Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's called a circular debate. No need to chase the evolution evangelists in circles on the forums here.
Spontaneous Abiogenesis = not observed
Light = requires intelligence to redirect it use it for anabolic (building up) reactions... observed > Photosynthesis. UV radiation destroys not builds without source of intelligence (aka Chlorophyll <not a "simple" compound by any stretch of the imagination)
Evolution of millions of known symbiotic relationships necessary for life = speculated
mutations = most mutations are detrimental not beneficial
Natural selection = Selects from an already existing gene pool not evolving into new one.
We could talk about the origin of elements past Iron. The rotating of moons in opposite directions (defies angular momentum in "Big Bang" accident. The laws of thermodynamics. The faulty assumptions in dating methods. Evidence for a flood. Evidence of Dinosaurs living with Humans. The info is there for anyone to look. This could really go on for quite a while.
People looking for a debate generally are interested in debate not truth. look for truth not debate. Winning a debate means nothing. Winning the truth means everything.
This is incredible, and such a new take. Where were you during the Dover trial? Behe really could have used your input. He really floundered, embarrassingly so, and he was the main cheerleader for IC.
mutations = most mutations are detrimental not beneficial
I have to address this one as I just heard PZ Myers talk about this particular creationist claim.
We are *all* mutants
Fitness is a function of genes + environment meaning that what makes a mutation detrimental or beneficial is a function of the environment that the finds itself living in. An example is the sickle cell gene. In Africa, there is a fitness benefit in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene because it protects against malaria. The gene conveys no advantage in an environment where malaria is uncommon. Note that organisms do not *only* evolve to suit the environment, they also modify that environment to suit them.
Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population. The easiest way to demonstrate this is from experiments based upon lines of organisms developed from clones (genetically identical by definition) of a single individual. The following examples are from pages 183 - 186 the book "Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution" by Graham Bell, a book which I recommend highly to anyone who wants to learn more about evolution, especially if they like to see good evidence for the claims made for natural selection.
Mutations can either increase or decrease genomic information.
It's called a circular debate. No need to chase the evolution evangelists in circles on the forums here.
Spontaneous Abiogenesis = not observed (Untrue. Seen, observed, documented Read the journals, if you dare, which you don't I'll assume...)
Light = requires intelligence to redirect it use it for anabolic (building up) reactions... observed > Photosynthesis. UV radiation destroys not builds without source of intelligence (aka Chlorophyll <not a "simple" compound by any stretch of the imagination)
(Wrong again. Any source of radiant energy (solar, nuclear, heat, light, etc.) can and does cause reactions, not to be controlled by what you hope to happen.)
Evolution of millions of known symbiotic relationships necessary for life = speculated
(I'd say if you cant grasp how on Earth this could possibly have happened, you missed your intro statistics class, huh? Tell you what: you read up, if you dare, on exponential growth, plus binary pairing and the Cambrian explosion. Here's I'll even give you a head-start: Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
mutations = most mutations are detrimental not beneficial
(So what? It only takes a few positive ones, plus that actual beneficial effect of the loss of bad mutations, to effectively weed out and actively promote the exponential population growth of those "mutants" who do carry some brave new allele pair. Golly, you labor under some doozies, dont you? where'd you read them? Who's scientifically illiterate website?)
Natural selection = Selects from an already existing gene pool not evolving into new one.
Why? Why would an existing organism be immune from genetic mutation effects passed on? (i.e.: not within itself; nothing changes it's shape or characteristics once it exists, you understand...) but it does pass on these mutations, quite reliably, to it's offspring for that all-important testing session.
Then, even if that proves to be either neutral or positive, it's still passed on. Some of those currently neutral mutations can become facilitated or activated with some later mutation improvement. It's called genetic vectoring, and was one of my particular research subjects. Wanna read all my papers?
We could talk about the origin of elements past Iron. The rotating of moons in opposite directions (defies angular momentum in "Big Bang" accident. The laws of thermodynamics. The faulty assumptions in dating methods. Evidence for a flood. Evidence of Dinosaurs living with Humans. The info is there for anyone to look. This could really go on for quite a while.
