyabetcha.

Did you ever sort out the humans from prokaryotes, (or eukaryotes if it makes ya feeeeeeeeel better in those tight undies ta use another potential revision of yer religion)? You agreed with me that insects stayed insects and cockroaches didn't become horses, REMEMBER?

That flies in the face of yer religion if humans came from prokaryotes: Einstein. True believers just add time, (thousands, millions, billions of years or some such :laugh2: ), ta make one at a time random mutations believable. Only fer true believers as you, or lazy fellers, (who may also be believers), like Missile.

It still doesn't fit observations or logic with what we now know about the complexity of life.

Ya must be real gullible, (or more likely a true believer), ta buy that chit no matter how much time is involved.


I'm curious, did your god seal the blind mole rat's eyes under skin as some kind of joke or something? I mean, how can you not wonder about these things?

Those examples were interesting.

This debate is not about the nature of God, (who in my faith allows free agency), it is about yer religion being a irrefutably proven fact.

The problem is they look like a variation within a species, which I do not deny. It could also be breeding between two close species, (horse mule), which also clearly happens in nature. I also don't deny the existance of mutations, (beneficial and non beneficial), or the possibility that individuals within a population with mutations can procreate and increase the variation of the population over time.

Successful species to species jumps have not been ever been documented, and doesn't seem a logical position to have ever happened with the complexity of life we know know about. It must have occured for Humans to cum from prokaryotes as yer religion dictates as a foundational premis or hypothesis.

The fossil record doesn't show evidence of such either. (True believers will label a piece of bone "intermediate" until a more complete fossil proves a complete successful organism existed). Life has seemed to explode in complexity, (Cambrian explosion), which doesn't fit the one at a time over time simple to cornplex flow of mutations of yer religion's philosophy no matter what interesting snippets the true believers can cum up with.

Bottom line.

I don't care if you respect me or my debate positions or not.

Yer religion of evolution is NOT IRREFUTIBLY PROVEN.

Nor is it a "fact".

I have admitted a will admit (once again) that aspects of the weak observational theory of evolution do appear to be valid and fit some observations, (as most religious cults are based upon elements of truth). ;) :D

[OldMercsRule]

You keep calling evolution a religion(which it's not) over and over and over again like the designation diminishes it.

It only "diminishes" evolution in the eyes of true believers such as yerself who don't, won't or can't admit their own faith or religion as they are adamantly opposed to everything they view as "faith based" or religious. :eek:


I guess it's an attempt to bring evolution down to the level of ID...there's just one problem.

No up or "down" about it, it is just an accurate disclosure of the satus of evolution theory in the eyes of true believers. :rolleyes:


Evolution is a fact...one that you can't deny, as much as you'd like to.

I surely do deny the "fact" of evolution. Only true believers can't see the clear cut uncertainty of their own faith which is subject to nearly constant revision. :rolleyes:


Beneficial adaptation passed on to successive generations has been observed in real time.

Both bacteria and insects have been observed to emphasize positive survival traits in the reproductive process (that had already existed within the existing population), when populations were exposed to stress from chemicals or other environmental factors. That doesn't prove evolution in any way shape or form. :laugh2:
That also doesn't mean a strain of bacteria can become a horse or a cow, which is neccessary ta prove yer religion. :eek:


ID is a myth...one that science can(and does) deny, as much as you wish it couldn't.

Do ya have a linc ta back that silly fictitious statement up ya lazy clown? Or are ys jus' makin' chit up again??? :laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

I surely do deny the "fact" of evolution. Only true believers can't see the clear cut uncertainty of their own faith which is subject to nearly constant revision.


Both bacteria and insects have been observed to emphasize positive survival traits in the reproductive process (that had already existed within the existing population), when populations were exposed to stress from chemicals or other environmental factors. That doesn't prove evolution in any way shape or form. :laugh2:
That also doesn't mean a strain of bacteria can become a horse or a cow, which is neccessary ta prove yer religion.

This is another prime example of how totally screwed up your notion of evolution is. One more time..very slowly...so that one brain cell can process the data...emphasizing positive traits in the reproductive process IS evolution.

And your strawman that a bacteria must become a horse or cow to prove evolution is just another in the pile of other strawman arguments you've made in this thread...so many in fact, that you're responsible for a world-wide hay shortage.

The fossil record tells us that modern horses (Equus) evolved from Dinohippus, not a bacteria.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
I surely do deny the "fact" of evolution. Only true believers can't see the clear cut uncertainty of their own faith which is subject to nearly constant revision.


Both bacteria and insects have been observed to emphasize positive survival traits in the reproductive process (that had already existed within the existing population), when populations were exposed to stress from chemicals or other environmental factors. That doesn't prove evolution in any way shape or form.
That also doesn't mean a strain of bacteria can become a horse or a cow, which is neccessary ta prove yer religion.




This is another prime example of how totally screwed up your notion of evolution is.

Hmmmmmm... methinks yer the one who doesn't know yer own religion clown.


One more time..very slowly...so that one brain cell can process the data...emphasizing positive traits in the reproductive process IS evolution.

OH....... silly me, n' here I though it was a minor aspect of yer religion of evolution especially since it is only the variation within one type of organism that already exists n' all. ;)

Surely yer not sooooooo lazy ya forgot all about the religious "fact" that true believers hold out in their faith that all life evolved from a common ancestor on Earth eh: clown? :laugh2: Honk Honk :D :laugh:


And your strawman that a bacteria must become a horse or cow to prove evolution is just another in the pile of other strawman arguments you've made in this thread...so many in fact, that you're responsible for a world-wide hay shortage.

Now that is some funny chit Missile!!!! :D:D What would ya call a prokaryote or a eukaryote, eh Einstein?????? :rolleyes:

Is that not bacteria? Is that not the earliest form of life on planet earth, (there is some debate in yer unsettled religion) that is why I named both single celled organisms from yer gospel of evolution.


The fossil record tells us that modern horses (Equus) evolved from Dinohippus, not a bacteria.

Hmmmmmm so yer sayin' that all life on earth didn't cum from prokaryotes or eukaryotes as most of the non lazy true believers hold then: Einstein???

If those were the first life forms and yer religion holds that all life decended from such then didn't horses and cows cum from bacteria????

What a lazy clown you are. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

If those were the first life forms and yer religion holds that all life decended from such then didn't horses and cows cum from bacteria????


Not directly, idiot. Maybe you'd like to argue that the Empire State Building came from the Big Bang? :slap:

[OldMercsRule]

Not directly, idiot. Maybe you'd like to argue that the Empire State Building came from the Big Bang?

Directly or over time it happened according to yer faith: clown. :laugh2: Honk Honk

That is the unbelievable part of the religion you are a true butt lazy believer in. Horses and cows came from bacteria, in fact so did you according to yer religion, (not mine): clown. :laugh2: Based upon nothing butt: faith. :rolleyes:

The Empire State Building, you and I and all that there is, (horses, cows bacteria et al), all very likely came from the Big Bang.

It didn't take very long to happen either eh: clown? :laugh2:

The Big Bang is still a theory, butt unlike yer religion of evolution: one that increasingly fits our observations as we progress in our observation technology.

BTW it, (the Big Bang theory), also fits rather well with creation toooooooo. As it sure sounds ta me like a method fer a creator ta use, (ya know: the ol' ID Feller.... God BIG G), ta create something significant from a teenie tiny singularity in the middle of nothingness like the ENTIRE UNIVERSE eh: Einstein? :eek: ;) :D

Does yer lazy brain werk at all????? :rolleyes:

What a closed minded clown that doesn't even get outta bed long enough ta understand his very own religion where the belief is horses and cows and the ol' clown hisself came from bacteria....... :laugh2:

As I said it really takes some serious faith, (or total laziness), ta believe in evolution. Honk honk honk..... burp :dance:

[PostmodernProphet]

Not directly, idiot. Maybe you'd like to argue that the Empire State Building came from the Big Bang? :slap:

well we certainly wouldn't want to believe it was intelligently designed now, would we?.....

[Little Dragon]

Good lord Murky, are you for real?

Changes in allelic frequency is the FACT of evolution.

"When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies in a population."

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

"Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable."

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

Your whole position is based on incredulity, ignorance, and strong emotional/religious objection. It's easy for us nonbelievers to see and impossible for you because you're stuck so deeply in your delusion, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Evidence for evolution & common descent:

Comparative Anatomy
Endogenous retroviral insertions http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogenous-Retroviruses-Provide-Evidence-of-Common-Descent
DNA and RNA code
Pseudogenes
Embryology
Chromosome fusion
Convergence
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Common_descent
Paleontology
Comparative sequence analysis
geographical distribution
comparative physiology and biochemistry
antibiotic and pesticide resistance
studies of complex iteration
observed speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Evidence for I.D.:

"wowwwyy it's just toooo complex, I can't understand it, god musta dunnit!" :cuckoo:

Oops, I guess that's not actually evidence is it.

