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.
"This is the reality that establishes the fact that the category is an objective reality."
A species isn't a 'category'. It is a member of a taxonomy, which is a hierarchical network of types.
"Why would there be a need for a genetic mechanism to prevent lines of organisms belonging to one species from becoming other species? That would be necessary if we already assumed that the direction of transcription error mutations was to turn one species into another. You ask me what would prevent it. The question is why would we assume that it would happen?"
You're off into the weeds already. The "origin of species" (a la Darwin's exposition) is what has actually happened due to mutations combined with what Darwin called natural selection. Darwin surmised, after finding case after case of positively adaptive modifications among species that are obviously biologically related, that one species must actually produce offspring whose offspring's offspring's offspring, in turn, eventually turn into another species; he just didn't know the mechanism of how. Later, the geneticists identified how. Darwin anticipated the discovery that a 'species' isn't an immutable thing in nature, which is not what the religions would have had a person expect.
In science, there's no such thing as a "mere" theory.
Evolution is not a theory. This is to high of a status for it. It is rather a poorly supported hypothesis.
There is no millions of years ago. The theory of evolution has it's origins in Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species", which was a copy of Erasamus Darwin's Book "Zoonomia". Erasamus developed his ideas from reading Greek philosophy. The Greeks are a group of people who are decendants of Noah. In fact we are all decendants of Noah and Ultimately throgh Noah we are decendants of Adam.
Darwins ideas show how specization can arise. Edward Blythe wrote on Natural Selection 25 years before Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species", so natural selection is not evolution. Evolution uses natural selection and mutations to attempt to explain how new species can arise from older species. Ufortunately, the fossil reccord does not show this. The fossil reccord show a creature appearing on the scene in history fully formed and already diverse. From this reccord only few changes can be seen like the change in size or the loss of hair as time progresses. The changes are all associated with a loss of genetic matterial or loss of diversity. When you are constantly loosing something very small over a large period of time, it does not prove how you someday will have something more. So nature shows the opposite of what Darwin predicted. He said that we should find many transitions as we continue to search. But, unfortunately for evolution the last 150 years have resulted in a few contested finds. Not the mass of evidence Darwin believed would be there.
Today, scientists are searching for evidence that the earth was "seeded" by asteroids or by aliens in an attempt to figure out how life first came to earth. The reason for this is the 4.5 billion years given by evolutionist for the age of the earth is too short a time frame for life to arise here alone on an evolutionary time scale.
The theorist used to think that evolution occured so slowly that no one could see it. Now they think that it occured so fast that no one could see it in "Punctuated Evolution". The theory has to constantly be adjusted because it does not reflect the evidence we find in the ground. Instead of beating this constantly evolving monster to death. I think it should just be put out of its missery and left to die.
"This is the reality that establishes the fact that the category is an objective reality."
A species isn't a 'category'. It is a member of a taxonomy, which is a hierarchical network of types.
"Why would there be a need for a genetic mechanism to prevent lines of organisms belonging to one species from becoming other species? That would be necessary if we already assumed that the direction of transcription error mutations was to turn one species into another. You ask me what would prevent it. The question is why would we assume that it would happen?"
You're off into the weeds already. The "origin of species" (a la Darwin's exposition) is what has actually happened due to mutations combined with what Darwin called natural selection. Darwin surmised, after finding case after case of positively adaptive modifications among species that are obviously biologically related, that one species must actually produce offspring whose offspring's offspring's offspring, in turn, eventually turn into another species; he just didn't know the mechanism of how. Later, the geneticists identified how. Darwin anticipated the discovery that a 'species' isn't an immutable thing in nature, which is not what the religions would have had a person expect.
I'm in the weeds? am I in the weeds because I'm not reciting the Darwinian (neo-darwinian) -Gospel correctly or because I am not reasoning correctly?
Evolution is not a theory. This is to high of a status for it. It is rather a poorly supported hypothesis.
There is no millions of years ago. The theory of evolution has it's origins in Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species",
On the contrary - evolution is one of the most STRONGLY supported scientific theories (not a hypothesis). It stands on its own without Darwin; if Darwin had never existed evolution would still be a fact. That the universe and planet Earth are billions of years old is a fact as well.
