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.
No such thing as Evolutionary science?
Really... that's interesting, interesting indeed.
Then I would suppose that evolutionary physics, biology, and computation do not exist as well?
---------
These exist but they do not require evolution to be explained. They all existed more than a 150 yrs ago when Darwins theory was introduced.
-----------
Evolution is contained with in a branch of science, namely biology. Being its own theory, it can be called a science because we can use it to test observations.
-------- No we can't!
--------
I can prove evolution in a petri dish, that is present evidence based off of a present theory and observation. No dino's needed.
If the evidence we have to prove evolution can also prove creation, then why hasn't the believers jumped on it? I find it strange that this has only been attempted in the failure of I.D.
------- It's the interpretation of the evidence. Just like you the Judge did not use logic to see this. Or, maybe he chose not too.
------------
Not all of us create, some destroy, and others do nothing at all. Are these all because of God? No, it's because we have, you got it, brains.
-------------- Your right! And these brains we use to create, distroy etc... So Intellegent design is involved...interesting.
-----------------
You're confusing evolution with abiogenesis, don't. They are two completely different things. Evolution is so debated because it is viewed as a threat to creation, however, evolution never state how it all started, that would be abiogenesis, which is of course in a completely different subject matter.
The ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution is what makes the debate rage.
------------- Abiogenesis is evolution. Without it evolution is just Natural selection. Natural selection was discussed by Edward Blythe a quarter of a century before Darwins "Origins". So Darwins work is made redundant in your own words.
---------------------------
Ever hear of the "Blind Watchmaker"?
It's quite interesting.
To explain it simply:
If you had an infinite amount of junk yards and an infinite amount of tornados, eventually the tornados would make a watch. Thus, the "Blind Watchmaker".
There was an infinite possibility in the creation of earth and its evolution. Anything could have happened and just because we are so complex, it doesn't mean that we're neccessarily made by something intelligent.
-------- I'm sorry but those calculations are faulty no matter how many millions of years no matter how many junk yards, no matter how many monkeys in infinite rooms typing blindly will you ever get anything of intellegence formed. Even if something to our eye (an intellegent one) is formed there is no system to use this information or watch in these useless theories. There is not enough time in the Universe for any of it to even be plausible.
--------------------
True, it is a theory, but I do not know anybody that TEACHES it as truth. Everybody knows that theories can be changed, but does that take anything away from evolution?
----------------- Yes, fewer and fewer scientists are leaning on this feable theory (hypothesis no make it a bad conjecture, because that is all it is) because they are seeing its faults.
---------------------------
Certainly not because that simply means that our knowledge is expanding.
"isn't measurable, demonstrable, or repeatable."
Actually, it is.
There are simple experiments you can run and I will outline it, keep in mind all you need is a petri-dish.
First, grab your select ameoba and a petri-dish.
Feed them the correct food until a colony forms.
Now that the colony has formed feed them a slightly different food.
Those that can digest the food will live, those that cannot will die.
Thus, the new generation and future generations from this batch will be able to survive off of both food types.
Repeat until you get the drift.
Now, for repeatable...
Grab the same original ameoba type and do the experiment over again.
For measurable...
Simply count the amount of ameoba that live from the original and then compare it to something larger. Math equations follow this...
So, that's repeatability, measurability, and a demonstration.
Or, you know. You can ask any farmer as to why the same pesticide is never as effective the second time it's used.
This is natural selection not evolution. No new information is produced. All the genetic matterial is their present in the original ameoba. Continue this experiment for a million years and you will still have ameoba. Except they will be more converged on specific food, specific environment and specific lifestyles. This adaptation was given by the creator at the begining. See all the different dogs in the world? Throw them all in a room and after a few generations you will have something that resembles the original dog that came off of Noah's Ark.
Natural selection was discovered by a creationist - Edward Blythe and explained the world around us before Darwin. So you have proven that we don't need Darwin or Evolution because his theory does not match what we see in the world. Amoeba's may be able to adapt a little to their environment but I have never seen an Amoeba with legs or taking to flight. For some reason they just want to be amoebas. I guess that is just the way God wanted it.
Last edited by Nikk; 01-31-2008 at 11:27 AM..
