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.
First, no I dont claim to "know" the evolution argument and "5 basic key elements". But I do understand that Cats can not give birth to dogs overnight, of course they can not. But isnt this what evolution teaches? I am sure your going to say no.
But if you say it does not how then are there many different forms of life and non life if it did come from a common "decent".
Not sure I worded that right, but anyway it goes back to the first form of life or non life that evoution says was here, how did that come into existence, again how did nothing create somthing, I still have not seen anyone give a valid answer to that.
Well, again, Howie (Sorry; hope you don't mind my using a convenient nick-name...). The thing is this, and please.. hopefully you will try remember it:
Evolution does NOT even try to explain the origins of life. This is simply a tired old "saw" that, again, the church uses to try to evade, deflect and deny the fact of "species diversification" (aká: Evolution). Here: I'll try to politely give it to you in a few simple steps. Trust me: this stuff is all observable and demonstrable.
1) We have a high rate of genetics mutation of that original form of simple life. (an established fact, and demonstrable in the real world as well as in the lab) coupled with the long time frame that such a process took advantage of to try out an unimaginably large number of trial and error versions....). This is the basis for an unchanging string of optional variations of every living thing on the planet, thus subject to niche testing. Many of these mutations were, obviously, lethal or nonsense, but obviously not all of them. Just a few had to be useful to be incorporated.
2) The fact that each new offspring carries a very reliable DNA bio-chemical memory system (DNA reproduces itself mostly without error. Lethal mutations of course end up "lethally" (duhh, huh?) and the new offspring thus dies off. But there are also very useful genetic error-repair systems that also co-evolved over time (which only makes sense given the importance of such a defensive strategy to an organism's long-range durability)
3) Where those genetic changes might offer either a neutral (or possible latent advantage, possibly to be used later when some "facilitating mutation does occur; in my biological research studies I named that known process "Vectored Evolution"), we then occasionally see the adoption of several changes seemingly at once, superficially at odds with the idea of purely chance occurrences. It's all just simple cumulative statistics, fact be known.
4) Over the millennia, such ongoing and exponentially driven changes do indeed accumulate and provide ongoing positive changes and advantages. When a mutation does provide such advantages, I assume you can see where such advantages would be thus retained over the course of subsequent offspring. Obviously, right? Why-ever would such advantages be otherwise lost? It maketh no sense, "grasshopper"!
5) We now have a highly back-trackable and reliable information stream (via the spectacular new technique of DNA genome lineage tracking. Inarguable and very logical.) So... when we do create a genome map, there is no argument that can stand up against an organism's prior parentage. It's just like reading a serial comic book; you can see the prior issue's story line and it's obvious and, again, inarguable. It's certainly not just all pulled up and out of the blue without any logical basis, ryhme or reason.
6) So.. we have those necessary and demonstrablekey elements (minus that "Origins of Life" deflection. That is, for sure, another story, and no, we don't have that one entirely hypothesized and finalized as of yet!)
But let's not therefore assume there are no alternate answers except Intelligent Design by God's hand, OK? Esp. when that version rests on a silly ±6000 yr timeline, a completely finished universe and a "bogus geo-column!" Not to mention, the hypotheses for the origin of life are now coming along nicely, and with scads of evidence arriving now to support it (DNA lineage tracking and all that...), being just a few short experimental studies away from absolute proof.
Sorry: if we can count, we can positively assert that the earth and life have been here for millions of years. Billions in some cases. Along with a steady stream of so-called "Missing Link" transitionals.
The fact is, several researchers are hot on, or already have, provided the answers to the likely Origins of Life hypothesis. (Noting that some of that stuff is in publication as we speak. Let's be patient.)
Rather, it's the diversification of each existing species genome into all the species we now see [ell over 00 million existing, with hundreds of millions having already gone extinct since the dawn of life) that leads to new and better adapted species. Pretty much proven now.
So. Questions? And what if I'm right, Howie? Be honest now! (After all, to just outright deny any or all of this, you'll have to tell me which key elements or part(s) do not operate as I've summarized. I'm all polite ears and mind. )
Are we getting the Irreducible Complexity argument yet again? That has been shown to totally flawed science. The Flagellum is assumed to be useless unless fully developed. It is known that the features from which the flagellum evolved had their own function. A flagellum may be in not yet evolved form, partially evolved and give a minor mobility advantage until it reaches optimum size to give the greatest advantage in mobility.
Irreducible complexity is a demonstrated false argument.
The Giraffe neck is an argument against Intelligent design. The jugular nerve (as I recall) would, in an animal made from scratch as it were go straight from one point to the next. It does not. It makes an unneccessary loop which can only be explained if it once dod go direct but, as the neck evolved to be longer, the nerve had to elongate into a loop.
These rather irrelevant attempts to disprove evolution are futile.
Looking back we have had attempts to prove Christianity through prophecy or appeals to Bible accuracy. The prophecies are generally false and in the case of the state of israel, self -fulfilling. The Gospels are fabrications and prove nothing.
Attempts to disprove evolution are misconceived and irrelevant anyway. So far the evidence for Religion -Bible -God -Jesus has signally failed to deliver.
The giraffe cannot exist without the circulatory system and the system is unique to the giraffe. This would be an "all at once" occurrence (in my opinion) and would not have evolved. Again, similar to the termite question and the bacteria flagellum. I'll look over your link sanspeur but I don't have time to read 17 pages right now. How are you? I haven't been around much lately but sure miss your great Alaskan photography! Hope you're well!
A few questions will answer that for you.
Is there variation in height amongst animals?
Is there any advanage to being able to reach food that shorter animals can't?
in a marginal environment, do more well nourished animals, on average, have more babies, bigger babies and more milk?