You can continue to spout your "just-so" statements in defiance of reality but the universe and reality aren't going to change to accommodate you.
Evolution is not a theory. This is to high of a status for it. It is rather a poorly supported hypothesis.
Really? Define what evolution is.... I want to make sure we have our definitions correct... I have this sneaking suspicion your definition of evolution and my definition of evolution are vastly different. Somehow, I also have this feeling that your version of evolution is going to be different than the theory that Darwin proposed as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
There is no millions of years ago. The theory of evolution has it's origins in Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species", which was a copy of Erasamus Darwin's Book "Zoonomia". Erasamus developed his ideas from reading Greek philosophy. The Greeks are a group of people who are decendants of Noah. In fact we are all decendants of Noah and Ultimately throgh Noah we are decendants of Adam.
It was a copy? A word for word literal copy? That's funny, I'm sure that would be one of the biggest scandals in history! Why aren't there people throwing this claim out everywhere? So now, let me get this straight, he developed his ideas from reading Greek philosophy and he thus came up with natural selection? Wow, let's see how many more imaginary dots you can connect. So let's get this straight. Because he read Greek philosophy, and the Greeks were descendants from Noah (allegedly), he was divinely inspired? I'm assuming that's what you're getting at? I can play that game too. Charles Darwin read the newspaper, which was written by a Jew, and Jesus was a Jew so therefore what do you think of that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Darwins ideas show how specization can arise. Edward Blythe wrote on Natural Selection 25 years before Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species", so natural selection is not evolution. Evolution uses natural selection and mutations to attempt to explain how new species can arise from older species. Ufortunately, the fossil reccord does not show this.
Wow, so you're trying to discredit the theory of evolution by stating that Darwin didn't coin the idea?? That's twice now. I don't care if a third grader came up with it, it is indeed true. As far as the fossil record goes, I've realized that it doesn't really matter what the heck we dig up, you (Creationists) will just change what they "mean" by fossil record/transitional fossil etc... So, I'm not really going to argue the fossil record with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
The fossil reccord show a creature appearing on the scene in history fully formed and already diverse.
So what should we be looking for? Shouldn't we be looking for something like a dinosaur that has sharp teeth, claws, and other obvious dinosaur traits along with some feathers to indicate some sort of bird-like half dinosaur, half bird creature? Oh, wait a second, we have on of those in our fossil record already... it's called archaeopteryx. I suppose that's not good enough though, right? And I'm not even going to talk about Tiktaalik, unless you really want me to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
From this reccord only few changes can be seen like the change in size or the loss of hair as time progresses.
So, what stops the changing from happening??? That's what I asked several pages ago. Show me the mechanism that stops the gene from changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
The changes are all associated with a loss of genetic matterial or loss of diversity.
Again, what keeps the gene from changing? Show me the genetic switch that inhibits the mutation of the gene!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
When you are constantly loosing something very small over a large period of time, it does not prove how you someday will have something more. So nature shows the opposite of what Darwin predicted. He said that we should find many transitions as we continue to search. But, unfortunately for evolution the last 150 years have resulted in a few contested finds. Not the mass of evidence Darwin believed would be there.
I think if you really knew how wrong you were you would find it comical much as I do. I seriously suggest you take a biology class. Actually, nature has shown EXACTLY what Darwin predicted, it has also shown EXACTLY what other scientists have predicted in regards to Darwinian theory. THAT'S EXACTLY why it is such a well supported, and well regarded theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Today, scientists are searching for evidence that the earth was "seeded" by asteroids or by aliens in an attempt to figure out how life first came to earth. The reason for this is the 4.5 billion years given by evolutionist for the age of the earth is too short a time frame for life to arise here alone on an evolutionary time scale.
I'm glad you speak for every scientist. I love your strawman arguments. Let's see here... so basically you're attacking scientists for investigating a theory??? Wow, I'm glad we don't practice your version of investigative research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
The theorist used to think that evolution occured so slowly that no one could see it. Now they think that it occured so fast that no one could see it in "Punctuated Evolution".
