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 things would still die off because there are other forces outside of natural selection that determine the survival of species.
These include asteroid impacts, sudden volcanic eruptions etc. For example say there is a particular form of life that has evolve over millions of years so that is near perfectly adapted to a particular Indonesian island. It has survived without needing to change for thousands of years. Then all of a sudden the island explodes Krakatoa style in an unprecedented massive volcanic eruption. In theory the life-form evolved absolutely and should never have died off, but did because of catastrophic forces. Just because things evolve to be very suited to their environment does not me they can survive an unprecedented disaster which may occur from time to time.
Heck, even natural selection itself will kill off the less adapted species which is competing against others for the same niche.
You are correct...We never do know what science will throw out next..That's called integrity, but we do know what the intelligent design folks will throw out of their hypothesis....Nothing.
I don't agree with that. Intelligent design is a long way from 7 days of creation. Theories adapt as knowledge changes. The church used to persecute people who said the earth wasn't the center of the universe too. (I admit they sometimes stick to beliefs when they should question but the issue there is not the belief so much as what they beleive the bible to be).
Science isn't all about integrity either. How many cases of out and out fraud have been perpetrated in the sciences? Science itself is resistent to change. Look at string and sheet theory. Why is string theory still around?
Personally, I don't care what the new theory is because I believe science is the study of the laws God wrote that govern this universe. So I'm just along for the ride.
I know that it's against the rules in this universe for something to, spontaneously, without cause pop into existence out of nothing so I know something bigger than this universe started all this something. The roadmap to get from there to here really doesn't mean much. What matters is that we are having this conversation.
Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to support species devleoping via evolution. There is enough to support natural selection, but that's only one aspect of evolution, among already existing species but I don't think they've come up with nearly the fossil evidience they'd need to say we came from bacterium and all of this is just random. That's pretty hard to swallow. Belief in a higher being is easier.
Heck, even natural selection itself will kill off the less adapted species which is competing against others for the same niche.
Which is exactly what you do when you use anti bacterial soaps. Kill off the weaker ones and leave the strong to breed. And people still use this stuff in their homes. I'd rather let the bacteria compete. That way I'm not exposed to high enough populations of any one to get sick in the first place.
We're going to antibiotic and anti-bacterial ourselves right out of existence. I wonder if there is anything in Revelation that could be taken as an antibiotic resistent strain of bacteria killing us off?
God gave us knowledge to use to improve our lives not make ourselves weaker and set ourselves up for a fall. Selection of the fittest....We'll see.
I was indeed unaware of this. But your link is extremely unconvincing. It's from Paul Nelson, a young-earth creationist who has no qualification in biology, posted on a creationist website. Nelson quotes the research of a molecular biologist who clearly explains that his discoveries do not contradict the theory of evolution, and also uses a single sentence by a paleontologist in a way that reeks of quote-mining.
In other words your mind is made up. You have decided that any questioning of the theory of Evolution or evidence that could contradict your presupposition is invalid. Your justification for rejection is because it is coming from a “creationist†and is therefore “unqualified†and “discredited†on those grounds alone.
You admit that you are unaware of any debate surrounding Universal Common Decent and Universal Genetic Code but attempt to pass yourself as someone capable of discerning fact from fiction concerning all aspects of the Evolution debate. It seems you have jettisoned scientific method in favor of philosophical belief. Is it not true that this is what you accuse your opponents of?
In other words your mind is made up. You have decided that any questioning of the theory of Evolution or evidence that could contradict your presupposition is invalid.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have given reasons why I am not convinced by your link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
Your justification for rejection is because it is coming from a “creationist†and is therefore “unqualified†and “discredited†on those grounds alone.
And that wasn't my only reason, either.
At this point, no serious scientist, not even the few qualified scientists who support Intelligent Design, believe in a 7 days creation and a 8000- years old earth. This guy is a young-earth creationist.
Plus, as I said, he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. He's got a PhD in philosophy and that's it. This is not the man I trust on matters of advanced biology.
Quote:
You admit that you are unaware of any debate surrounding Universal Common Decent and Universal Genetic Code but attempt to pass yourself as someone capable of discerning fact from fiction concerning all aspects of the Evolution debate.
I never claimed to know everything about the theory of evolution. My opinion is worth just as little as yours, or as Paul Nelson - except that I relay the opinion of the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists.
I'm open-minded to criticism of evolution, as long as it comes from, you know, actual scientists. The opinion of a philosopher is irrelevant.
Quote:
It seems you have jettisoned scientific method in favor of philosophical belief.
Er, what philosophical belief would that be? Are you talking of my trust in the scientific method? Or something else you've mysteriously deduced from my post?