As I "don't bother to educate myself" I keep getting more confused.
Earlier you lambasted HOWaboutit-2 about "cats not giving birth to dogs" and then you set out to educate me by posting an answer to my inquiry about evolution with a webpage with this quote:
Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.
emphasis added
Um, yeah, I think I'll quote the "smartest person on forum":
.....or non chickens turn into chickens.
Nice to see you again, Alpha.
This is a pretty vile thing to do. You demand a whole host of explanations for topics it's clear YOU have no understanding about, imply that a simple Google copy and paste will work and then lambast the person who did what you requested.
So, sure, rather than sifting through scientific paper after scientific paper after scientific paper (papers like the ones you've already told sanspeur you don't have the time to read because they're 17 pages) someone sends you what I would refer to as "quick links," or something that can be browsed through somewhat speedily.
And, it just so happens that you're right, Alpha. The HowStuffWorks article is complete garbage. Well, at the very least, it is so overly simplified that it really could be misunderstood at even the most fundamental levels. Nah, it's just flat out wrong. But, I've been down this road with you before and Rafius is right. You're not going to put in the time to understand what phenotypical expressions or allele frequencies are. You're not going to put in the time to figure out what a genotype is or how population dynamics works.
You're going to sit there and demand that it be explained to you in a "dumbed down" fashion because you "don't have the time" to read the requisite scientific literature and then you're going to complain about the dumbed down articles. Yeah, the HowStuffWorks article is utter crap but you don't want the scientific literature, though.
My opinion is that unless you actually do understand the science and you are willing to read through the requisite literature, you don't really have a dog in the fight. All you're doing is parroting a bunch of garbage you've heard from pseudoscientific websites who'd prefer to lie for Jesus and make a mockery of people's ignorance and stupidity (yours included) just to make a buck.
There. That should get you started. And, by the way, a little hint to reading these articles. The abstracts (often the first two to five paragraphs at the beginning of a paper) tend to put a pretty plain-Jane overview of what the paper is about. Of course, whatever claim is made by the abstract has to be supported by the evidence and the evidence lies within the rest of the paper. So, if you want to check the veracity of the claims, all you have to do is read the rest of the paper.
And, it just so happens that you're right, Alpha. The HowStuffWorks article is complete garbage. Well, at the very least, it is so overly simplified that it really could be misunderstood at even the most fundamental levels.
....but...but, I gave him what he asked for... an evolution for dummies copy and paste!
This is a pretty vile thing to do. You demand a whole host of explanations for topics it's clear YOU have no understanding about, imply that a simple Google copy and paste will work and then lambast the person who did what you requested.
So, sure, rather than sifting through scientific paper after scientific paper after scientific paper (papers like the ones you've already told sanspeur you don't have the time to read because they're 17 pages) someone sends you what I would refer to as "quick links," or something that can be browsed through somewhat speedily.
And, it just so happens that you're right, Alpha. The HowStuffWorks article is complete garbage. Well, at the very least, it is so overly simplified that it really could be misunderstood at even the most fundamental levels. Nah, it's just flat out wrong. But, I've been down this road with you before and Rafius is right. You're not going to put in the time to understand what phenotypical expressions or allele frequencies are. You're not going to put in the time to figure out what a genotype is or how population dynamics works.
You're going to sit there and demand that it be explained to you in a "dumbed down" fashion because you "don't have the time" to read the requisite scientific literature and then you're going to complain about the dumbed down articles. Yeah, the HowStuffWorks article is utter crap but you don't want the scientific literature, though.
My opinion is that unless you actually do understand the science and you are willing to read through the requisite literature, you don't really have a dog in the fight. All you're doing is parroting a bunch of garbage you've heard from pseudoscientific websites who'd prefer to lie for Jesus and make a mockery of people's ignorance and stupidity (yours included) just to make a buck.
There. That should get you started. And, by the way, a little hint to reading these articles. The abstracts (often the first two to five paragraphs at the beginning of a paper) tend to put a pretty plain-Jane overview of what the paper is about. Of course, whatever claim is made by the abstract has to be supported by the evidence and the evidence lies within the rest of the paper. So, if you want to check the veracity of the claims, all you have to do is read the rest of the paper.
Ah, nice to see you too my "friend". Don't know why you always get this way with me, but I'm accustomed to it.
Checked your sources and, just as I thought, NONE answer the questions I posed. As a matter of fact, only one even mentioned "egg" at all, and certainly doesn't explain how the species began to lay eggs that hatched. At any rate, a lot of data explaining the genetic sequencing of yard birds is awesome, but it doesn't answer the question I posed. (I'm sure it's my extreme ignorance and stupidity (thanks!) and my deception by "liars for Jesus".)
Here's another question:
How does evolution explain the "first" sexual reproduction? Did male and female somehow evolve spontaneously?
Non-sexual reproduction had been observed in the simpler organisms and still occurs in some, but then the possible means for observable and successful gender specialization were reasonably hypothesized, and then, wonder of wonders, found to exist in nature.
The obvious longer-term advantages of gender separation and specialization and thus the "concept" of "gender" itself came to be by that good old DNA mutational process. Later, when it obviously provided some serious real-time avantages, why goll-durn it all, that became the de-facto process amongst the more successful species, and it spread, as all good survival strategies do.
Hard to fathom, is it? If so, why? I mean, let's not just absolutely deny something just because it makes perfect objective sense and can also be amply demonstrated in nature and in the lab, OK?
I mean, what in heavens name would be the point of that silly approach? Just to support one's faithy-based theisms? Say it inn't so!
Funny that when you have a "Special Friend" who can do magic, where nothing is impossible, how every competing idea must be scientifically explained to perfection.
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.
Ain't that right Alpha?
How Things Work. Really! It's true!