Ummm no, that's a lie, and you either don't know what you're talking about or you are deliberately making up lies. I suspect both. Regardless, it says that there may be periods of "Punctuated Equilibrium". That's it. The key word here is p-e-r-i-o-d-s! They think certain parts happened quickly such as the Cambrian Explosion, which is one of my favorites because I'm still waiting on my mammal fossil dated to the Pre-Cambrian era. Talk about a lack in the fossil record!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
The theory has to constantly be adjusted because it does not reflect the evidence we find in the ground. Instead of beating this constantly evolving monster to death. I think it should just be put out of its missery and left to die.
Really? Again, as we started off with, I'd really like for you to define for me what you think the ToE is. You seem to have a warped sense of what is real and what isn't in regards to what the ToE actually states. Let's review... because I'm getting tired of Creationists making bogus claims and in response attacking the ToE instead of supporting such claims. So here we go, I'm going to make a list for you of what I want in response to this. This'll make it very easy.
-I want an explanation on what evolution is. If at all possible I'd like for you to post what your view of evolution is and what Darwin states in his theory of evolution. If the two do not match up, than the argument is kaput and your are arguing against something that was never said to begin with.
- I want a detailed explanation of the mechanism that inhibits changes within a gene and I'd really appreciate some sort of empirical evidence, backed up with some sort of study, to prove such a thing.
- I'd really like an explanation as to what we should be looking for in the fossil record. That way, I have something 'concrete' to go by when doing my own research. So far, I've never had a 'transitional' creature defined for me by any Creationist, only a dismissal of "That is not a transitional creature".
- I'd also like for you to explain to me how you and I are not, in ourselves, transitional forms. I'm really interested in this one...
- I'd also like you to tell me how macromutations, genome duplication, chromosome duplication, and transporons work. Perhaps in your research you'll figure out what I'm getting at. Also, could you define what you mean by no new genetic material? If you're referring to "no new nucleotides" than we really don't need them. The diversity within DNA has given us bananas, chimps, and the angler fish (a nasty little creature) with only four nucleotides (adenine, cystosine, guanine, and thymine).
On the contrary - evolution is one of the most STRONGLY supported scientific theories (not a hypothesis). It stands on its own without Darwin; if Darwin had never existed evolution would still be a fact. That the universe and planet Earth are billions of years old is a fact as well.
You can continue to spout your "just-so" statements in defiance of reality but the universe and reality aren't going to change to accommodate you.
What proof do you base your arguement on? What facts when look at make us say "Yes, this is billions of years old"? What person has existed back in these millions of years to say to us "yes there are millions of years".
I have studied biology in University and I have found no evidence to support this theory. Lucy, when examined is just an orangutan. A pigs tooth is just a pigs tooth. Ther goes all of evolutions evidence. Evolution does not reflect what is seen in nature. It does not explain the Cambian explosion. It does not explain the diversity of botanicals, it does not Explain the composition of the Universe. So since it fails on so many levels then it is no good.
Evolution is not natural selection. It is the explaination of how one species become another species. Which we have no evidence for. There is nothing showing a cat becoming a dog. The dog variety we have from the Poodle to the Great dane are all just dog. They are not becoming something else. Humans are not evolving.
Change is not the definition biological evolution. So we cannot just look at a change like hair color and say this is evolution. To prove evolution is occuring we world have to see new formation of genetic information, but we do not. Not even one. A disabled gene is not new information, it is a broken machine. It is a loss of information.
Really? Define what evolution is.... I want to make sure we have our definitions correct... I have this sneaking suspicion your definition of evolution and my definition of evolution are vastly different. Somehow, I also have this feeling that your version of evolution is going to be different than the theory that Darwin proposed as well.
It was a copy? A word for word literal copy? That's funny, I'm sure that would be one of the biggest scandals in history! Why aren't there people throwing this claim out everywhere? So now, let me get this straight, he developed his ideas from reading Greek philosophy and he thus came up with natural selection? Wow, let's see how many more imaginary dots you can connect. So let's get this straight. Because he read Greek philosophy, and the Greeks were descendants from Noah (allegedly), he was divinely inspired? I'm assuming that's what you're getting at? I can play that game too. Charles Darwin read the newspaper, which was written by a Jew, and Jesus was a Jew so therefore what do you think of that?
Wow, so you're trying to discredit the theory of evolution by stating that Darwin didn't coin the idea?? That's twice now. I don't care if a third grader came up with it, it is indeed true. As far as the fossil record goes, I've realized that it doesn't really matter what the heck we dig up, you (Creationists) will just change what they "mean" by fossil record/transitional fossil etc... So, I'm not really going to argue the fossil record with you.
So what should we be looking for? Shouldn't we be looking for something like a dinosaur that has sharp teeth, claws, and other obvious dinosaur traits along with some feathers to indicate some sort of bird-like half dinosaur, half bird creature? Oh, wait a second, we have on of those in our fossil record already... it's called archaeopteryx. I suppose that's not good enough though, right? And I'm not even going to talk about Tiktaalik, unless you really want me to.
So, what stops the changing from happening??? That's what I asked several pages ago. Show me the mechanism that stops the gene from changing.
Again, what keeps the gene from changing? Show me the genetic switch that inhibits the mutation of the gene!
I think if you really knew how wrong you were you would find it comical much as I do. I seriously suggest you take a biology class. Actually, nature has shown EXACTLY what Darwin predicted, it has also shown EXACTLY what other scientists have predicted in regards to Darwinian theory. THAT'S EXACTLY why it is such a well supported, and well regarded theory.
I'm glad you speak for every scientist. I love your strawman arguments. Let's see here... so basically you're attacking scientists for investigating a theory??? Wow, I'm glad we don't practice your version of investigative research.
Ummm no, that's a lie, and you either don't know what you're talking about or you are deliberately making up lies. I suspect both. Regardless, it says that there may be periods of "Punctuated Equilibrium". That's it. The key word here is p-e-r-i-o-d-s! They think certain parts happened quickly such as the Cambrian Explosion, which is one of my favorites because I'm still waiting on my mammal fossil dated to the Pre-Cambrian era. Talk about a lack in the fossil record!
Really? Again, as we started off with, I'd really like for you to define for me what you think the ToE is. You seem to have a warped sense of what is real and what isn't in regards to what the ToE actually states. Let's review... because I'm getting tired of Creationists making bogus claims and in response attacking the ToE instead of supporting such claims. So here we go, I'm going to make a list for you of what I want in response to this. This'll make it very easy.
-I want an explanation on what evolution is. If at all possible I'd like for you to post what your view of evolution is and what Darwin states in his theory of evolution. If the two do not match up, than the argument is kaput and your are arguing against something that was never said to begin with.
- I want a detailed explanation of the mechanism that inhibits changes within a gene and I'd really appreciate some sort of empirical evidence, backed up with some sort of study, to prove such a thing.
- I'd really like an explanation as to what we should be looking for in the fossil record. That way, I have something 'concrete' to go by when doing my own research. So far, I've never had a 'transitional' creature defined for me by any Creationist, only a dismissal of "That is not a transitional creature".
- I'd also like for you to explain to me how you and I are not, in ourselves, transitional forms. I'm really interested in this one...
- I'd also like you to tell me how macromutations, genome duplication, chromosome duplication, and transporons work. Perhaps in your research you'll figure out what I'm getting at. Also, could you define what you mean by no new genetic material? If you're referring to "no new nucleotides" than we really don't need them. The diversity within DNA has given us bananas, chimps, and the angler fish (a nasty little creature) with only four nucleotides (adenine, cystosine, guanine, and thymine).
That is the Rub of the whole arguement. No one has clearly definded the ToE, so for you to ask me to do what the Evolutionary Biologist will not is absurd.
No, I am not referring to new genetic material, like the components of DNA. God has already created a very concise language here. I am referring to new information found at the genetic level. A virus for example can mutate within a perameter. That perameter may contain 3000 variations, but in its course of change no new information arises. The common cold has so many variations or signitures of its DNA that no human body can recognize them all and we will constantly get the common cold through the course of our lives. However, the common cold will never become anything else but the common cold.
Did not Jesus Christ say "If you have seen me you have seen the father". So, since Adam was created in the image of God and Jesus who is God born in human flesh was a decendant of Adam and yet looks like the Father, then the difference in appearance between Adam and Christ is negligable. Jesus as reported by his diciples was just a man. So, we must conclude that man has since the begining has looked like man, who was created in the image of God. This image has experienced no significant change till the time of Christ and from the time of Christ to us.
We are not transitional forms.
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.