Boy, you're really grasping here! Faulty assumptions in dating? You want to list them, but making sure the concerns you list are not from a 1984 or earlier article? Things have come A Long Ways, friend, and it's also that uncomfortable fact that completely independent methods can and often do co-support each other. Ooops, huh?
But do one little thing for me, won't you? since you note that the truth is a reasonable goal in an honst debate, right? I also did some artifact dating analysis using the then-new X-Ray fluorescence systems at my Alma Mater (≈ 1995), who sorta worked up all the methodologies and initial problems. It's remarkably accurate. Tell me what, specifically and technically, is so wrong with it. As in: inaccurate.
Please? Just don't even try to quote-mine what other "dating denialists" will say, since I can easily demolish their superficial and technically lacking "arguments", based as they are on falsehoods and outright mis-information.
This I really want to hear, if you claim to discredit it. This method, XRF, properly applied, proved, BTW, that the Acambara carvings were, in fact, fakes. You know, the carvings that supposedly PROVED that dinos and man co-existed within the last 2000 yrs or so? (What a laugh! Where, pray tell, are all the unfossilized bones and frozen remains buried in ice or mud up in the Arctic? Where? I'm waaaaaa....itinnnnnnng...
As for your "incorrect" rotational directions? The effect of a macro-meteoric impact on the edge of some formative imperfect loosely swirling mass will definitely effect it's final rotational direction. Not everything is in perfect orderly existence. In fact, your perfectly finished Godly Universe is wildly unfinished as of yet.
As well, Creationists only want to go for claiming all the one-sided errors, as in "Well, your dating method could be out, according to your own scientists, by say, 10,000 years, thus making the artifact 10,000 years younger!".
Well uhm... OK, but then, in the true spirit of scientific open-mindedness that you so obviously lack, that would also mean, and I'm sure you'll logically agree with me here, that the artifact in question could therefore also be 10,000 years OLDER! As in: "the age of this artifact is ± 10k years, not just - 10k years!" But NOOOOOOOHHHHH. We don't EVER mention that side of the error equation, do we?
People looking for a debate generally are interested in debate not truth. look for truth not debate. Winning a debate means nothing. Winning the truth means everything.
On this I'll agree with you. your position is simply to reject all that denies your particular religious beliefs, even if an alternate answer makes perfect sense and has been effectively proven. Your only position is one of intransigent, scrappy denialist defense.
Sadly for that approach, the hard evidence, plus it's massively accurate predictive powers, seen now every day, completely validate the Evolution of species diversity. Evolution does not even try to explain rotation of the moons, or of abiogenesis! It is simply how all the once-simple organisms became so complex.
Of course, we also know the time period was in excess of 3Billion years in which to do all that trial and error testing, and once a working, surviving system has been initiated, it tends to grow in complexity, if there's a niche opening for that improvement. and it usually does so at an exponential rate. All proven.
BTW, we now have lab proof of 1) the self-synthesis of amino acids, DNA and chains of same(2010). 2) we also have absolute DNA mapping proof of mutation leading to speciation (2008). Too bad your scientific education, such as it is, is so very stuck way back in, oh I'd say, the late '60s. You really ought to read up on it a bit more! I mean, if you actually want to understand the truth and not just wallow in self-aggrandizing (and frankly, humiliating) ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
I'm pretty sure you don't understand what evolution is, and that's why you fight so hard to disprove it, using evidence that is unrelated to it.
Is it that obvious, Boxcar? I thought it was only me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
Looks like someone has swallowed the Argument From Ignorance, dressed up by Behe in a scientific guise, hook-line-and-sinker.
or, more simply:
"I just can't believe that bacterial flagellum could have evolved (actually, I'm a scientific illiterate, but it just sounds so good the way that smart scientist guy writes in and I really, really, really want to believe him!), therefore the deity described by my favorite dirt-ignorant band of ancient desert-dwellers must be true!"