[Missileman]

Directly or over time it happened according to yer faith: clown. :laugh2: Honk Honk

That is the unbelievable part of the religion you are a true butt lazy believer in. Horses and cows came from bacteria, in fact so did you according to yer religion, (not mine): clown. :laugh2: Based upon nothing butt: faith. :rolleyes:

The Empire State Building, you and I and all that there is, (horses, cows bacteria et al), all very likely came from the Big Bang.

It didn't take very long to happen either eh: clown? :laugh2:

The Big Bang is still a theory, butt unlike yer religion of evolution: one that increasingly fits our observations as we progress in our observation technology.

BTW it, (the Big Bang theory), also fits rather well with creation toooooooo. As it sure sounds ta me like a method fer a creator ta use, (ya know: the ol' ID Feller.... God BIG G), ta create something significant from a teenie tiny singularity in the middle of nothingness like the ENTIRE UNIVERSE eh: Einstein? :eek: ;) :D

Does yer lazy brain werk at all????? :rolleyes:

What a closed minded clown that doesn't even get outta bed long enough ta understand his very own religion where the belief is horses and cows and the ol' clown hisself came from bacteria....... :laugh2:

As I said it really takes some serious faith, (or total laziness), ta believe in evolution. Honk honk honk..... burp :dance:

Do you really think that leaving out the millions of years of intermediate steps of single-cell organism to a complex organism like a horse makes such an evolution impossible? Do you believe that single-cell organism couldn't evolve into a simple mutli-celled organism like a sponge?

[OldMercsRule]

Good lord Murky, are you for real?

Are ya askin' the LORD if I'm a "fact"? :D


Changes in allelic frequency is the FACT of evolution.

Semantics from a true believer desperate ta use a certain werd, ("fact") ta gain acceptence and approval fer his chosen religion.

It may be a minor part of the grand theory of evolution that demonstrats an existing aspect of a species survival mechanism within a given population of organisms. (Range of characteristics). It doesn't prove that a horse or cow came from bacteria which is very necessary ta elevate yer religion to the status of "fact".

BTW: I have never denied "aspects" of the theory of evolution: Little Dragon. :D


"When scientists say "evolution is a fact"

Those scientists yer refering too are the fellow true believers in yer religion of evolution, (or those feedin' off research grants corntrolled by other true believers), without the normal caution that real prudent scientists in applied science have. Science has been politicized by money, power and politics as the AGW corntroversy with emails n' what not has proven. Ya think Algore the ol' buffoon is a "scientist" too Little Dragon? :D ;)


they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact".

Naw they are playin' semantics ta further their religion.


One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies in a population."

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


They are taking a minor inter species observation and attempting to extrapolate the observation in a big stretch to prove horses and cows came from bacteria: FAIL!!!


"Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

That maybe a very small part of the grand theory of yer religion butt certianly not the religion of evolution in total: Little Dragon.


These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable."

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

Small areas where evolution actually fits observations inter species doesn't prove the entire whacky theory where horses and cows, (in fact all very complex living things), cum from bacteria.


Your whole position is based on incredulity, ignorance, and strong emotional/religious objection.

Nope logic. Yer the one with the undies in a bunch who denies yer religion.


It's easy for us nonbelievers to see

Yer not a non believer: Little Dragon.


and impossible for you because you're stuck so deeply in your delusion, you can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm a member of a religious faith and I also understand the corncept of "projection", Little Dragon. Look in the mirror. ;) :laugh:


Evidence for evolution & common descent:

Comparative Anatomy
Endogenous retroviral insertions http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogenous-Retroviruses-Provide-Evidence-of-Common-Descent
DNA and RNA code
Pseudogenes
Embryology
Chromosome fusion
Convergence
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Common_descent
Paleontology
Comparative sequence analysis
geographical distribution
comparative physiology and biochemistry
antibiotic and pesticide resistance
studies of complex iteration
observed speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Lot's of fancy stuff, all subject to constant revision. It all boils down to a few simple issues:

#1 Where did life cum from?

#2 How does the irreducable cornplexity observed in all life, (from single cell life to very cornplex life), happen from one random mutation at a time over time?

#3 How does a horse cum from a bacteria? :D



Evidence for I.D.:

"wowwwyy it's just toooo complex, I can't understand it, god musta dunnit!" :cuckoo:

Oops, I guess that's not actually evidence is it.

How do ya 'splain the Big Bang: Einstein? :D ;)

[OldMercsRule]

Do you really think that leaving out the millions of years of intermediate steps of single-cell organism

That there is no proof of any of yer "intermediate" steps, jus' yer faith in Bozo the clown and yer religion of evolution. Furthermore; single cell organisms are already irreducibly complex: Einstein. ;)


to a complex organism like a horse makes such an evolution impossible?

Possible and irrefutably proven are massive leaps in faith: clown. I don't have any of yer faith that horses ever came from bacteria no matter how much of yer lazy "millions of years" chit ya always bring up, there is no proof and it is also illogical. Where did the bacteria cum from in the first place: clown? :eek:


Do you believe that single-cell organism couldn't evolve into a simple mutli-celled organism like a sponge?

I'm not a true believer in yer faith of evolution and I'm no where near as intellectually lazy as you are. That said, if real verifiable evidence were produced that horses and cows and Missilemen came from bacteria I have an open mind as Jesus is omnipotent and could have chosen any method to create all we observe.

It jus' looks very unlikely to a feller with only one functional brain cell.

Care to take a stab at 'splainin' the Big Bang: clown? :laugh2: :dance:

[Missileman]

That there is no proof of any of yer "intermediate" steps, jus' yer faith in Bozo the clown and yer religion of evolution. Furthermore; single cell organisms are already irreducibly complex: Einstein. ;)

There are millions of fossils that do indeed show the intermediate stages. You can cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and stomp your feet, but they still exist. Your denial of them doesn't change that FACT. I was talking about the intermediate stages between a single cell and a complex organism you ass.(underlined part)



Possible and irrefutably proven are massive leaps in faith: clown. I don't have any of yer faith that horses ever came from bacteria no matter how much of yer lazy "millions of years" chit ya always bring up, there is no proof and it is also illogical. Where did the bacteria cum from in the first place: clown? :eek:

Where the first cell came from is not a part of the theory of evolution...neither is the big bang. You keep trying to insert them because you know evolution is a fact.




I'm not a true believer in yer faith of evolution and I'm no where near as intellectually lazy as you are. That said, if real verifiable evidence were produced that horses and cows and Missilemen came from bacteria I have an open mind as Jesus is omnipotent and could have chosen any method to create all we observe.

It jus' looks very unlikely to a feller with only one functional brain cell.

Care to take a stab at 'splainin' the Big Bang: clown? :laugh2: :dance:

I figured you'd avoid the sponge question...you're too chicken shit to actually engage in an honest debate.

The reality of evolution doesn't hinge on where the first cell came from nor does it hinge on where the universe came from any more than 2+2=4 hinges on either. As I said, you have to engage in this dishonest argument because as you've already admitted several times, evolution has been observed...it is a fact.

[OldMercsRule]

There are millions of fossils that do indeed show the intermediate stages.

"Millions" eh.... ya lazy clown? Not hardly...... why don't ya name a few since ya got "millions" ta choose from.
Kind of a silly statement like the whales from seals chit n' whales decidin' ta live in the ocean n' all that happy horse poop. :lol:


You can cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and stomp your feet, but they still exist.

In yer dreams........name a few from those "millions" that show a horse came from bacteria: clown. :laugh2::laugh2:


Your denial of them doesn't change that FACT.

Yer lazy spiritual dreams don't create facts either: clown. Jus' piles of horse poop. :laugh2: :laugh2:


I was talking about the intermediate stages between a single cell and a complex organism you ass.(underlined part)

N' I was talkin' 'bout bacteria ta horse: clown. :laugh2::laugh2:


Where the first cell came from is not a part of the theory of evolution...

Sure it is.... how ya gonna have a horse if ya don't have the ol' first cell. n' Then there is horse poop..... (the stuff that rolls off yer keyboard).... how would we have horse poop or Misslemen if there is no first cell? :D


neither is the big bang. You keep trying to insert them because you know evolution is a fact.

Nope evolution is a religion.

I knew the Big Bang would stump ya. :laugh2: :dance:

[Missileman]

"Millions" eh.... ya lazy clown? Not hardly...... why don't ya name a few since ya got "millions" ta choose from.
Kind of a silly statement like the whales from seals chit n' whales decidin' ta live in the ocean n' all that happy horse poop.