Reason: did not change multi quote
the above is a typcal religous arguement, its almost like they can't seem to get it in ther head how much time we are dealing with. natural salection is evolution. If yuor faith alows it all you need do is study the basics of evolution to see how it works. Can an amoeba grow legs? well if a situation arises where it is benificial for the amoeba to scoot across the bottum, then those who are best at it will be more likely to survive and over alot of time they will end up with legs.
This is natural selection not evolution. No new information is produced. All the genetic matterial is their present in the original ameoba. Continue this experiment for a million years and you will still have ameoba. Except they will be more converged on specific food, specific environment and specific lifestyles. This adaptation was given by the creator at the begining. See all the different dogs in the world? Throw them all in a room and after a few generations you will have something that resembles the original dog that came off of Noah's Ark.
Natural selection was discovered by a creationist - Edward Blythe and explained the world around us before Darwin. So you have proven that we don't need Darwin or Evolution because his theory does not match what we see in the world. Amoeba's may be able to adapt a little to their environment but I have never seen an Amoeba with legs or taking to flight. For some reason they just want to be amoebas. I guess that is just the way God wanted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
This is natural selection not evolution. No new information is produced. All the genetic matterial is their present in the original ameoba. Continue this experiment for a million years and you will still have ameoba. Except they will be more converged on specific food, specific environment and specific lifestyles. This adaptation was given by the creator at the begining. See all the different dogs in the world? Throw them all in a room and after a few generations you will have something that resembles the original dog that came off of Noah's Ark.
Natural selection was discovered by a creationist - Edward Blythe and explained the world around us before Darwin. So you have proven that we don't need Darwin or Evolution because his theory does not match what we see in the world. Amoeba's may be able to adapt a little to their environment but I have never seen an Amoeba with legs or taking to flight. For some reason they just want to be amoebas. I guess that is just the way God wanted it.
I'm trying to figure out how many multi-faceted false arguments you just attempted without saying anything about Darwinian evolution. Let's see... you presented Lamarckism, saltationism, and natural selection as a form of evolution. None of these have anything to do with Darwinian evolution as they are all inherently false theories. I'm finding that you are continually trying to elude ACTUAL Darwinian theory and disprove what Darwinian evolution NEVER states in the first place. That's fine, as all of them have been disproven already, but I think you need to focus on what Darwinian evolution is and not what Lamarckism, Saltationism, and what you call "natural selection" are.
As far as your dog analogy you are so wrong that I don't even begin to know where to tell you. DNA IS NOT A BLUEPRINT. DNA is one-dimensional. It is an instruction set (like a recipe) not a "drawing" of what is supposed to be. The thing with DNA is that every time an instruction set is mixed with a parent you have different sets of instructions telling similar AND different genes to turn on from the original parent. It would be mathematically impossible for your version of evolution to bring us back to Noah's dog especially given the fact that we would have presumably hundreds of different dogs all breeding and mixing DNA. Sorry, it's not going to happen. Furthermore, that is exactly what we would call evolution. It's changes in gene frequency. It is NOT natural selection. You are trying to mix two definitions and you are wrong.
Edit: Yes, I do understand that natural selection affects evolution, but it is not a form of evolution as to what some other people seem to think.
Location: Comunistafornia, and working to get out ASAP!
1,962 posts, read 5,196,787 times
Reputation: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorytampa
What's the deal with evolution? Why is it such a hot subject?
Because the spiritual forces of darkness love to counter God's truth with error. It's a false theory and is in complete opposition to the truth of creation. Designed to attempt to insult the awesome creative power of God. It is a lie!
Because some religious people confuse their particular interpretation of the Bible with God. They can't understand that they might be wrong in their understanding of collection of stories written 3000 years ago by a dead culture in a language that they don't understand. Instead, they are convinced that their faith in a book combined with a high school or college liberal arts undergraduate education makes them more knowledgeable about biology than PhD's who study natural history for a living.
People think if evolution is real, and we evolved from other creatures, than God isn't real. Because in the Bible it says God created man and the animals separate. But you have to think... in the Bible it says to be flesh-minded is death. Is the idea of evolution from the devil? Some think so.