This is really interesting, I'm a creationist if you will, In reference to the bacteria the evolved into something else or what ever it did in the experiment, where did the very first cell come from, where does something start, where does it come from? In order for something that is living to start living it has to start some where. Where does it start.
Interesting question, Matt, but unrelated to this thread. i'd recommend you start your own thread, with these title suggestions:
1. How did the universe as we now "see" it begin? form nothing?
or...
2. How do folks here think that life might have arisen from "nothing" herer on Earth.
All unrelated, though, to how life diversified AFTER IT AROSE. (Evolution)
Christians think it all "arose" as we now see it, and a simple, single pair of each species, observed at the time by the ancient globally illiterate biblical authors to be, oh let's say, a couple hundred species on that Ark, maximum. But honest ethical scientists have now counted (1, 2, 3, 4, ....25M, 25,000,0001... 30M. and counting.) Heck, I can find over 200 species within a mile of my house here!
Anyone here willing to stand up and say there's only 200 species of plant, animal, bird, insect, dinosaur, total, on this planet?
Any observant practicing animal ecologist knows that it takes far more than one male and one female of a species to even have a hope of re-establishing apopulation. Otherwise, why is the State of California worried about Condor numbers when they drop below 50? Why the great concern about grizzlies, wolves, black-footed ferrets, etc., when their numbers drop below 75 - 150?
So, a single pair? Won't work, especially when they disembark off the Ark, having spent 18 mo without adequate (if any...) food or water, and are presented with a planet that's been under salt water for those 18 mo. So no plant life to eat, all killed by being submereged under 24,000 feet of water, even though fundy Xtians state that the T-Rexs were also Vegan (absurd, of course. A "fact" made up to fit the story). And of coarse, that Ark floated at the surface of that water that covered 23,000 ft ASL Mt. Everest, where their'sinsufficient oxgen to breath. Ah, details, details, all scientifically established details...
Let's assume a minimum of, say, 5 pairs, one male, one female. At the current count of 30M organisms, let's crazily remove 2/3 of them as being fresh water fish (oooops; they're all dead too from the salt water) or birds that could no longer land.. oh well, we'll ignore them.
That leaves 10 M types (species) X 2 per species X 5 pairs = 100 million animals on board. Noah's order to the kitchen: "Henre, there will be 100 million for dinner tonight, and don't forget the late night snake, OK? I know, it's only Day One, but get used to it!)
Wow. some crowded Ark, eh?
And you guys say our version, now proven, is preposterous?
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have given reasons why I am not convinced by your link.
The link was not meant to convince you about anything other than the fact that the theory of Universal Common Decent has been called into question. And that is exactly what it did by your own admission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
I'm open-minded to criticism of evolution, as long as it comes from, you know, actual scientists. The opinion of a philosopher is irrelevant.
I have a difficult time believing this because of your neglect to recognize the fact that the opinion of a qualified scientist was cited in the information provided. Did you read all the dialogue provided in the link or did you simply decide that it was irrelevant based on the worldview and credentials of one of the people participating in the discussion?
If it was intentional neglect then I would argue that your not open to criticism. If it was unintended neglect than I would argue that your method of inquiry is less than scientific. Either way I’m inclined to believe that you have firmly made up your mind in belief that the theory of Darwinian Evolution is completely true. Consequently you are not as “open-minded†as you would like folks to believe. Is it not true that this is the same type of dogma you accuse your opponents of?
Which is exactly what you do when you use anti bacterial soaps. Kill off the weaker ones and leave the strong to breed. And people still use this stuff in their homes. I'd rather let the bacteria compete. That way I'm not exposed to high enough populations of any one to get sick in the first place.
We're going to antibiotic and anti-bacterial ourselves right out of existence. I wonder if there is anything in Revelation that could be taken as an antibiotic resistent strain of bacteria killing us off?
God gave us knowledge to use to improve our lives not make ourselves weaker and set ourselves up for a fall. Selection of the fittest....We'll see.
You'd hate to see the experiments we did in biology during my time in college.
This is really interesting, I'm a creationist if you will, In reference to the bacteria the evolved into something else or what ever it did in the experiment, where did the very first cell come from, where does something start, where does it come from? In order for something that is living to start living it has to start some where. Where does it start.
It IS interesting, isn't it? Because Evolution has nothing to do with, nor does it even try to explain, The Origins of Life. You're free to start your own thread about that argument though, and I'd encourage it. Please do!
While this offer's been made dozens of times over the past 6 mo. I've been posting on C-D, no Xtian has EVER taken uo that offer or challenge. Why, I wonder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
No evolution has not been proved. If it had, people wouldn't be arguing about it.
THAT is the quality of your argument? People argue about everything: which dog breed is best:
Instead of just saying "wrong", how about explaining why it's wrong to posts that disagree that what you posted PROVES evolution, how about actually explaining the logic of thought (in your mind) for a change.