In yer dreams........name a few from those "millions" that show a horse came from bacteria: clown. :laugh2::laugh2:



Yer lazy spiritual dreams don't create facts either: clown. Jus' piles of horse poop. :laugh2: :laugh2:



N' I was talkin' 'bout bacteria ta horse: clown. :laugh2::laugh2:



Sure it is.... how ya gonna have a horse if ya don't have the ol' first cell. n' Then there is horse poop..... (the stuff that rolls off yer keyboard).... how would we have horse poop or Misslemen if there is no first cell? :D



Nope evolution is a religion.

I knew the Big Bang would stump ya. :laugh2: :dance:

I've seen some stupid people in my lifetime, but you take the cake. You're also the world's greatest bullshitter. Your claim that your one brain cell is functional is the greatest exaggeration of all time. I'm done trying to explain the obvious to someone who isn't intelligent enough to spell 4-letter words and is a dishonest piece of shit to boot. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole!

[PostmodernProphet]

Good lord Murky, are you for real?

Changes in allelic frequency is the FACT of evolution.

"When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies in a population."

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

"Biological evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable."

http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm

Your whole position is based on incredulity, ignorance, and strong emotional/religious objection. It's easy for us nonbelievers to see and impossible for you because you're stuck so deeply in your delusion, you can't see the forest for the trees.

Evidence for evolution & common descent:

Comparative Anatomy
Endogenous retroviral insertions http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogenous-Retroviruses-Provide-Evidence-of-Common-Descent
DNA and RNA code
Pseudogenes
Embryology
Chromosome fusion
Convergence
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Common_descent
Paleontology
Comparative sequence analysis
geographical distribution
comparative physiology and biochemistry
antibiotic and pesticide resistance
studies of complex iteration
observed speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent


Evidence for I.D.:

"wowwwyy it's just toooo complex, I can't understand it, god musta dunnit!" :cuckoo:

Oops, I guess that's not actually evidence is it.

?????....how odd.....you seem to have failed to recognize your error lies in attribution.......RNA and DNA for example are scientific facts, but by no stretch of the imagination evidence of evolution......to the contrary, they make the idea of intelligent design almost a given......you might as well argue that the similarities between MSDOS and Windows 7 don't prove the existence of Microsoft, but instead prove that one system evolved from the other by means of random happenstance.......

[PostmodernProphet]

There are millions of fossils that do indeed show the intermediate stages. You can cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and stomp your feet, but they still exist. Your denial of them doesn't change that FACT. I was talking about the intermediate stages between a single cell and a complex organism you ass.(underlined part)


actually no.....millions of fossils show the existence of millions of creatures.....no fossil has ever provided evidence of transition.....that is a theory.....one in which you place a significant amount of faith (i.e. belief in the absence of evidence).....your insistence that this be treated as fact demonstrates nothing more than the strength of your faith.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I've seen some stupid people in my lifetime, but you take the cake. You're also the world's greatest bullshitter. Your claim that your one brain cell is functional is the greatest exaggeration of all time. I'm done trying to explain the obvious to someone who isn't intelligent enough to spell 4-letter words and is a dishonest piece of shit to boot. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole!

a not very eloquent admission of defeat.....

[Little Dragon]

Why do I even try?

Ok let me try to make this clear, once again. There is the scientific theory of evolution. There is also the fact of evolution-the basic definition of the process of evolution, which we have actually observed happening. We've observed changes within populations and we've also observed speciation. The fact concerns the change in allele frequency in a population over generations. The theory of evolution explains the fact and how it leads to more change over time. This isn't semantics but actual definitions used in science. So based on what you said you believe, you actually agree with the fact of evolution, however you do not agree with the theory. Do you understand at all? Please tell me you get it...


PostmodernProphet, DNA showes that we share a common ancestor, and this has been confirmed with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

[OldMercsRule]

I've seen some stupid people in my lifetime, but you take the cake. You're also the world's greatest bullshitter. Your claim that your one brain cell is functional is the greatest exaggeration of all time. I'm done trying to explain the obvious to someone who isn't intelligent enough to spell 4-letter words and is a dishonest piece of shit to boot. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole!


:D:D:D:D How sweet it is........... ;) :dance:

[PostmodernProphet]

PostmodernProphet, DNA showes that we share a common ancestor, and this has been confirmed with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

or it shows that an intelligent designer continued to use a working template....the fact of DNA is no more proof of your claims than it is of mine....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why do I even try?

Ok let me try to make this clear, once again. There is the scientific theory of evolution. There is also the fact of evolution-the basic definition of the process of evolution, which we have actually observed happening. We've observed changes within populations and we've also observed speciation. The fact concerns the change in allele frequency in a population over generations. The theory of evolution explains the fact and how it leads to more change over time. This isn't semantics but actual definitions used in science. So based on what you said you believe, you actually agree with the fact of evolution, however you do not agree with the theory. Do you understand at all? Please tell me you get it...



there is an observable fact of evolution, such as the modification of "canine" into St. Bernards and Shitzus......there is the claim that such modification explains the transition of both human beings and sponges from a single celled common ancestor.....the first is science, the second is your faith statement.....that is what YOU do not get....

[OldMercsRule]

Why do I even try?

Because yer a true believer and you fell into a number of logic traps during the debate that ya think ya can outrun. (Pssssssst): ya can't! ;)


Ok let me try to make this clear, once again. There is the scientific theory of evolution.

Note the use of the word "scientific" is a semantic trick to elevate one theory over another. Both ID and Evolution are very old observational theories that use hypothosis to explain observation. Both theories turned into religions, (evolution turned later then ID which was always religion). :)


There is also the fact of evolution-the basic definition of the process of evolution, which we have actually observed happening.

"Facts" are used differently by different proponents. While it is an observation that all organisms within species have a range of variation true beleivers of evolution claim that "fact" proves another non "fact" that a horse came from a bacteria. Evolution theory is not "fact". ;)


We've observed changes within populations and we've also observed speciation.

Changes within populations: Yup. :D Speciation: Nope. ;) That is wishful thinking by true believers that is a subject of intense debate, (BTW: all religions have intense debate). :D


The fact concerns the change in allele frequency in a population over generations.

Within populations of like organisms with a range of features.


The theory of evolution explains the fact and how it leads to more change over time.

The theory of evolution combines with the religion of evolution and extrapolates species to species jumps, (speciation), which doesn't occur.

Remember yer admission that insects stay insects instead of cockroaches becoming horses? :D

That is where evolution becomes a religion. Every cite and linc about speciation is full of debate. The true believers (or those who's incomes depend on evolution as a religion), vs openminded scientists who see the profound weakness and resist the religious zeal of true believers.


This isn't semantics but actual definitions used in science.

Using the term "fact" with the wobbly contested constantly revised observational theory of evolution is semantics and religion all in one.


So based on what you said you believe,

Semantics again. Accept as possible or as observed is very different from "believe". I believe in Christ, (I'm a true believer not open to a change in my basic belief in Christ regardless of additional information). You believe in evolution, (yer a true believer in evolution as a matter of faith and not open to a change in yer basic belief regardless of new information). ;)


you actually agree with the fact of evolution, however you do not agree with the theory.

No evolution is not a fact, I do accept evolution as a very old very weak observational theory that is constantly revised and has become a dominate religion for anti theology folks.

Evolution as a theory does fit some disconnected yet valid observations that true believers extrapolate into a full fledged religion that is full of holes.

Surely you can read the intense debate and fudge factoring on every single cite you have made in this debate. Can't you?


Do you understand at all? Please tell me you get it...

I get it, and always have.

I'm jus' not a true believer in evolution theory as you are in evolution religion.

Evolution is a weak very old observational theory that has some valid points. The theory also has profound weaknesses that have gotten much worse with observations in modern science.

#1 Most complex life on Earth has similar structure, (organs, limbs et al) that the Greeks, Chinese, and Persians observed and those observations of similarity still hold today. That is the only basis for all life from one ansestor, (very weak).

#2 Single celled life was assumed to be simple, and discoveries in the last century with advance in microscopes and DNA, RNA has showed that single celled life is not simple at all. That would have been fatal to any observational theory that was not also a well established religion.

#3 Darwin argued that time provided one winning aspect of his natural selection mechanism.

The Bible shows an Earth that is less then 10,000 years old. That has been disproven, (at least to me). I'm not speaking for all Christians or Jews here, as they can draw their own cornclusions.

That blow to ID theory that relies upon the literal Bible was and has been exploited by true believers in evolution, and since we were not there to observe 3 plus billion years ago it is difficult to disprove the single ancestor random mutation over long periods of time model of evolution religion from contrary evidence. That said: there is zero positive evidence to show speciation or explain the source of single cell life. The model of one random mutation at a time to create now known to be extremely complex life defies logic.

The fossil record shows explosions in very complex life, which also flies in the face of slow moving mutation, as it shows the opposite of what would be expected if evolution was correct.