People think if evolution is real, and we evolved from other creatures, than God isn't real. Because in the Bible it says God created man and the animals separate. But you have to think... in the Bible it says to be flesh-minded is death. Is the idea of evolution from the devil? Some think so.
and some people think there pets understand every word they say. Consider it, the majoriety believe in evolution, and according to the bible god wants us all to go to heaven. the devil wants us to go to hell, sort of a war going on. the devils move, using our abilty to think and reason against us he plants fossils and other evidence of evolution. gods move, a few lines in a book that makes contradictory and outlandish claims and portrays him, the creator of an entire universe, as falible and down right petty. Does that sound reasonable to you?
I'm trying to figure out how many multi-faceted false arguments you just attempted without saying anything about Darwinian evolution. Let's see... you presented Lamarckism, saltationism, and natural selection as a form of evolution. None of these have anything to do with Darwinian evolution as they are all inherently false theories. I'm finding that you are continually trying to elude ACTUAL Darwinian theory and disprove what Darwinian evolution NEVER states in the first place. That's fine, as all of them have been disproven already, but I think you need to focus on what Darwinian evolution is and not what Lamarckism, Saltationism, and what you call "natural selection" are.
As far as your dog analogy you are so wrong that I don't even begin to know where to tell you. DNA IS NOT A BLUEPRINT. DNA is one-dimensional. It is an instruction set (like a recipe) not a "drawing" of what is supposed to be. The thing with DNA is that every time an instruction set is mixed with a parent you have different sets of instructions telling similar AND different genes to turn on from the original parent. It would be mathematically impossible for your version of evolution to bring us back to Noah's dog especially given the fact that we would have presumably hundreds of different dogs all breeding and mixing DNA. Sorry, it's not going to happen. Furthermore, that is exactly what we would call evolution. It's changes in gene frequency. It is NOT natural selection. You are trying to mix two definitions and you are wrong.
Edit: Yes, I do understand that natural selection affects evolution, but it is not a form of evolution as to what some other people seem to think.
I don't know what Darwinian evolution you are talking about.
Darwins evolution is a form of Lamarkianism. This has been modified because no scientist believe that by you stretching your neck, your child will have a long neck. This threw out the theory for the developement of the giraffe.
Punctuated Equilibrium in evolution is the form of Saltationism. It was invented to describe why scientist could not see evolution occuring slowly, so they concluded it must have occured so quickly that no one could observe it.
Most Evolutionist believe in some form of NeoDarwinism which combines mutations and natural selection to somehow force changes over long periods of time. We can observe change but nothing that produced new genes or new information. There is no new eye colors only the same mix of blue and brown to give the variation we see today.
So, what we have observed with the dog kind is that we have bread out traits that have occured in the original dog. A poodle is a strain of dog. A poodle can mate with other dog varieties. A poodle when bread with another poodle can only bread poodle. A bread is often terminal in that there is no new mix of information that can be bread out. This terminal bread often has ailments associated with it for example the poodle is prone to have issues with teeth, the german sheppard has issues with arthritis, more so than a mutt variety. If we would allow all of the dogs of the world to randomly bread together we would end up with something close to the dog that came off of Noah's Ark. It would not be exact because over the years genetic traits have been bread of and lost through the extinction of certain varieties.
Since natural selection is de-creation it is OK for me to conclude this to occur. Natural selection does not produce new information but is just a rearanging or loss of the original information formed by God at creation. Natural selection is not evolution, yet people continually point to it occuring at assume that Macro evolution must be true. That is "goo to you" evolution. No amount of selection will grow legs on an amoeba. For some reason amoebas just want to remain amoebas.
So it is not a matter of what form of Evolution I believe in (because I don't believe in any, I am not teathered down by some false theory) it only matters what form of Darwinism you believe in. Since you desire to believe in it so much.
I didn't mean to treat you bad
Didn't know just what I had
But honey now I do
And don't it make my brown eyes
Don't it make my brown eyes
Don't it make my brown eyes blue
I didn't mean to treat you bad
Didn't know just what I had
But honey now I do
And don't it make my brown eyes
Don't it make my brown eyes
Don't it make my brown eyes blue
I was probably thinking of that article when I wrote the post. Finally scientists are finally getting it. Yes, we are all realated. And Adam and Eve are ancestors to us all.
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.