Nicely put! To willingly and openly ignore the facts that others have quietly laid at your feet, or to willingly stamp on them just to spite facts and knowledge? How very "religious" and intransigently stubborn.
We could talk about the origin of elements past Iron. The rotating of moons in opposite directions (defies angular momentum in "Big Bang" accident. The laws of thermodynamics. The faulty assumptions in dating methods. Evidence for a flood. Evidence of Dinosaurs living with Humans. The info is there for anyone to look. This could really go on for quite a while.
Gladly, but the first step is for you to stop ignoring everything I wrote and start answering the questions. I see no need to say anything more to you until you do.
Ok, monkeys.
I studied for 47 years biology, chemistry, Physics and so evolution and all religion related.
I think to be quite expert, i have had an answer to quite all my questions.
I'll be short. We are monkeys, period.
The earth is an extremely dangerous place. There is no intelligent design, it pretty obvious. Tomorrow a volcano can destroy all our civilization, just as i can die for an heart attack while writing this. It just happen, all our world and the universe is an absolutely MESS, fusion of all sort of chemical interaction, all casuals, there are hundred thounsand of animals on this earth, all casuals, all survived to millions year and cataclisms, many are, like us, the result of an evolution.
There is NO GOD. No one. Cry if you want. Cry if you would the eternal life, you know now that you'll have nothing. All religious peoples are despicable selfish, they do not understand that we are all animals, just a bit evoluted and intelligent. Our dogs or cats or deers should have the same rights of our children because they are a different kind of animals like us. But we are selfish greedy and ignorant.
We are simple a piece of meat with a brain that animate us with electrical impulses. After death there will be EXACTLY was we have had before: NOTHING.
If you want experiment how death is, make a general anesthesia, it's EXACTLY the same thing.
I can bet my children that in 300 years all the residual religious people will hide themself for the shame as Gay do today. Then progress will be the unique faith as should be, because we are alone.
As for all the blablabla of who created who, there is not much to say.
Water was carried to the dead Earth by comets , bringing the life, some bacteria and organic cells like on the "now dead" Mars ( as you normal people will understand and believe in 2016 ). Then the evolution did all.
Then evoluted monkeys, terrified from death, to hold off people, invented religions, then crusades, inquisitions, and now terrorism .There are hundreds of religion in this world, all stupid fables that damage the normal people.
The Bible and the Musulman Koran are the bestseller book in all the human history.
Human is liar, violent and avid, this explain all.
The only thing that can PERHAPS save our civilization is progress and colonization of other planets.
To reach this targets, we need to cooperate, and be civil.
Things like religion, guns, bigotry and overpopulation will let our civilization to die.
Incredible that in the USA where we have NASA, best Universities and Silicon Valley, we have even the shameful "Bible Belt" and all ignorant people believing in fables. Europeans are 40 years ahead of us in this.
Poor countries like Iran, Africa, Pakistan, India and other are partially justified because they are 80 years behind USA. Bus Americans that believe in Creationism, Adam, Eve and all other bull****s while using technologies , knowing that there are peoples dying each second, starving or for health diseases, are not justified.
All kind "God believing peoples" should not be allowed to use Hospitals and let them pray and die.
Last edited by Theinconvenient_Truth; 10-13-2011 at 11:10 PM..
Ok, monkeys.
I studied for 47 years biology, chemistry, Physics and so evolution and all religion related.
I think to be quite expert, i have had an answer to quite all my questions.
I'll be short. We are monkeys, period.
I'd try to get your money back for the 47 years of study mate. You were robbed. We are not monkeys, we are apes.
I'd try to get your money back for the 47 years of study mate. You were robbed. We are not monkeys, we are apes.
I'm a Researcher.
Monkeys, apes, chimps, you match the case.
People must understand, be simple.
Religion, in particular Christianity have the only good thing to be a brake to violence and to hold off the people. But bigotry is evil.
Other religions instead are not soo sweety and force children to live an absurd life, like the ones that learn the Koran literally to memory instead of studyng and live the only life we have.
People aren't going to understand by being fed duff information.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blue Notes by me....