The buidling blocks of life were generated in the Big Bang theory which also seems to be evidence of creation.

The true believers close their minds to this information and create complex language and new theories to try to isolate their religion from these contradictions. That only works with those who have closed minds or the truely lazy.

#4 Populations of all organisms have been observed to have ranges of characteristics that can lead to superior survival characteristics, (as shown in insects and bacteria stresses by chemicals heat et al). This is another observation that true believers in evolution expand upon to claim "speciation".

#5 "Speciation" has not been shown. Claims are made by true believers and debated by open minded scientists. No evidence exists, only speculation by true believers.


PostmodernProphet, DNA showes that we share a common ancestor, and this has been confirmed with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

Ya actually think DNA shows you are related to a prokarote or a eukaryote: Einstein? Not hardly. :poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

The Bible shows an Earth that is less then 10,000 years old. That has been disproven, (at least to me). I'm not speaking for all Christians or Jews here, as they can draw their own cornclusions.


I disagree....no where in scriptures does it discuss how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3......

[hjmick]

Irrefutable proof of evolution? I don't need proof, irrefutable or otherwise. I have faith in evolution...

[OldMercsRule]

I disagree....no where in scriptures does it discuss how much time passed between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3......

Some see it one way........ some see it another.

Not an important detail or worth a debate, (at least to me).

I'm not sooo fond of some of the stories in the old book and don't take them literally anyhooooooo. ;)

Always had trouble with 800 year old human beings n' such, butt that is me and those details are not significant.

I accept the likelyhood of a 4.5 billion year age of earth give or take and I believe in Christ.

The last detail is the only important one in my book.

Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

Irrefutable proof of evolution? I don't need proof, irrefutable or otherwise. I have faith in evolution...


Now there is a good honest straight shootin' feller!!!!! :D:D:D

[PostmodernProphet]

Some see it one way........ some see it another.

Not an important detail or worth a debate, (at least to me).

I'm not sooo fond of some of the stories in the old book and don't take them literally anyhooooooo. ;)

Always had trouble with 800 year old human beings n' such, butt that is me and those details are not significant.

I accept the likelyhood of a 4.5 billion year age of earth give or take and I believe in Christ.

The last detail is the only important one in my book.

Respectfully, JR

my particular corner of Christianity considers itself amillennial and acreational....basically, we accept any spin one wants to apply to both ends of the creational time line.....

[OldMercsRule]

my particular corner of Christianity considers itself amillennial and acreational....basically, we accept any spin one wants to apply to both ends of the creational time line.....


Not sure of what "acreational" means and I guess amillennial is an end times philosophy relating to flexibility about the timing and duration of Christ's return.

I was raised Luthern butt fell away as an agnostic during college.

I became "born again" a few years later and my hard core Christian buds like to refer to me as a "cafeteria Christian".

I luv cosmology and science and view much of the bible, (especially the old book), as allegory and open to subjective interpretation.

Sounds like I would relate to yer "particular corner" better then I do with most of my hard core literal Christian buds, (some of who luv to debate the 10,000 year age of Earth they claim they can support from their view of what they think the bible states).

[PostmodernProphet]

close......just as someone who is a-moral does not adhere to any particular standards of morality, someone who is a-millennial doesn't hold to any particular end times interpretation and someone who is a-creational doesn't hold to any particular beginning times interpretation....I believe in the beginning God created everything and at the end, Jesus will be coming back....beyond that, I don't sweat the details......

[OldMercsRule]

close......just as someone who is a-moral does not adhere to any particular standards of morality, someone who is a-millennial doesn't hold to any particular end times interpretation and someone who is a-creational doesn't hold to any particular beginning times interpretation....I believe in the beginning God created everything and at the end, Jesus will be coming back....beyond that, I don't sweat the details......

Sounds like a good discription of my philosophy. I do view Jesus as the same as God or the Holly Ghost, (three aspects of the same entity).

[Little Dragon]

or it shows that an intelligent designer continued to use a working template....the fact of DNA is no more proof of your claims than it is of mine....


This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain and for which there isn't a shred of evidence, only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

Science has universally reached a consensus on common descent because the process of evolution makes the testable prediction that speciation/divergence will occur (which has been seen on smaller scales) and we also have evidence that this happened in the distant geological past. The fossil record shows the simplest life forms at the bottom layers of rock and they get increasingly complex as you get higher up in the layers. The fossils found also show species transitioning. The fossil evidence is actually plentiful and quite obviously shows transition between species, regardless of how hard creationists try to sweep it all under the rug. There have even been transitional fossils found showing critical changes which led to our modern species. Whale, bird, snakes etc. Other pieces of evidence for common descent come from DNA sequencing.

"Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[15] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[16][17] The sequence of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#DNA_sequencing

If I.D. was really scientific theory material, I'm pretty sure plenty of scientists would take it seriously, after all not all of them are atheists and believe in a creator. I.D is and will always be religion, plain and simple. I'm sorry that gets under your and Murky's skin so much, but that doesn't change the reality.

Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science. After all religious faith by definition doesn't require evidence. So why try to forcefully stuff science into religious faith or stuff religious faith into science? You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit, it'll never work, so why waste energy trying?

I personally think that the strong objection to evolution comes from a deep fear that common descent would prove god doesn't exist. Some people can believe in god and evolution, some find the two completely irreconcileable. In all the years I was a believer, I never had a problem with evolution. I just figured it was god's way of doing things. I guess I believed in more of a deistic type god. I'd like to add that the reason I'm an atheist now actually has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution or common descent, but rather other factors like finding out my spiritual "guru" or whatever you'd call it was lying and that there's no real evidence for paranormal or spiritual things and simply thinking about it objectively (which wasn't easy to do at first but it got easier) and realizing it makes no sense and there's no real reason to believe in any of it. I guess I just outgrew my clinging to comforting and fun fantasies and became more interested in knowing what's actually true: making the distinction between what we feel should be versus what really is. I'd rather know the discomforting truth than believe in a comforting lie.

But as far as evolution and common descent, what about it is so bad and objectionable? I think it's pretty awesome that all life on this planet is connected. There's something deeply "spiritual" about that in my opinion. There are different ways of looking at things. Creationists look at common descent as a bad, evil thing. Others just look at it neutrally as the way things are. And it's not like you came directly from a bacterium, you came direction from other humans, who came directly from our most recent ancestor who came from it's most recent ancestor and so on. And even if we sprang up magically and instantaniously from bacteria.....WHO CARES?! What matters is that we are here and we are who and what we are. What changes? Whether or not we magically were poofed into existence by a god or came from single celled organisms makes no difference in what we are now: human.

I find it odd that creationists think it's acceptable to believe everything magically appeared out of thin air from a magical being that has no explanation for it's existence and has never been seen or shown to even exist at all, yet they find it impossible to think anything evolved from simpler forms over billions of years through natural laws that are known to exist. We know the mechanism behind the latter, there are no proposed and testable mechanisms for the former. That alone makes I.D. unscientific. Here are a few questions I.D. should be able to answer:

Why did life get more complex as time passed? Why not just start out with complex forms?

Why do the previous organisms all throughout geologic history no longer exist? Did god decide to start over a lot?

Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?

Another difference I'd like to point out between religion and science, because it's a critical difference, is that science is extremely self critical and objective. It needs to be because bias gets in the way of finding out the truth. Religion is as biased as it gets, it's completely unobjective. It assumes a priori there must be a god who created everything and all the other religious dogma that goes along with it, using faith alone and not evidence. Evidence must be forced to fit into it or rejected. With science, the opposite is true. Scientists examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it, rather than making a conclusion or assumption and trying to force the evidence to fit and ignoring any that doesn't. This is what I.D. does. It assumes a creator must have designed everything, tries to make the evidence fit and attempts to explain away or ignore evidence that goes against it.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain and for which there isn't a shred of evidence, only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

so, if you walk into a room which contains a table.....on the table is a deck of cards....the cards have been dealt into a Royal Flush.....also there is a note....it reads "I dealt this hand of cards"......you apply Occam's Razor and conclude that there was no author of the note, no dealer of cards, the cards not only dealt themselves but shaped themselves out of isolate molecules while simultaneously self generating the rules of poker, the table and the room......brilliant move.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science.
because I believe in science and intelligent design.....why aren't you honest enough to admit that your beliefs are no less a matter of faith.....




Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?
quite simply, they don't......we've already covered that......your faith provides the assumption of transition....

[OldMercsRule]

This is where Occam's Razor slices the throat of I.D. It makes more sense, especially from a scientific

(Scientific religious faithful standpoint)



standpoint, that there is a natural explanation like evolutionary divergence of species than to posit something magical, unnecessary and even harder to explain

Only to closed minded true believers of the religion of evolution.


and for which there isn't a shred of evidence,

The magnificent work with extreme and delicate balance and complexity is the evidence (if yer eyes werked).


only subjective feelings and religious dogma.