Please explain your silly comment "how about explaining the logic of thought for a change." Laughed My Frikkin' Gluteus Maximus Off on that comment! I'll put it down to you just not knowing me yet, but if you persist, you will!
I'll perhaps let others here comment about my usual, boringly long, point-by-delicate-point reviews of an other debator's ideas. My intent here is not to debate Lenski's proof, but rather to put an end to silly bickering and uneducated commentary.
In my mind, nothing you posted proves anything other than microbes mutate and I've known that since I was about 7. What's new about this "research' that "Proves" evolution and why aren't they running to the presses screaming "We were right"? It's rather lame reading posts where you simply state "wrong" as if we should just accept what you say on the matter.
I've simply learned that this is the common IDT* method of argument, and have happily adopted it. If it works for your side, why not ours? Why should we waste any more time with polite, detailed, objective, point-form, well-researched posts and links, only to have them dismissed with such tripe as you provided in your comment above about arguments proving anything?
Besides, when you're WRONG, you're WRONG. No need to go into details, and Lenski's benchmark research, which will start showing up in the next series of biology texts, will become as standard as the discussion of Mendel's experiments with pea genetics. (The Church didn't like his work either).
You don't know that benchmark work either, do you?
I say that proving mutations happens does not prove evolution happened. It proves that living things tend to change over time. However, it says nothing about what they change into.
So... let me grasp the crystal clarity & logic of what you just said...
Organisms mutate, you agree, over time, you allow, and thus, you note, they change. But this, in no way means that they change into anything else? They change, yet stay the same ???
Saaaayyy... where'd you git thet thar dugreee in lawgik, cousin?
We have to relie on fossil histories to determine what might have come from what but we have too many missing links to jump to any big conclusions. More missing than should be actually. Either that or something caused some really bug jumps
Evolution theory does not require that it provide any clear-cut fossil record, neatly laid out, cleaned up and numbered in order. It simply seeks to explain the details and mechanism of How. Not Why. Not If, but HOW. The subject study by Lenski simply puts to bed any argument about the mechanism (How) and the documentation proving When and If.
I know..... it's hard to grasp. Think this next idea through, oh logical one:
According to Creationist theory, there should be NO FOSSILS AT ALL, and yet open-minded, curious paleontologists and geologists have been finding them, by the thousands of both number and species (type) at the depths and locations that Evolution PREDICTS, BTW, for over 200 years. As for those PREDICTIONS coming true? Pretty amazing co-incidences, by the thousands, huh?
Say it ain't so, cous'!
Mutations and selection of the fittest do not prove evolution.
Do you realize what you've just said? This is too easy. Bring on something more challenging, Team IDT*!
They prove one possible part that no one disputes. You need to show species to species changes if you want to prove evolution,
(He did! Read the study!)
...which would not negate the exitence of God because you still have to have life to start with and that didn't evolve from a rock.
Well, again, you choose to purposefully confuse this debate with the old "Evolution can't explain where life came from" silliness. Nope. No sale. You know the old "apples versus oranges" claim? Well, this one's so far off, I prefer a different comparison:
"Apples and Chainsaws"
As I said in my OP, Lenski's proof is so elegant, so thorough, so "bullet-proof" if you will, that it is, in fact, a classic, and will be referred to as such.
As to why some folks aren't shouting it out from the tops of buildings, that's not the general way of science. And if you'd have pulled your nose out of the Answers In Genesis website for a moment, you might well have seen the many reports on this landmark study. Why do you think I and others saw it? Or, as many IDT*s also did, but they just purposefully ignored it, because...well... you know only too well why, as is evidenced by your "arguments" here.
But he, a noted, respected and well-published scholar, and Dept Head at a major accredited University, has been funded in this work by none other than The National Academy of Science. This work, like all published studies, has been extensively peer-reviewed by hundreds of credible folk that are very well educated in the subject.
There was even a website where he, for a brief while, as a quiet educator, was willing to debate the scientifically illiterate public, patiently explaining his work and what it meant, until he grew quite tired of brainless, illogical, expletive-filled and openly hostile commentary from the IDT* crowd.
Like your "clever" comments and logic points, noted and countered above. However, you haven't even read a layman's summary of his work, have you? You argue in the dark. You're fighting with the Factory-Trained mechanic about the fuel injection system in your car, not because you have ANY understanding of how it works or what is wrong, but simply because you don't want to pay the bill.
In the case of Evolution, for you personally, the bill's quite high, I know.
BTW: IDT*?? Intransigent Dogmo-Theists. Perhaps, look up the big words...
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.
And people still use this stuff in their homes. I'd rather let the bacteria compete. That way I'm not exposed to high enough populations of any one to get sick in the first place. 
Unrelated post!
Amazing Displays of Logic Gone Awry...
