Macro Evolutionists...

[fj1200]

It doesn't.
Nor did i claim that it did.
kthanks.

OK. Good.

[darin]

Yet there is almost certainly signs of life on bodies outside of the earth in our own solar system. Nevermind the billions of billions of other potential planets over a timeline of many billions of years in the past (and many more billions in the future)

And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection, but i'm sure you know that.

That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.

[Noir]

And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.

Except there are signs of life, see Methane plumes released from Mars.
But i see you've already lined your defence up 'if there is something its points to a designed' ugh, at least i have the conceit to suggest that i may be wrong.

That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.

Firstly common sense has no bearing on scientific reality (see Double Slit experiment as already detailed) and secondly you are again (i believe deliberately) missing the point as per your examples.

[Missileman]

Fine - you look at those facts - out of a hundred billion stars, planets, stars - everything...our planet is uniquely and perfectly positioned to support life as we know it. Our moon system, gravity, etc, is PERFECT for us...our wonderfully-complex bodies/biological systems are complex beyond our understanding...and ALL this...just sorta happened by pure random chance. Take away my example of a sponge becoming a shark - and think about any OTHER simple organism becoming one vastly complex, by pure random chance.

Next time you walk past a store and see a 5000 piece puzzle put-together on display, imagine the pieces being shaken by an earthquake until they align correctly. That's the probability you call 'science'.

The sponge didn't turn into a shark or give birth to a shark. You are discounting the millions of stages of minute changes between the two...intentionally I presume.

And none of those seem to show life - and where they WOULD show life, it'd point again to a designer.



That was an illustration on creation/evolution of life, not specifically natural selection.

Maybe I'll put it like this.

Chunks of cardboard are floating in a primordial ooze. They float around until they magically, somehow, develop interlocking pieces. After millions of years, those pieces form together a completed puzzle.

Just cannot pass my common-sense test; Maco Evolution.

If that were an accurate description of the concept, I wouldn't believe it either.

[PostmodernProphet]

There isn't much other way to say this than this - You obviously don't understand what ERVs are. Please read up on them, they are redundant bits of code, that are in every way totally useless and only their by a biological anomaly.

Why would a god make around 4% of our DNA of totally useless, an not only that, but put such ERVs in all living creatures *and* pattern it in such a way that when studied it looks as if there is a biological link?



Maybe it is part of a plan, maybe it isn't, i don't know, however DMP is stating that Macro-Evolution is *not* part of gods plan.

I understand them perfectly well....I just don't attribute the same metaphysical importance to them that you do.......the fact we haven't yet determined their function doesn't mean they are useless.....one argument is that they function to permit cells to adapt to changing environments....that they are in fact the lubricant of evolution......

I won't speak for DMP, but in my opinion macro-evolution is a myth which I do not share.......I am amused by those who pretend it's actually science.......

Firstly common sense has no bearing on scientific reality

to the contrary....common sense often prevents scientists from making the embarrassing mistake of claiming something foolish is scientific reality.........

[darin]

The sponge didn't turn into a shark or give birth to a shark. You are discounting the millions of stages of minute changes between the two...intentionally I presume.

I'm saying, there is no credibility in a fantasy ANY amount of stages could lead one to turn into the other, simply by adding time and random chance. There is no minute change that will leave a sponge - or similar - with ANY progress towards becoming something entirely different. You have to know that.

If that were an accurate description of the concept, I wouldn't believe it either.

The description captures the essence of your religion.

[bullypulpit]

I have a compromise for those of you supporting the teaching of creation "science" in public schools. Creation "science" can be taught in public schools when evolutionary science can be taught in churches.

Adaptation and Evolution don't happen 'just magically'. That's the point of the OP.

What element of our digestive system developed first, patiently waiting for enough OTHER mutations to function?

Beyond silly to believe what some secular 'scientists' preach.

Preachers are for the faithful. Science is for the rational. But more to the point, evolution is an incremental process in which one successful mutation serves as the foundation of the next. Nothing evolves before the processes exist to support each step of the evolutionary process.

[Missileman]

I'm saying, there is no credibility in a fantasy ANY amount of stages could lead one to turn into the other, simply by adding time and random chance. There is no minute change that will leave a sponge - or similar - with ANY progress towards becoming something entirely different. You have to know that.



The description captures the essence of your religion.

No, it doesn't. There isn't any part of the theory of evolution that purports that all the pieces of a complex animal were floating around in some body of water and drifted together.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have a compromise for those of you supporting the teaching of creation "science" in public schools. Creation "science" can be taught in public schools when evolutionary science can be taught in churches.

actually, we discuss evolution science quite a bit.....

No, it doesn't. There isn't any part of the theory of evolution that purports that all the pieces of a complex animal were floating around in some body of water and drifted together.

lol.....now, if he had said that, you might have a point.....

[pete311]

dmp, we've been through this before. all the questions you ask in this thread highlight your complete lack of understanding of modern evolution theory. i just don't understand why you haven't picked up a book yet. the entire credible scientific community understands that evolution is fact. yet you still ask inane questions like "why doesn't a monkey turn into a whale" or "how can random events in mud just turn into humans". if you read a book you'd find very quickly how stupid and misinformed they are.

Please read this short bit and then read the links linked and then read a whole book. until then you are simply an ignorant child trying to convince his parents that santa exists.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

I won't speak for DMP, but in my opinion macro-evolution is a myth which I do not share.......I am amused by those who pretend it's actually science.......

You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners? Who the heck are you? and fyi, technically the terms Micro and Macro aren't even used to evolution. You won't find them in modern biology textbooks because scientists don't recognize them are entirely different processes. For the ignorant Macro is the result of long periods of Micro. So if you believe one, you must believe the other. If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners?

only the stupid ones.....

If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.

butterflies.....butterflies are illogical under the parameters of macro-evolution......are they flying creatures who were evolving into crawling creatures because it enabled them to survive, but then forgot to finish the job or were they crawling creatures who were evolving into flying creatures because it enabled them to survive, but forgot to finish the job.......

[pete311]

butterflies.....butterflies are illogical under the parameters of macro-evolution......are they flying creatures who were evolving into crawling creatures because it enabled them to survive, but then forgot to finish the job or were they crawling creatures who were evolving into flying creatures because it enabled them to survive, but forgot to finish the job.......

The butterfly is a flying insect. The caterpillar happens to be the larva life stage of the butterfly.

No mysteries here. Read for yourself. This is biology 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhopalocera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

btw, speaking of butterflies, this is a really neat article, "Butterfly unlocks evolution secret"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

[bullypulpit]

actually, we discuss evolution science quite a bit.....

Ummm no, you don't. You discuss the ideologically distorted view of evolutionary science as taught by creationists.

[PostmodernProphet]

Ummm no, you don't. You discuss the ideologically distorted view of evolutionary science as taught by creationists.

lol.....by "creationist" do you mean the ideologically distorted view of Christianity held by the typical atheist?.......we tend more to discuss the ideologically distorted view of science held by macro-evolutionists......

The butterfly is a flying insect. The caterpillar happens to be the larva life stage of the butterfly.

No mysteries here. Read for yourself. This is biology 101.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhopalocera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

btw, speaking of butterflies, this is a really neat article, "Butterfly unlocks evolution secret"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm

I suspect you didn't bother to read any of those links.....if so, you would be aware that there is nothing in any of them that explains why butterflies exist.....in fact, the only reference to evolutionary origin mentioned proves my point rather than yours....from that link....

but often the larval stage has evolved secondarily, as in insects

the larval stage of butterflies is not a stage of origin.....it is illogical.......there is no way for it to have "evolved" as a method of survival without the creature of origin becoming extinct.....in layman's terms.....there is no way a flying creature would "evolve" into a crawling creature because it was better adapted to survive, yet reproduce as a threatened flying creature.......it wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.....and if it COULD live to reproduce there wouldn't be any cause for it to evolve in the first place......

[darin]

dmp, we've been through this before. all the questions you ask in this thread highlight your complete lack of understanding of modern evolution theory. i just don't understand why you haven't picked up a book yet. the entire credible scientific community understands that evolution is fact. yet you still ask inane questions like "why doesn't a monkey turn into a whale" or "how can random events in mud just turn into humans". if you read a book you'd find very quickly how stupid and misinformed they are.

Please read this short bit and then read the links linked and then read a whole book. until then you are simply an ignorant child trying to convince his parents that santa exists.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950

You present two lapses in logic there. Your first logical fallacy is appeal to popularity. Therein lies your second fallacy - and the crux of the situation. You will hold NO scientist as 'credible' unless his findings and opinion are soundly aligned with yours. In essence, you've made no point; no counter argument.

You cannot - nor can the saints in your chosen religion provide even close to 'reasonable' explanation of the probability and likelihood of the simultaneous 'mutation' of a creature to form a heart, and circulatory system - AND blood to travel those highways.



Think for ten seconds about your religion - I'm NOT here to convince you you're wrong, by the way - the Faith you have in your god, and the circumstances around your religion are nobody's business but your own. You make your peace with your faith and how you live your life. But think for TEN seconds and ask yourself "Does it pass ANY common sense test for something to magically, randomly, accidentally, 'better' its condition given nothing but time and probability?

You are amused by Nobel Prize Award winners? Who the heck are you? and fyi, technically the terms Micro and Macro aren't even used to evolution. You won't find them in modern biology textbooks because scientists don't recognize them are entirely different processes. For the ignorant Macro is the result of long periods of Micro. So if you believe one, you must believe the other. If you don't think so please inform me of the logical barriers that prevent it from happening.

Macro and Micro are useful in identifying learned, inner-species adaptation and what you believe "A can become B. Just give it time, and eventually, magically, randomly, A will make its way to become B. I can't prove it. I don't even have much evidence. Since I refuse to believe A and B were part of a design, NO answer pointing out my err in logic will appease me."

Look at my Avatar. The avatar is a photo of a CH47 Chinook helicopter. Very complex piece of machinery. Yet, no amount of time, heat, pressure, magic, random chance will ever make that CH47 EVOLVE from, say, a much smaller OH58 KIOWA Helicopter. I bet you agree with me.

Yet, you can look at the human body and have NO problems with believing OUR complex 'machine' created itself through the same methods? Tell me where the common sense is in THAT.