Nope......Objective observations!!!!


Science has universally reached a consensus

Ever heard Algore the buffoon say that same chit?????


on common descent

There is no cornsensus about common descent


because the process of evolution makes the testable prediction that speciation/divergence will occur (which has been seen on smaller scales) and we also have evidence that this happened in the distant geological past.

HORSE POOP!!!!! Religious dreams n' lots of wishful thinkin'.


The fossil record shows the simplest life forms at the bottom layers of rock and they get increasingly complex as you get higher up in the layers.

Horse poop. Yer makin' chit up. The Cambrian explosion was over 500 million years ago with very complex organisms.


The fossils found also show species transitioning.

Horse poop. There's a band in Boise called "FAT CHANCE" with a hit single " NO F..KING WAY"!!!


The fossil evidence is actually plentiful and quite obviously shows transition between species, regardless of how hard creationists try to sweep it all under the rug.

Pieces of bone that true believers make chit up about and then revise once more complete fossils of the same organism are found.


There have even been transitional fossils found showing critical changes which led to our modern species. Whale, bird, snakes etc. Other pieces of evidence for common descent come from DNA sequencing.

Only in yer dreams.


"Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[15] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[16][17] The sequence of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#DNA_sequencing

N' Horses n' cows came from bacteria. Yasureyabetcha.


If I.D. was really scientific theory material, I'm pretty sure plenty of scientists would take it seriously, after all not all of them are atheists and believe in a creator. I.D is and will always be religion, plain and simple. I'm sorry that gets under your and Murky's skin so much, but that doesn't change the reality.

Doesn't bother me. I admit my faith, yer the one that gets huffy.


Why not just be honest and admit you believe in your faith, and not science.

I believe in my faith in Jesus Christ, and I accept many of the findings of science, I'm not a "true believer" in science, so I keep a critical eye and an open brain cell.


After all religious faith by definition doesn't require evidence.

That's true, and you accept evolution in that manner.


So why try to forcefully stuff science into religious faith or stuff religious faith into science?

You should ask yerself that question. I accept my faith, and I feel the Big Bang theory nicely fits the way an Intelligent Designer would make things happen, as does DNA in living cells.


You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit, it'll never work, so why waste energy trying?

Yer the one who is doing that....look in the mirror


I personally think that the strong objection to evolution comes from a deep fear that common descent would prove god doesn't exist.

Speak for yerself. If common descent were to be proven, (which it has not), an omnipotent God could use any method to create and advance life.


Some people can believe in god and evolution, some find the two completely irreconcileable.

The parts of evolution theory that do fit observations do fit with an omnipotent God and create no problems for my faith in Jesus Christ. Yer the one with the tight undies.


In all the years I was a believer, I never had a problem with evolution. I just figured it was god's way of doing things. I guess I believed in more of a deistic type god. I'd like to add that the reason I'm an atheist now actually has nothing to do with my acceptance of evolution or common descent, but rather other factors like finding out my spiritual "guru" or whatever you'd call it was lying and that there's no real evidence for paranormal or spiritual things and simply thinking about it objectively (which wasn't easy to do at first but it got easier) and realizing it makes no sense and there's no real reason to believe in any of it.

Doesn't sound like yer faith in Allah, Zues, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever god you tentatively worshipped was ever very strong. However, yer blind faith in evolution is very strong.


I guess I just outgrew my clinging to comforting and fun fantasies

Not hardly ya just replaced Allah with evolution.


and became more interested in knowing what's actually true: making the distinction between what we feel should be versus what really is. I'd rather know the discomforting truth than believe in a comforting lie.

Ya got some of whatever yer smokin'? Would it hurt me one functional brain cell if I tried some????


But as far as evolution and common descent, what about it is so bad and objectionable?

It is not objectionable at all it is just yer religion that you draw comfort from. Real simple. Takes onle one engaged brain cell ta understand.


I think it's pretty awesome that all life on this planet is connected. There's something deeply "spiritual" about that in my opinion.

I'm glad yer happy with yer religion.


There are different ways of looking at things.

No chit Sherlock


Creationists look at common descent as a bad, evil thing.

How would you know that? You a mind reader?


Others just look at it neutrally as the way things are.

True believers may look at it that way.


And it's not like you came directly from a bacterium, you came direction from other humans, who came directly from our most recent ancestor who came from it's most recent ancestor and so on.

That maybe yer faith, butt that's not what happened.


And even if we sprang up magically and instantaniously from bacteria.....WHO CARES?!

Those who are curious care.


What matters is that we are here and we are who and what we are. What changes? Whether or not we magically were poofed into existence by a god or came from single celled organisms makes no difference in what we are now: human.

Then why do ya get sooooo huffy about it?


I find it odd that creationists think it's acceptable to believe everything magically appeared out of thin air

There was no "thin air" when the Big Bang happened; Einstein.


from a magical being that has no explanation for it's existence and has never been seen

Christ was seen, and Moses saw a burning bush.


or shown to even exist at all, yet they find it impossible to think anything evolved from simpler forms over billions of years through natural laws that are known to exist.

Who said it was impossible? I said it has not been proven nor logical to have happened that way as there is zero evidence, and complexity favors ID.


We know the mechanism behind the latter,

Horse poop.


there are no proposed and testable mechanisms for the former. That alone makes I.D. unscientific.

How do ya test fer "dark matter". The work shows ID.


Here are a few questions I.D. should be able to answer:

Why did life get more complex as time passed? Why not just start out with complex forms?

Why do the previous organisms all throughout geologic history no longer exist? Did god decide to start over a lot?

Unknown, butt seems like a logical way to do things.


Why do fossils show transitions between species, with each earlier form effectively becoming extinct to give way to the next?

They don't. That is yer religion talking.


Another difference I'd like to point out between religion and science, because it's a critical difference, is that science is extremely self critical and objective.

That maybe true of most science not evolution or man made global warming.


It needs to be because bias gets in the way of finding out the truth. Religion is as biased as it gets, it's completely unobjective.

Good discription of AGW and evolution.


It assumes a priori there must be a god who created everything and all the other religious dogma that goes along with it, using faith alone and not evidence.

True, butt observations fit which is evidence.


Evidence must be forced to fit into it or rejected. With science, the opposite is true. Scientists examine the evidence and draw conclusions from it, rather than making a conclusion or assumption and trying to force the evidence to fit and ignoring any that doesn't.

That is what AGW and evolution does.


This is what I.D. does. It assumes a creator must have designed everything, tries to make the evidence fit and attempts to explain away or ignore evidence that goes against it.

No evidence goes against it.

[PostmodernProphet]

ignore evidence that goes against it.

do you believe there is evidence against it?.....I would love an example......

[Little Dragon]

so, if you walk into a room which contains a table.....on the table is a deck of cards....the cards have been dealt into a Royal Flush.....also there is a note....it reads "I dealt this hand of cards"......you apply Occam's Razor and conclude that there was no author of the note, no dealer of cards, the cards not only dealt themselves but shaped themselves out of isolate molecules while simultaneously self generating the rules of poker, the table and the room......brilliant move.....

This is a bad comparison. You're trying to compare man made objects with natural objects and processes.

[Little Dragon]

because I believe in science and intelligent design.....why aren't you honest enough to admit that your beliefs are no less a matter of faith.....



quite simply, they don't......we've already covered that......your faith provides the assumption of transition....


I don't need faith. I follow the evidence. And yes the fossils do show transition. Small changes between closely related species. All you need to do is look at the fossil record.

[Little Dragon]

do you believe there is evidence against it?.....I would love an example......

Vistigial structures, poor "design", unnecessary complexity. It looks like there's more of a halfhazard accumulation of changes, mutations that are not beneficial, endigenous retroviruses, etc. These things don't make sense from an intelligent design perspective.

[Little Dragon]

The magnificent work with extreme and delicate balance and complexity is the evidence (if yer eyes werked).

This has been debunked. Scientists reject the irreducible complexity argument.

You're the one who's all "huffy". You have a major problem with evolution, especially common descent. It gets your undies in a wad.

I don't use faith. I care about the evidence. I don't have any beliefs keeping me from accepting the evidence.

I care more about whatever the truth is. I don't want a comforting lie. Something wrong with this?

Where did all the species come from? Thin air via your god? How did he make them? How would they have started? Did they magically appear fully formed?


Christ was seen, and Moses saw a burning bush.

And the story of Cindarella proves that Cindarella was a real person and all that stuff happened. You can't use the bible as proof for anything.

The way I see it is, a natural explanation is the most likely, it makes the most sense, it fits the best and there's a ton of evidence supporting it. A god makes no sense, requires an explanation we don't have, and is unnecessary. If we can explain how plants grow, why think invisible fairies have anything to do with it? This isn't a religious belief, just logic. I just have no reason to add anything unexplainable that is completely outside of nature.

I'll leave you with the following:

"In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[57][58] Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[32] For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypotheses involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion.[59] The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[60] Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[61] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests."

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

[OldMercsRule]

I don't need faith.

If you didn't have a lot of faith you would never accept such a shaky theory as "fact" when it very clearly isn't. ;)


I follow the evidence.

You clearly follow yer faith. It's a shame you can't see what everybody else does. Evidence has very little impact upon you.


And yes the fossils do show transition.

Not hardly: Einstein. Most fossils are small pieces of bone that true believers extrapolate into organisms they make up outa whole cloth.

They base their cornstructions of these imaginary "transitional" organisms the same way that the Greeks, Chinese and Persians, (authors of the original evolution theory that became yer religion), observed long ago the similarities of most organisms with hard skeletons. When the more complete fossil is eventually found true believers admit the organism was fully developed and not "transitional" and look for another piece of bone to make chit up again fer the followers.

No transition is shown in the fossil record. NONE AT ALL. It is just the faith of true believers.


Small changes between closely related species. All you need to do is look at the fossil record.

With a heart full of faith. :D:D

[OldMercsRule]

Vistigial structures, poor "design", unnecessary complexity.

Until a purpose is discovered that was previously overlooked. The "poor" design of life you bemoan is much more elegant then any design by man.


It looks like there's more of a halfhazard accumulation of changes, mutations that are not beneficial, endigenous retroviruses, etc.

You may fancy yerself an ace mindreader; yer not.

Ya can't even read a single functional brain cell, so yer surely not gonna be able ta read the mind or intentions of God. Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?


These things don't make sense from an intelligent design perspective.

Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.

[OldMercsRule]

This has been debunked. Scientists reject the irreducible complexity argument.

Not all have. Don't ya think the Big Bang is an impressive bit o' werk? ;)


You're the one who's all "huffy".

Ya think?


You have a major problem with evolution, especially common descent.

Not at all....... I jus' correctly identify it as a religion, (some of which may even be possible). ;)


It gets your undies in a wad.

Naw me undies are quite comfy. After all I don't deny me own religion. :D


I don't use faith.

Yasureyabetcha. Ya don't breathe either eh? :laugh:


I care about the evidence.

Ya "care" eh? How touching.... :D


I don't have any beliefs keeping me from accepting the evidence.

Ya can't see the log in yer eye butt ya see those specs in everybody elses' eh? :D


I care more about whatever the truth is. I don't want a comforting lie.

Truth eh? Hmmmmmmm.......ya say?


Something wrong with this?

Not at all..... I don't have any problem with yer religion. I don't have a problem with denial either.


Where did all the species come from? Thin air via your god? How did he make them? How would they have started? Did they magically appear fully formed?

Hard tellin' not knowin'. Must be Jesus! :D Kinda looks like all there is came from a teeeneee tiny singularaty in the middle of nothingness n' then BANG. :D Kinda looks like cornplex organisms tend ta have related structures n' are purdy complicated as well. Looks like a purdy powerful Designer ta me. Must be Jesus. :D



And the story of Cindarella proves that Cindarella was a real person and all that stuff happened. You can't use the bible as proof for anything.

Not usin' the Bible ta "prove" anything. Do you deny that Christ, (the historical figure), existed? Yer that one who claims yer religion is "fact", I know mine is faith. To you Jesus may have been a man to me he is GOD.


The way I see it is, a natural explanation is the most likely, it makes the most sense, it fits the best and there's a ton of evidence supporting it.

To me a natural explanation is Jesus created all we see. It is the most likely it makes the most sense, and all observations support it.


A god makes no sense, requires an explanation we don't have, and is unnecessary.

Evolution requires an explanation we don't have, (unless ya cornsider God),.....where did life cum from????


If we can explain how plants grow, why think invisible fairies have anything to do with it?

What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston??


This isn't a religious belief, just logic.

It is primarily religious belief


I just have no reason to add anything unexplainable that is completely outside of nature.

The origin of life is already unexplainable via yer religion of evolution: Einstein.


I'll leave you with the following:

"In response to the unfalsifiability criticism of evolutionary theory, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[57][58] Numerous other potential ways to falsify evolution have also been proposed.[32] For example, the fact that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes offered a testable hypotheses involving the fusion or splitting of chromosomes from a common ancestor. The fusion hypothesis was confirmed in 2005 by discovery that human chromosome 2 is homologous with a fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. Extra, inactive telomeres and centromeres remain on human chromosome 2 as a result of the fusion.[59] The assertion of common descent could also have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. If true, human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[60] Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[61] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests."

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

The theory of evolution has some merit. It is not fact nor is it irrefutably proven. It has some observations that fit some parts of the theory and many observations do not fit at all. :eek:

[PostmodernProphet]

Vistigial structures, poor "design", unnecessary complexity. It looks like there's more of a halfhazard accumulation of changes, mutations that are not beneficial, endigenous retroviruses, etc. These things don't make sense from an intelligent design perspective.

an example, not a generalization.....I believe you are incorrectly characterizing....for example, it has been claimed that bones in a whale's flipper is vestigial.....yet it serves a purpose in providing structure and strength in the flipper.....


mutations that are not beneficial
???...wouldn't that be a failing of evolution rather than creation?....


endigenous retroviruses
you realize of course that these are abnormalities that have developed through improper cell development, correct?.....every day uncountable trillions of cells form in the world.....the percentage that develop abnormalities is miniscule.....

[pete311]

read it and weep creationist bitches

Scientists create a living organism
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/05/20/scientists.organism.ft/index.html?hpt=T2

[PostmodernProphet]

read it and weep creationist bitches

Scientists create a living organism
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/05/20/scientists.organism.ft/index.html?hpt=T2

lol, you are as ignorant of biology as the person who wrote the article.....notice this....


They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed.

they didn't create life, they simply made a transplant into an already living organism.....

[OldMercsRule]

Those true believers will jump at anything to bolster their faith eh: PmP? :D:D:D

[OldMercsRule]

read it and weep creationist bitches

Scientists create a living organism
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/05/20/scientists.organism.ft/index.html?hpt=T2

Thought you were out orbiting Mars 'til August or some such???

[Little Dragon]

When the more complete fossil is eventually found true believers admit the organism was fully developed and not "transitional" and look for another piece of bone to make chit up again fer the followers.

No transition is shown in the fossil record. NONE AT ALL. It is just the faith of true believers.


What's with this fully developed thing you keep harking on about? Are you saying that current life forms are fully developed while earlier forms leading to current forms wouldn't be? If so you're looking at it all wrong. Nothing is "fully developed", but rather in the state it's at. Are we not fully developed? What makes something fully developed? Things change with time at varying rates. The concept of a species being fully developed or not is completely useless and nonsensical.

[Little Dragon]

Until a purpose is discovered that was previously overlooked. The "poor" design of life you bemoan is much more elegant then any design by man.

Like I pointed out before, vistigial structures need not be useless, just diminished or changed. But of course you ignore and information I give you so I guess you wouldn't know that still.

Elegant? You mean like eyes or wings that are fully formed yet permanently sealed and unusable? Or like the blind spot humans have? What about non beneficial, even deadly or horrible mutations? Man or even a fucking monkey could a better job than that.




Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?[/COLOR]

Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.

This is you rationalizing away any incriminating evidence. "OH, well, the creator can do anything he wants, so everything fits!" Gee, how scientific! Yea, this is one good reason why I.D. can never be science. It assums god did everything and uses the age old cop out that he simply chooses to do it that way for everything. It's completely unfalsifiable. Not to mention we can't even show that a god exists in the first place. I.D. is tooth fairy science or fairy tale science. Meaning that it misuses science to show how a fairy tale can be true without first proving the premise.

And if god supposedly allows this free agency so they can develop on their own, then why do we need him for evolution? You're saying that oh yea, things can evolve on their own because god allows it, but evolution is false! Do you not see how this doesn't make sense?

[OldMercsRule]

What's with this fully developed thing you keep harking on about?

An organism that is alive, part of a population of similar organisms, lives for a defined life span, converts sources of energy from the environment into biologic energy, procreates like organisms to succeed it after death of said organism. :)


Are you saying that current life forms are fully developed while earlier forms leading to current forms wouldn't be?

All known life forms (both living and extinct) are fully developed; NONE ARE "INTERMEDIATE". The "Holy Grail" of yer religion that plainly does not exist. ;)


If so you're looking at it all wrong.

Nope. I'm not a true believer of yer religion and I see the profound weaknesses within you can't possibly recognize due to yer faith. :laugh:


Nothing is "fully developed", but rather in the state it's at.

That's yer religion talking. ;)


Are we not fully developed? What makes something fully developed?

As I said above: An organism that is alive, part of a population of similar organisms, lives for a defined life span, converts sources of energy from the environment into biologic energy, procreates like organisms to succeed it after death of said organism.


Things change with time at varying rates.

What does that have ta do with the price of beans in Boston? :D


The concept of a species being fully developed or not is completely useless and nonsensical.

To those true belivers with totally closed minds. The rest of us can see no evidence of intermediate organisms. :D

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Until a purpose is discovered that was previously overlooked. The "poor" design of life you bemoan is much more elegant then any design by man.


Like I pointed out before, vistigial structures need not be useless, just diminished or changed.

"Diminished or changed" in who's judgment? Hmmmmmmmmm???? True belivers tryin' ta grasp at straws ta prove their precornceived bias in support of their religion? ;) :D


But of course you ignore and information I give you so I guess you wouldn't know that still.

How do you know what I ignore or pay attention to? Are ya some sorta ace mindreader or some such?


Elegant? You mean like eyes or wings that are fully formed yet permanently sealed and unusable? Or like the blind spot humans have? What about non beneficial, even deadly or horrible mutations? Man or even a fucking monkey could a better job than that.

You actually think man or a monkey can create life or organs? Even organs that don't measure up to yer standards?

Yer gettin' a bit huffy again eh???


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Jesus appears to allow free agency in us as you believe in your own religion, why could God not allow free agency in the development of all living things?

Sure they do. An omnipotent omnicient Intelligent Designer could do anything. The work is very impressive.


This is you rationalizing away any incriminating evidence. "OH, well, the creator can do anything he wants, so everything fits!" Gee, how scientific! Yea, this is one good reason why I.D. can never be science. It assums god did everything and uses the age old cop out that he simply chooses to do it that way for everything. It's completely unfalsifiable. Not to mention we can't even show that a god exists in the first place.

ID is an alternative and very logical explanation for all we observe. God's work is how we show his existance as black holes are not directly observed; butt: shown by the effects on nearby matter and light.


I.D. is tooth fairy science or fairy tale science. Meaning that it misuses science to show how a fairy tale can be true without first proving the premise. And if god supposedly allows this free agency so they can develop on their own, then why do we need him for evolution?

Because we can't explain where life came from, or what made the Big Bang happen out of a tiny singularity in the middle of nothingness among other things.


You're saying that oh yea, things can evolve on their own because god allows it, but evolution is false!

Evolution is unproven; and not a fact. Show me where I said evolution "is false". You sure get huffy about yer religion. Get some fresh undies you will feeeeeeeel better. :D :D


Do you not see how this doesn't make sense?

Makes perfect sense. :D

[Little Dragon]

an example, not a generalization.....I believe you are incorrectly characterizing....for example, it has been claimed that bones in a whale's flipper is vestigial.....yet it serves a purpose in providing structure and strength in the flipper.....

Like I've pointed out before, vestigial structures don't have to be functionless. They can be used in other ways or simply diminished/not as important. If you or Murky would actually read some of the info I've posted, maybe you'd know that.



???...wouldn't that be a failing of evolution rather than creation?....


No, not at all. Mutations range from beneficial to harmful. The organisms with good or neutral mutations survive or survive better and the ones with bad mutations die or decrease in number from failing to reproduce, or at least not reproduce as much. Mutations sound bad but really they are just changes that can be good bad or neutral.



you realize of course that these are abnormalities that have developed through improper cell development, correct?.....every day uncountable trillions of cells form in the world.....the percentage that develop abnormalities is miniscule.....

Indogenous retroviral insertions are germline dna insertions from retroviruses. For the same insertions to appear in the same exact places in the dna of different species without them having a common ancestor is impossible. This short video explains it in a way that's easy to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

A short article on it: http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogenous-Retroviruses-Provide-Evidence-of-Common-Descent

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/?tool=pubmed

[OldMercsRule]

Like I've pointed out before, vestigial structures don't have to be functionless. They can be used in other ways or simply diminished/not as important. If you or Murky would actually read some of the info I've posted, maybe you'd know that.



No, not at all. Mutations range from beneficial to harmful. The organisms with good or neutral mutations survive or survive better and the ones with bad mutations die or decrease in number from failing to reproduce, or at least not reproduce as much. Mutations sound bad but really they are just changes that can be good bad or neutral.



Indogenous retroviral insertions are germline dna insertions from retroviruses. For the same insertions to appear in the same exact places in the dna of different species without them having a common ancestor is impossible. This short video explains it in a way that's easy to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

A short article on it: http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Endogenous-Retroviruses-Provide-Evidence-of-Common-Descent

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/?tool=pubmed

I'm not a Geneticist, butt I do know that someone with a superior understanding of such a cornplex subject can simplify the corncept and make a plausible theory sound very cornpelling.

This is a very solid argument supporting an aspect of yer yer religion, (common ancestry), and the counter argument is not nearly as cornpelling as the lincs you provide. Although the lincs below do provide a counter argument.

I still maintain that evolution is not irrefutably proven as yer religion holds, butt ya did score one here IMHO. :clap:

http://creation.com/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses

http://creation.com/junk-dna-evolutionary-discards-or-gods-tools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WGz97vF41Q

[PostmodernProphet]

For the same insertions to appear in the same exact places in the dna of different species without them having a common ancestor is impossible.

so in your opinion, if a million monkeys bang on a typewriter long enough they can only produce ONE copy of Shakespeare?.........my explanation is simpler, it only requires one Shakespeare......

[pete311]

so in your opinion, if a million monkeys bang on a typewriter long enough they can only produce ONE copy of Shakespeare?.........my explanation is simpler, it only requires one Shakespeare......

I think using the infinite monkey theorem is a mistake. The probability is so low that it is very near zero. So even for the life time of the universe science can make the statement that LD has made. Also the theorem doesn't hold here because it's purely mathematical and does not account for the laws of biology.

[PostmodernProphet]

I think using the infinite monkey theorem is a mistake. The probability is so low that it is very near zero. So even for the life time of the universe science can make the statement that LD has made. Also the theorem doesn't hold here because it's purely mathematical and does not account for the laws of biology.

lol, it's been so long I don't remember what the argument was, and your response is so vague, I can't tell which side of it you are arguing for......I do recall you posted in this thread and embarrassed yourself about creating "life" in the laboratory, and haven't been back to eat dirt yet......

[pete311]

I do recall you posted in this thread and embarrassed yourself about creating "life" in the laboratory, and haven't been back to eat dirt yet......

haha gimmie a break, i'm in rwanda! internet is hard to find, can you remind me what page that was?

[PostmodernProphet]

haha gimmie a break, i'm in rwanda! internet is hard to find, can you remind me what page that was?
????....it was the last post you made......

[Sweetchuck]

The only thing better than religious wackos are the atheist wackos.

I never understood the need for these two ends of the spectrum to want to jam their beliefs down everyone's throat. As far as I'm concerned, they can drop all of these insecure pinheads off on a fucking island along with crates of metal baseball bats.

[PostmodernProphet]

The only thing better than religious wackos are the atheist wackos.

I never understood the need for these two ends of the spectrum to want to jam their beliefs down everyone's throat. As far as I'm concerned, they can drop all of these insecure pinheads off on a fucking island along with crates of metal baseball bats.
what a coincidence.....there was a guy who said exactly the same thing on the other thread.....funny thing was, it didn't contribute anything to the debate there either.....

[Sweetchuck]

what a coincidence.....there was a guy who said exactly the same thing on the other thread.....funny thing was, it didn't contribute anything to the debate there either.....

Maybe, but it was very cathartic.

:thumb:

[PostmodernProphet]

well Pete....I'm glad I didn't waste a lot of time in research to answer your latest question......because it seems once again you have drifted away without answering me......

[pete311]

well Pete....I'm glad I didn't waste a lot of time in research to answer your latest question......because it seems once again you have drifted away without answering me......

i'm in the bush!!! :D i don't even know what post you are speaking of

[PostmodernProphet]

i'm in the bush!!! :D i don't even know what post you are speaking of

perhaps the "it's the last post you made" was a little vague for you.....would you like me to be more specific?.......

[pete311]

lol, you are as ignorant of biology as the person who wrote the article.....notice this....

they didn't create life, they simply made a transplant into an already living organism.....

a synthetic genome mind you, where the cells successfully replicated. It's only a matter of time before we create a new genome and custom cells. This is not a minor achievement!

[Gaffer]

a synthetic genome mind you, where the cells successfully replicated. It's only a matter of time before we create a new genome and custom cells. This is not a minor achievement!

Actually, taking something and making it into something else, which is what synthesis is about, is not creating anything, it's just restructuring what's already there.

[PostmodernProphet]

a synthetic genome mind you, where the cells successfully replicated. It's only a matter of time before we create a new genome and custom cells. This is not a minor achievement!

but it was NOT what you claimed it was when you posted this..

Scientists create a living organism

in truth, they weren't even close to that......it's like taking a lego car and changing it slightly by moving a few blocks, then claiming you invented the automobile.....

[pete311]

but it was NOT what you claimed it was when you posted this..

in truth, they weren't even close to that......it's like taking a lego car and changing it slightly by moving a few blocks, then claiming you invented the automobile.....

I think it is now a matter of semantics and you are not giving enough credit. Again you like to reduce incredibly complex achievements with a 3rd grade figure of speech. If you take a dead human, replace it's genome and reboot it successfully, I'd say you created life.


"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer,"

We are creating the legos, not rearranging them. Rearranging would make a different genome.

If you're only willing to accept us creating life by using RNA and amino acids and having it turn into a rhino, well, that will take some time, but we are at the entrance of that possibility.

[LuvRPgrl]

but it was NOT what you claimed it was when you posted this..


in truth, they weren't even close to that......it's like taking a lego car and changing it slightly by moving a few blocks, then claiming you invented the automobile.....

I want to get more into this thread later, but for right now I want to add this.

I think its funny that pro evolutionists think if they can create life from non living matter in a lab, that will somehow help, or actually prove that life evolved on its own.

The absurdity of that concept. First, it will show that it took an intelligent being to create the life. Second, it will show that even with an intelligent being involved, it was incredibily difficult, so wouldnt that actually kinda be proving that it couldnt really have happened on accident?

The only way to prove that evolution could have happened, and that wouldnt even be proof that it "did" happen, would be to take the elements neccessary and watch them gather themselves together somehow , someway, without any input whatsoever by an outsider, except as an observer.

Last thing is, I would love to see an "evolutionist" put together a time line, a choronological scenario that accounts for each and every major life form and how it came about to exist. A "flow chart" if you will, on evolution. OK, here we have the single cell, then the multi cellular,


then we have this little species here, that became this species, that became that species which eventually became a giraffe. Then they would have to have a "flow chart" or family tree that would account for every major species that exists today. I dont think they could do it, and much less do it to include ALL the species that exist.

The sheer number of changes that would have had to have occured over the given time we have, would be too numerous for the amount of time alloted, because each and every transistional phase would have to be accounted for, I mean, how many "mutations" would have had to occur over time to account for a single cell evolving into a horse, lets say. Then you have to do that for every species, and I simply think you would quickly run out of time ,,,,especially considering a vast number of mutations are actually negative ones that dont cause an improvement in the species and thus fades away.

[pete311]

I think its funny that pro evolutionists think if they can create life from non living matter in a lab, that will somehow help, or actually prove that life evolved on its own.

No one is claiming that. All that I am claiming is that science has figured a lot out and that the designer doesn't have to be god. If apes can figure this out in a few hundred years maybe god aint that smart. It is only a matter of time

Moore's law in action.
2002 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1072266) - chemical synthesis of a 170,000 base pair genome
2008 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1151721) - chemical synthesis of a 582,970 base pair genome
2010 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190719) - chemical synthesis of a 1,080,000 base pair genome.



The absurdity of that concept. First, it will show that it took an intelligent being to create the life. Second, it will show that even with an intelligent being involved, it was incredibily difficult, so wouldnt that actually kinda be proving that it couldnt really have happened on accident?

Intelligent being can create life as we are seeing, but it isn't necessary. To quote Jurassic park, "Life finds a way".



The only way to prove that evolution could have happened, and that wouldnt even be proof that it "did" happen, would be to take the elements neccessary and watch them gather themselves together somehow , someway, without any input whatsoever by an outsider, except as an observer.

You are simply ignorant and haven't taken a college level chemistry or biology course. Go to a local university and talk to a professor, your questions will be answered.



Last thing is, I would love to see an "evolutionist" put together a time line, a choronological scenario that accounts for each and every major life form and how it came about to exist. A "flow chart" if you will, on evolution. OK, here we have the single cell, then the multi cellular, then we have this little species here, that became this species, that became that species which eventually became a giraffe. Then they would have to have a "flow chart" or family tree that would account for every major species that exists today. I dont think they could do it, and much less do it to include ALL the species that exist.

Certainly this is impossible as we haven't yet discovered every species. We discover many thousands each year. I do believe scientists can account for the complete history of some animals. Use google.



The sheer number of changes that would have had to have occured over the given time we have, would be too numerous for the amount of time alloted, because each and every transistional phase would have to be accounted for, I mean, how many "mutations" would have had to occur over time to account for a single cell evolving into a horse, lets say. Then you have to do that for every species, and I simply think you would quickly run out of time ,,,,especially considering a vast number of mutations are actually negative ones that dont cause an improvement in the species and thus fades away.

Again, you are ignorant. Take a genetics course.

[pete311]

I found the real meat of the study. Quite impressive!

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf

[PostmodernProphet]

I think it is now a matter of semantics and you are not giving enough credit. Again you like to reduce incredibly complex achievements with a 3rd grade figure of speech. If you take a dead human, replace it's genome and reboot it successfully, I'd say you created life.
they didn't take a dead "human".....they took a living one.....if it had actually died on them they would have been screwed and would have had to use a different one.....because they DIDN'T create life.....

let's be honest, pete, this wasn't a matter of semantics, it was a matter of over-reaching.....you wanted to make them look godlike when they were actually kids playing with legos....



We are creating the legos, not rearranging them. Rearranging would make a different genome.
you're not creating legos.....the legos are just organic chemical molecules....all they have done is stack them differently....



If you're only willing to accept us creating life by using RNA and amino acids and having it turn into a rhino, well, that will take some time, but we are at the entrance of that possibility.
nice try, but if you really want to claim that you created life, start with organic chemical molecules and produce a single celled creature that is self reproducing.....the above is just another lame attempt at pretending you've created life when you actually haven't.......

[pete311]

let's be honest, pete, this wasn't a matter of semantics, it was a matter of over-reaching.....you wanted to make them look godlike when they were actually kids playing with legos....

kids playing with legos... you really don't give them enough credit for the complexity of whatis being done



nice try, but if you really want to claim that you created life, start with organic chemical molecules and produce a single celled creature that is self reproducing.....the above is just another lame attempt at pretending you've created life when you actually haven't.......

fair enough, but we are at the door step. lame attempt? again, you apparently can't comprehend the technological genius that is going on all around you, all made from science.

[PostmodernProphet]

kids playing with legos... you really don't give them enough credit for the complexity of whatis being done

it's all relative.....if you look at a piece of computer code and manage to make the computer add a list of numbers instead of subtract the numbers by changing the code, I am NOT going to give you credit for creating computers.....let me know when you create your own version of DNA, take inert molecular chemical compounds (dust of the earth) and make it alive (breath life into it).......then we'll talk about equal billing with God.....




fair enough, but we are at the door step. lame attempt? again, you apparently can't comprehend the technological genius that is going on all around you, all made from science.

again you overreach.....I did not describe what the scientists are doing as a lame attempt.....I described your argument as a lame attempt.....

[PostmodernProphet]

If apes can figure this out in a few hundred years maybe god aint that smart.

You are simply ignorant and haven't taken a college level chemistry or biology course. Go to a local university and talk to a professor, your questions will be answered.


does anyone else find it amusing to see these two sentences in the same post?......

God save us from the patronizingly ignorant.....

[pete311]

Here is another thread I picked up. Has a couple interesting points especially in post #8 and #10.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426986

[OldMercsRule]

Burp.............. er........ excuse me.

[logroller]

Science seeks to explain that which is observable. Evolution, as a theory, is a product of this attempt. Creation doesn't explain anything which is observable, so creation and evolution aren't competitive with one-another. There are those who disavow creation because it bears no witness, but nonetheless have unanswered questions. I am inclined to a reasonable degree of faith in such cases, as that which is as yet unobservable may still exist.

[OldMercsRule]

Science seeks to explain that which is observable.

Yup, that is why the "BIG BANG" which very clearly appears ta be a creation event makes "ID" the most viable of the two opposing theories.

"Observable"........ me arse.........honk......honk


Evolution, as a theory, is a product of this attempt.

What a silly post........


So is creation: Einstein......... :laugh2:


Creation doesn't explain anything which is observable, so creation and evolution aren't competitive with one-another.

Wrong.....does yer brain werk at all? :laugh2: :laugh2:



There are those who disavow creation because it bears no witness, but nonetheless have unanswered questions.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Are you smokin' somethin' again????? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Both theories have "unanswered questions".....it is jus' the religion of Evolution that has FAR MORE......."unanswered questions"......burp......pffffft.....excuse me.


I am inclined to a reasonable degree of faith in such cases, as that which is as yet unobservable may still exist.

Sooooooooooooooo yer a true believer in the religion of Evolution or some such.....? Ya really have problems with clear posts don't ya? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: