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.
If there is a GOD then he would exist regardless of my belief in him/her/it
If there is evolution then it will exist even if man is extinct
I think the point is that there is no If when it comes to evolution. But yea, if there is a god or anything else, it won't matter who believes. OTOH, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? lol I don't think so.
i think his point is that the god that most christians believes in says that if you don't believe in him, you go to hell. therefore, the claim that "Neither Evolution or GOD need you to believe in them," would not apply.
Creationism has been around for thousands of years. Why are you talking about the political movement we have today?
Unless you believe in every god, you are being atheistic. So slapping it in front of a world is just you showing you ignorance.
Yes. Because all atheist are neo nazis and believe in evolution I would like too see where you get your statistics from...
You keep presuming to know what I am thinking, I would like to know why you think you are able to read my mind?
I'm returning your neanderthal style of courtesy. Next time it might behoove you for the benefit of an intelligent discussion to actually look up terms, definitions and the historicity of the phraze "Creationism" coined back around 1979-80 which involved a court case in Arkansas for pushing an unbiblical fairytale version of the Genesis creation account. It has nothing to do with the Bible. In actual fact their own holy book (I assume is the Bible) condemns them for sticking their nose in politics in the first place to have their version of truth shoved down others throats. Taking the time to study and research the words/terms of what the account actually means and speaks of when using the term 'day', you find that the word day, especially in reference to the creator is much longer than 24 hours. Cross-referencing finds the term defined in some cases as 1000 years. Looking at the 7th day mentioned in Genesis, we see that not only was it mentioned thousands of years later in the Bible as continuing, but in actuality it is still ongoing today. So the Hebrew word "yohm" and the Greek word he-me'ra are used in both a literal way and a figurative way, or even in a symbolic way. This is not hard to understand since we can use the English word day similarly. The creative days are nothing more than great lengths of time periods or epochs, much the way science invents terms like Miocene, Pliocene, Eocene, Holocene , etc to describe difference epochs ot time periods of Earth's geological and natural history. The opening statement in Genesis1:1, allows for the passage of biilions of years for the formation of the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems with suns, planets, etc. Then following in verse 2 the statement of the Earth being nothing more than formless and waste is prior to that 1st day. It had already existed for perhaps millions of years, the universe billions of years.
Now having explained this, if you still choose the term creationism with me as a blanket statement for my belief, then I'll continue to use evolution as a blanket term for your belief and refuse to conveniently divide and separate abiogenesis or any other fractured breakoff descriptive statements of terminology. You use it in a derogitory sense. You are not allowed here to use and pursue the usual vulgarities you get away with at "The Lounge", but you still manage to misquote and butcher every post for the purpose of deflecting from the question asked.. Needless to say, I can play the word games (minus vulgarities) as good as you can.
If you'd take the time to seriously look at the true meanings of some things, you'll actually find that the Bible actually agrees with many things non-believers in God believe in or don't believe. But you've got to dump the attitude.
Once again, please cite us an empirical scientific example of how an intelligent informational code comes about as if by magic with nothing more than chanced unpurposed chemistry and physics.
The theory of evolution does not say that humans arose purely by chance. To say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance.
You have'nt even answered the question. Give us an empirical scientific example of how an intelligent information code (such as the brilliant informational encoding/decoding mechanism in DNA) came about by nothing more than purposeless blind pointless chemistry and physics. I'll give you a hint, this has ZERO to do with molecules. Information is immaterial from the medium in which it may be used like matter/energy for transmission. So cite an empircal scientific example of how intelligent informational codes come about naturalistically from nothing more than physics and chemistry ???
By your logic, your lack of understanding of science makes you inferior to me. So by your logic, your country is inferior to my country. By your logic your genetic pool is inferior to mine.
Don't give me this neo nazi bs logic. Any educated child could see right through it.
There is no "evolutionary ladder". Anyone who understood the theory of evolution would understand this
Evolution does not explain how life arose, evolution explains the diversity of life. If you want to go off topic, then make another tread.
Making ongoing and continuing childish statements that I clearly don't know a thing about science and I'm inferior to your genius does not answer the question. Cite us an empirical scientific example of how a brilliant informational code morphs magically from nothing more than pointless blind indifference of physics and chemistry.
At least we can follow through with a positive recourse of explanation by saying "Nature did it this way, that way, we're not sure about this yet, etc..." That, to me, speaks magnitudes more than "God did it and he did it in mysterious ways that we'll never know of because it's God."
But here's the problem, most scientists , not all, but most with all of their pride on objectivity have never done things that way. They enter into a research with evolutionary presuppositions. If there is such a thing as even a creationist scientist, then they do the same stupid unscientific things by going forward with a research based on nothing more than presuppositions for their own personal philosphy as well. Randomness as an explanation for biodiversity is not only unscientific, but it completely abandons the ever coined phraze "scientific method" and scientific inquiriy goes out the window. That's how we end up with terminology such as Vestigial Organs or Junk DNA. I'm an example of someone whose immune system is less than complete because rather than using the scientific method you just stated, science back in the 50s-60s used the presupposition method for evolutionary truth to come up with the genius of Tonsils are nothing more than Vestigial Organs. Hence I have'nt had Tonsils for over 5 decades because they were considered an evolutionary has-been. Same can be said for the Appendix. We don't know enough about it, we see no use for it, therefore we conclude based on our philosophical belief system that it is nothing more than an evolutionary hold over and thus serves no purpose in human beings. Anyone who would belief that makes themselves a fool. No one has to believe me here, but just as a side point, if ever you get appendixitis, before you make the decision to go under the knife, STOP EATING FOOD. FAST and DRINK GOOD QUALITY WATER and see if it does'nt clear up. You don't even have to come back here and tell any of us or give a testimony and admit it to me that I was right, just try it for your own health's sake. I'm irrelevent to you and your health and could care less about any credit. Do it for your own sake.
JunkDNA is another stupid terminology and one of the most backward theories science has ever shoved down the throat of mankind. Sadly it comes from supposedly educated men and women of science. There is no JUNK DNA and to blindly assume so is to prevent new and important discoveries. I'll even predict that this genome research is going to prove just that. Below is another major reason why science should never have looked at something they yet again DO NOT understand and describe it as nothing more than junk, because if it was truely important, then their genius would have picked up on it long ago. Instead we now have presently frankenorganism which have effected our natural world, not only in the name of science, but of profits.
This is a very important reason why genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in labortories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way.
So rather than the usual assuming no function/purpose so it's therefore junk, they should have used the method of inquiry, like, okay, we don't understand it, so let's find out what it does, what it's practical application is and how can we replicate it for our own practical purposes.
One of the biggest mistakes I can already foresee with this one guy (his name is escaping me for the moment) who is heading the genome research project, is that not long ago he was quoted as saying that once we understand it's function and how to harness it, we'll be able to do amazing things like engineer new micro organisms which will eat CO2, etc. Again, that would be the stupid approach. We don't necessarily need new eco-environmentally friendly inventions, (well actually we do) but more importantly what we really need is for humans everywhere to change their behavior and stop doing the harmful things they are doing, not continuing the spiraling downwards ignoring accountability and consequences. So the propsed idea is "Let's invent yet another fix-it pill as usual. Why ??? Because there is no money in preventative measures and besides you're being judgemental and encroaching on someone elses freewill and rights if you even remotely suggest behavioral changes. Of course it does'nt matter that someone else's blanket rights encroach on the rights of others.
Again, the suggestion you made is good, but the nature of imperfect humankind will NOT allow it to be the final authority as a rule of method.
But here's the problem, most scientists , not all, but most with all of their pride on objectivity have never done things that way. They enter into a research with evolutionary presuppositions. If there is such a thing as even a creationist scientist, then they do the same stupid unscientific things by going forward with a research based on nothing more than presuppositions for their own personal philosphy as well. Randomness as an explanation for biodiversity is not only unscientific, but it completely abandons the ever coined phraze "scientific method" and scientific inquiriy goes out the window.
The reason most scientists enter into research with evolutionary presuppositions is because it has mountains of overlapping evidence to support it. Absolutely, there are realms of debate within evolutionary science that are heavily contested (such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism - of which I think there can be a nice middle-ground found). However, this does not in any way dispute the fact of evolution, that it has occurred and that mountains of, and I'll say it again, overlapping evidence support it throughout multitudes of empirical scientific research.
On the other hand, the "Creation Scientists" (an oxymoron of astounding magnitude) start from a different perspective. Their perspective starts with the Bible being the ultimate truth and that Genesis is a well written and accurate account of the depiction of the universe. Despite there being absolutely no evidence, no empirical research done in its favor, or even the slightest amount of credible foofaraw surrounding these organization, they're initial premise is based entirely on faith. You should know as well as anyone that to take a presupposition on complete and utter faith (not evidence, mind you) in order to apply it to scientific investigation is not only improper but, in my opinion, bordering on the realm of unethical as far as science is considered.
Certainly, science will make mistakes. Science deals with what we know, what we strive to know and what we desperately hope to know. In most cases, the aptitude of science to get something right has a tremendous track record of success but along the way it will indeed encounter a few failures. However, whatever failures or misappropriations are incurred along the way, they can most certainly be rectified with other good, solid scientific research. Typically, these coups of intellect do not overthrow entire branches of science but rather parts of the branch that were less understood.
It's no secret that Einstein's discoveries wreaked utter havoc in the physics community because it overthrew nearly three centuries of the Newtonian explanation of how the world interacted. However, this did not stand testament to the fact that physics was some flawed science that was obliterated by Einstein but rather that it became more perfected by it. Newton was still right in many ways. Maxwell and Kelvin made grand discoveries in their day while operating under the general assumptions of Newton's laws.
To the same extent, should we examine bits and pieces (even big bits and pieces) of evolutionary theory, we would still operate under the same pretense that we know it happened because it is as good as fact just as Newton's gravity was and still is as good as fact. Some of the operating premises and justifications may not fully be understood, understood correctly, or understood at all but that does not discredit the whole embodiment of the science.
Now, as far as this randomness argument goes... It gets utterly tiring to have such false allegations directed towards people like myself that I feel we are the byproduct of just that - randomness. I don't know why this buzz word seems to have caught on in the Creationist/Intelligent Design community but I suppose it's from yet another grand scheme to take advantage of people's stupidity. No, I do not believe we are the products of randomness. I don't believe that any complexity is the byproduct of randomness and that goes for whether we are conversing about stars and galaxies, human beings, centipedes, or DNA.
The "Accusers of Randomness" seem as though they have this primrose definition of what randomness is. It seems to follow the logic of "Any interaction not governed by intelligence is random." However, to continue insisting that evolution by way of natural selection is random not only grossly misrepresents the case but also comes off as insulting to me because it portends to disenfranchise my knowledge of the topic by insinuating that I don't know any better.
The fact of the matter is that selection, whether conscious or unconscious, has very much alleviated the problem of "randomness" and "chance" to anyone who makes an effort to try and understand it. In order to better understand it, you have to first and foremost figure out what the "goal" is. This "goal" does not have to be something consciously written into the stars or on your refrigerator. The mere existence of something is goal enough for me. Whether we are talking about stars, planets, replicating molecules, human beings, or even aliens (if they exist) - the "goal" of all complexity is to simply exist. As a disclaimer, do not turn this into a charade where the Planet Earth is setting long-term and short-term goals like a patient would do with a clinical psychologist. This is simply a term used to merely define what I will later get to.
In order to exist to some degree of complexity, it must first undergo trial and error through natural selection. Keeping our "goals" in mind, we realize very quickly that the best suited formations of any sort of complexity reside in pockets and niches that are most suitable for such formations to occur. In other words, those things that become galaxies become galaxies because of their overall best suitability in their celestial environment. Those things that become planets and solar systems do so because their gravitational attachments to the stars they revolve around are best inclined to do so. Too much gravitational pull from a surrounding star and the planet may get sucked up into the star to be destroyed in a fiery ball of death. Again, these inanimate objects are being naturally selected to form certain degrees of complexity.
In essence, once the goal of mere existence comes into play, we can quickly see that in order to exist, one must meet the most suitable criteria for that existence in the given ecological niche it resides in. Certainly, some truly random things may occur to alter such grand plans. There weren't many dinosaurs who really were prepared for a massive meteor to hit the planet Earth some 65-million years ago. But, like it or not, their deaths were every bit as much a part of natural selection as an Ebola-virus outbreak in Central Africa would be today.
Once we begin to see how some powers of natural selection begin to operate (some not so powerful, others very powerful) we should begin to see that once existence comes into play, it is a matter of non-random chance as to how things get along and move along as well as evolve. It is the very power of natural selection to turn every bit of complexity into either nothing or something. Those things that do survive do so because they have been shaped and molded to do so by the powers of natural selection.
There is no randomness behind it only selection and that selection need not have any sort of intelligence quotient behind it whatsoever.
The reason most scientists enter into research with evolutionary presuppositions is because it has mountains of overlapping evidence to support it. Absolutely, there are realms of debate within evolutionary science that are heavily contested (such as punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism - of which I think there can be a nice middle-ground found). However, this does not in any way dispute the fact of evolution, that it has occurred and that mountains of, and I'll say it again, overlapping evidence support it throughout multitudes of empirical scientific research.
On the other hand, the "Creation Scientists" (an oxymoron of astounding magnitude) start from a different perspective. Their perspective starts with the Bible being the ultimate truth and that Genesis is a well written and accurate account of the depiction of the universe. Despite there being absolutely no evidence, no empirical research done in its favor, or even the slightest amount of credible foofaraw surrounding these organization, they're initial premise is based entirely on faith. You should know as well as anyone that to take a presupposition on complete and utter faith (not evidence, mind you) in order to apply it to scientific investigation is not only improper but, in my opinion, bordering on the realm of unethical as far as science is considered.
Certainly, science will make mistakes. Science deals with what we know, what we strive to know and what we desperately hope to know. In most cases, the aptitude of science to get something right has a tremendous track record of success but along the way it will indeed encounter a few failures. However, whatever failures or misappropriations are incurred along the way, they can most certainly be rectified with other good, solid scientific research. Typically, these coups of intellect do not overthrow entire branches of science but rather parts of the branch that were less understood.
It's no secret that Einstein's discoveries wreaked utter havoc in the physics community because it overthrew nearly three centuries of the Newtonian explanation of how the world interacted. However, this did not stand testament to the fact that physics was some flawed science that was obliterated by Einstein but rather that it became more perfected by it. Newton was still right in many ways. Maxwell and Kelvin made grand discoveries in their day while operating under the general assumptions of Newton's laws.
To the same extent, should we examine bits and pieces (even big bits and pieces) of evolutionary theory, we would still operate under the same pretense that we know it happened because it is as good as fact just as Newton's gravity was and still is as good as fact. Some of the operating premises and justifications may not fully be understood, understood correctly, or understood at all but that does not discredit the whole embodiment of the science.
Making the statement that there are mountains of evidence for supporting it is no different and in fact sounds identical to something Campbell34 would say when clearly everyone knows many or most of his statements are outrageous. Scientists presupposition has nothing to do with evidence. It's nothing more than the same exact bigotry and prejudice that is the driving mechanism behind a C34.
We have gone over and over all those supposed wonderful mutational and natural selective experiments and they have'nt proved anything. They (scientists) have been experimenting with mutations and natural selection since as far back as the 1930s and it has shown them nothing. I've already cited the plant experiments which wer a failure and because they believed that natural selection was the brilliant driving force for new speciation, the intellectual idea they came up with was that with all of their combined genius for selection, it should have beaten out natural selection hands down. It did'nt, it failed miserably and they abandoned it. These hunde scheize replication experiments with e-coli bacteria are also hardly proof either of a new animal. You still have hunde scheize and absolutely no naturally observed evolutionary phenomena because it was rigged from the start from a scientist who used his presupposition for evolution and applied his own personal interpretation onto what he personally thought or believed happened. In actuallity, in nature, bacteria do only what they are designed to do and do so at supercomputer speed, replicate replicate and process whatever come what may. This is nothing new or amazing new find because we also have e-coli in our own digestive systems for processing foods or we'd starve. It's a intelligently designed programmed system and can adapt to most of whatever we through into it. I look at some of the bizzare foods around the world and documentaries of the rotten stuff people will shove into their faces for nutrition and I'm amazed some of the stuff does'nt kill them. Again, it's the programming within the e-coli organism which allows it to adapts to whatever environmental factors are through at it. The championing of this as an evolutionary proof is as bad as that nylon eating bacteria which adapted to consuming and breaking down the pollution that was man caused anyway. Rather than an evolutionary marvel, the thing did what it's programming allowed it to do.
Rather than mountains of evidence, this still goes back to scientists willing to to accept scientific claims that fly in the face of common sense because of their prior commitment to materialism. Materialsim being nothing more than a theory itself that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process. It's this bigotry and not evidence that drives them to prevent an intelligent designer's foot to get in the door. And as I've already stated, the creationists are identical when it comes to this same flaw of pride.
This whole thing is nothing more than all that marketing from our past century and if anybody wants to be considered a scientific person, then you'd better keep your mouth shut about anything religious. This is also interesting because with Newton it was the other way around. He had published a Biblical truth about the falsehood of the Trinity. For fear of losing his academic position, he refused to come to the aid of his colleague William Wiston, who had published his views of religious fraud in regards Trinity. Newton had his published only after his death and only in French. So if in the end, if anyone is to accept the teaching of some macroevolution as true, you are required to not question anything and believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists did or will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. As a side note, I actually find this interesting because here in Europe, they don't even agree with American scientists on the micro vrs macro arguement. Just a side observation. I guess there are as many wide and varied denominations within scientifism as religion.
You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. Mutations by definition are mistakes and yes therefore are random since they are'nt planned. To say they are purposed is to say that the programming must have been purposed and intelligently designed. The other problem which I don't usually get into because it goes nowhere is that according fossil arguing people all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. That actually would agree with the way various ecosystems are designed and put together. Proof of that is to take away a few major compoents or even add a few introduced foreign species, be it plant or animal. Then sit back and watch the whole system collaspse. Actually, we don't even have to do that since humans, and some well intenetioned scientists have done this for free. Hence we have a planetary system that is now presently failing all over the place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
Now, as far as this randomness argument goes... It gets utterly tiring to have such false allegations directed towards people like myself that I feel we are the byproduct of just that - randomness. I don't know why this buzz word seems to have caught on in the Creationist/Intelligent Design community but I suppose it's from yet another grand scheme to take advantage of people's stupidity. No, I do not believe we are the products of randomness. I don't believe that any complexity is the byproduct of randomness and that goes for whether we are conversing about stars and galaxies, human beings, centipedes, or DNA.
The "Accusers of Randomness" seem as though they have this primrose definition of what randomness is. It seems to follow the logic of "Any interaction not governed by intelligence is random." However, to continue insisting that evolution by way of natural selection is random not only grossly misrepresents the case but also comes off as insulting to me because it portends to disenfranchise my knowledge of the topic by insinuating that I don't know any better.
The fact of the matter is that selection, whether conscious or unconscious, has very much alleviated the problem of "randomness" and "chance" to anyone who makes an effort to try and understand it. In order to better understand it, you have to first and foremost figure out what the "goal" is. This "goal" does not have to be something consciously written into the stars or on your refrigerator. The mere existence of something is goal enough for me. Whether we are talking about stars, planets, replicating molecules, human beings, or even aliens (if they exist) - the "goal" of all complexity is to simply exist. As a disclaimer, do not turn this into a charade where the Planet Earth is setting long-term and short-term goals like a patient would do with a clinical psychologist. This is simply a term used to merely define what I will later get to.
In order to exist to some degree of complexity, it must first undergo trial and error through natural selection. Keeping our "goals" in mind, we realize very quickly that the best suited formations of any sort of complexity reside in pockets and niches that are most suitable for such formations to occur. In other words, those things that become galaxies become galaxies because of their overall best suitability in their celestial environment. Those things that become planets and solar systems do so because their gravitational attachments to the stars they revolve around are best inclined to do so. Too much gravitational pull from a surrounding star and the planet may get sucked up into the star to be destroyed in a fiery ball of death. Again, these inanimate objects are being naturally selected to form certain degrees of complexity.
In essence, once the goal of mere existence comes into play, we can quickly see that in order to exist, one must meet the most suitable criteria for that existence in the given ecological niche it resides in. Certainly, some truly random things may occur to alter such grand plans. There weren't many dinosaurs who really were prepared for a massive meteor to hit the planet Earth some 65-million years ago. But, like it or not, their deaths were every bit as much a part of natural selection as an Ebola-virus outbreak in Central Africa would be today.
Once we begin to see how some powers of natural selection begin to operate (some not so powerful, others very powerful) we should begin to see that once existence comes into play, it is a matter of non-random chance as to how things get along and move along as well as evolve. It is the very power of natural selection to turn every bit of complexity into either nothing or something. Those things that do survive do so because they have been shaped and molded to do so by the powers of natural selection.
There is no randomness behind it only selection and that selection need not have any sort of intelligence quotient behind it whatsoever.
You don't have any choice when it comes to the term randomness. From the very beginning, many of scientific holy men who have coined the phraze "blind pitiless pointless indifference" as being non-mechanism behind the mistake of that first life was dependent on random chance and there is no way around that. Since you can't account for the origination of intelligent informational codes, then randomness is the driving force or you must assign a creator to have purposed your believed programming for evolution. seriouly, in the above statements you have made, you seem to be assigning intelligence to what some scientists found out decades ago with nothing more than what they call a mutation or adaptation algorithm. It simply allows any living thing to adapt to it's environment, it is NOT some driving force for mutations into another completely different brand new creature. It allows for variations of species within it's kind, but it ends there. That's why we have species barriers, which also agrees with the Biblical expression of a kind. For example a Giraffes and Okapis may be from the same kind. If other animals within that same kind fit in than so be it.
The problem is that you still have not cited an example of how a brilliant code of informational wonder morphs from nothing more than chemicals and physics. I understand that most of these artificial intelligence evangelists explain away this by saying intelligence just automatically morphs from complexity and leave it at that. Repititiously pounding this over and over in journals, thesis' , in TV shows and Hollywood movies for entertainment value and effect does not make it FACT. Their line of reasoning is always that the original pre-biotic soup magically insta-poofed protein molecules, which in turn jumbled around in a bubbling mud soup, some forming membranes and other components and the very last thing to appear is informational digitally encoded magic on some of those same proteins. In actuality the Central Dogma of molecular Biology by Crick & Watson showing that only DNAis the only mechanism which controls the production of protein molecules, not the other way around. Proteins NEVER control things the other way around. They are simply material componants as you would have in any computer, with the exception that they are more brilliantly designed and constructed. Information is not a bottom up phenomena, our every experience in life with regards any type digital communications systems shows us it's without fail the exact opposite. Darwinian Theory is backwards when it comes to this. There is always a heirarchal structured order when it comes to informatiom, with information being on top and in subjection ONLY to the one who created it.
You know what the beauty of this is ??? In this day and age, even a child can get this. Refusal is nothing more than stubborn adherence to a religius dogma, which despite all the shoutings to the contrary is exactly the same as any dogma Christendom may have constructed.
Making the statement that there are mountains of evidence for supporting it is no different and in fact sounds identical to something Campbell34 would say when clearly everyone knows many or most of his statements are outrageous. Scientists presupposition has nothing to do with evidence. It's nothing more than the same exact bigotry and prejudice that is the driving mechanism behind a C34.
It seems we're getting to the root of your philosophy and it stinks to high hell of the same nonsense the Intelligent Design community puts forth. You cannot simply dismiss the fossil record, mitochondrial DNA examination and an enormous amount of other supporting evidence to cradle the understanding of precisely how accurate the theory of evolution is while highlighting my post and saying that it resembles a psychologically damaged individual on another forum. We do have a fossil record (and as nice as it is, we don't need it for evolution to be true) that matches almost precisely what Darwin stated it would. The Creationists have the fossil record too. However, every time a new specimen is dug up, all they have to do is simply say "That's not a transitional!!!!!!! Show me a transitional!!!!" So what's the other alternative, genius? But the most damning piece of evidence is precisely what I explained before. The fact that we can do a comparative analysis of any living organism on the planet Earth to any other living organism on the planet Earth not only tells us how close the two species are but also what we would expect to find in the interim as these two took separate evolutionary pathways. In fact, by examining the mitochondrial DNA of present-day species, we've even been able to accurately predict where and when in the fossil record certain transitional creatures should arrive (see Tiktaalik).
See the bottom of my post for a list of some of the overlapping evidences in support of the theory of evolution. These in no way are the full embodiment of the science but are tangible papers put in such an order so as to see just how widely varied and completely concise the Theory of Evolution's support structure is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
We have gone over and over all those supposed wonderful mutational and natural selective experiments and they have'nt proved anything. They (scientists) have been experimenting with mutations and natural selection since as far back as the 1930s and it has shown them nothing. I've already cited the plant experiments which wer a failure and because they believed that natural selection was the brilliant driving force for new speciation, the intellectual idea they came up with was that with all of their combined genius for selection, it should have beaten out natural selection hands down. It did'nt, it failed miserably and they abandoned it. These hunde scheize replication experiments with e-coli bacteria are also hardly proof either of a new animal. You still have hunde scheize and absolutely no naturally observed evolutionary phenomena because it was rigged from the start from a scientist who used his presupposition for evolution and applied his own personal interpretation onto what he personally thought or believed happened.
Again, you're witless attempt to insert dogma into what you feel are accurate portrayals of science are simply flawed. Your approach is annoying because it borders on the line of either utter ignorance or complete cognitive disassociation (Creationist Syndrome). See the bolded part of the previous quote. Isn't that precisely what science is?! You speak of the failure a scientist had by interpreting what he personally thought and believed happened via natural selection and, guess what, he failed!! That's precisely how science works. You act as though whatever the scientist interpreted as being the truth should have been tested and guaranteed in the laboratory which is absolutely not the case; although it's easy to see how you're under the mindset that science should stop at nothing to validate personal opinions and feelings. I'm sorry to report but science does not work in the fashion such as that personal feelings and interpretations must always be correct. Such is the world of religious nonsense and ideology. I do wish you people would figure that out and stop trying to inject such blatant faulty thinking into your scientific projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
The championing of this as an evolutionary proof is as bad as that nylon eating bacteria which adapted to consuming and breaking down the pollution that was man caused anyway. Rather than an evolutionary marvel, the thing did what it's programming allowed it to do.
Again refer to the bolded part. I'm beginning to see you don't have the faintest clue as to how evolution works. This whole time I've operated under the premise that you thought the theory of evolution was scientifically accurate but it's apparent to me now that I should not have judged so prematurely and that you are nothing more than a Creationist espousing the same awful turdlings in a slightly different format. The nylon eating bacteria of which I have some excellent papers to read about right here:
A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. By Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, PP. 2421-2425, April 1984
Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, Feb 1994, PP 1197-1200
[b]
These explain in extraordinarily wonderful detail not only the emergence of such characteristics as nylonase consumption but also how it did so via evolutionary means. You're simply acting the part of the ostrich by sticking your head in the sand if you want to deny the operations of said functions. To simply imply that the information was already there is a blatant lie and one that presupposes a direct misinformation crusade on precisely how DNA and/or genetics works. The information you so heartily want and claim to be evidence of something is nothing more than a four letter alphabet which comprises the instruction set of any given genome. That is, as I explained earlier, no more intelligent than the 26-letter English alphabet as a stand alone object. Despite only having 26 letters, we can still fill a multi-thousand page volume of the Oxford English Dictionary using different variations and arrangements of said letters. In that same capacity, DNA has the same ability to produce a volume of works as large and as varied as the selection of books in the New York Public Library (and far, far more). But, by itself, it is no more intelligent than any letter in the English alphabet.
You continually try to ascribe "the informational programming was already there" as though it's a scientifically accurate portrayal. It's absolutely ridiculous and no more effective than saying "The Grapes of Wrath was already intelligently written into the alphabet." It's another one of your non sequitur's that I sincerely wish you'd have the gumption to try and understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
Rather than mountains of evidence, this still goes back to scientists willing to to accept scientific claims that fly in the face of common sense because of their prior commitment to materialism. Materialsim being nothing more than a theory itself that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process. It's this bigotry and not evidence that drives them to prevent an intelligent designer's foot to get in the door. And as I've already stated, the creationists are identical when it comes to this same flaw of pride.
It's not bigotry when the whole concept of science is to understand the natural world!!!! I don't see what your point is in all of this? It's almost as though you are saying we should build on building blocks of what we know and don't know but we shouldn't if it excludes the supernatural.
I have a thing or two to say about the supernatural. Since when did it get any sort of credence to be injected into anything scientific? Why must we fill the gaps of our knowledge with what we do and don't know by pre-supposing supernatural means? I don't understand how you could be so fundamentally ignorant and stupid to see how this absolutely would not work in any scientific setting. If we kept the same mentality, we could just as easily still be sitting in caves, scratching our hairy asses, and saying "Fire starts by a supernatural intervention rather than friction and heat." Your candid disinterest in trying to make a separation between what science should investigate and what we should leave to the realm of "supernaturalism" is clearly an effort to protect your faith system for whatever reason. I suppose it's scary for people to realize their God is consistently being explained away through more and more varied means.
But, what is supernaturalism anyway? It obviously has no means of recourse for investigation the natural world because it is indeed supernatural. But, let's wait a second and think about this for a minute. If supernatural is outside the realm of any sort of human intuition, understanding or even parallel investigation than when we examine what Magic Man did, we must be able to come to some conclusion using natural means.
Even if Magic Man placed a strand of DNA on the planet Earth in the first place, he would have had to have done so via natural means. In other words, there would still be a point in which his actions affected the natural world because once we begin to examine the natural world, our affectations must be tangible for us to interact with. Thus, even if we are investigation the remnants of supernatural causes, we must do so via the only method we have available in that of "natural" investigation. You can continue to pander to your simple-minded God by drawing various 'God of the Gaps' arguments but the fact remains that for any supernatural and natural interaction to occur such as for us to investigate it - it must be through natural means (we interact entirely with the natural world).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
As a side note, I actually find this interesting because here in Europe, they don't even agree with American scientists on the micro vrs macro arguement. Just a side observation. I guess there are as many wide and varied denominations within scientifism as religion.
That's because there is no such thing as micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution. The terms were independently coined by Creationist's to excuse themselves from having to explain why there were changes within 'kinds' (another ridiculous Creationist term) to their pulpit following brainless zombies. Unfortunately, this was a meme that stuck to such an extent that people fighting the debate of evolution and creationism that didn't know any better, used this terminology as though it was coined fact. Now, scientists in America are constantly barraged by this haranguing of trying to explain the difference between micro and macro evolution to insolent and ignorant crowds of people. As they continue to do so, it seems they've made a special brand of concession to allow the term to be used so as not to create any more confusion. In my opinion, it's not the most responsible thing to do and I cringe when I hear the term. There is no micro or macro evolution - only evolution. There is no dividing line I have yet found which states that a creature is only allowed to change "this much."
In Europe, they don't have nearly the same problem of Creationists that we in the States do so I suppose they haven't yet been put through the ringer by such ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new.
Right here is what annoys me about you. You go on and make a few intelligent points and then you completely negate anything positive with such stupid comments I simply cannot give any credence to your position at all. I must admit, you are the most cherry-picking individual I have ever had this conversation with. Your logic jumps from logical to illogical to completely baffling from one minute to the next. There is absolutely no consistency to what you say and the disambiguations of your opinion are more opaque than ever before.
I simply don't know what to say to this response. I guess I could point out the obvious speciation differences of the last century in the African Cychlid Fishes. I guess I could point out new species of drosophylia (fruit fly) but then you would simply move the goal posts wouldn't you? You'd still say "But, it's a fruit fly not something else." Or perhaps you might say, "It's still a fish."
Unfortunately, it seems as though you've fallen ill to the same third-grade zoo field trip cladistics that the Intelligent Design/Creationism community has. Every time a new species does come about, you change the phyla, family, order, etc... of whatever it belongs and then you say "Well, it's still an insect! It's still a fish!"
But, the premise of evolution is the variation and origin at a species level. Absolutely, evolution by way of natural selection has been proven in the laboratory over and over again with bacteria and as well with fruit flies. I don't know what the insistence is with changing the goalposts every time there is evidence that interferes with your presupposed world view of the Magic Man.
I suspect you know full well what a species is and when something such as drosophilia melangaster changes to the point we can longer call it drosophilia melangaster due to perhaps fundamental differences in physical appearance, certain abilities it may have, etc... we entitle it a different species.
That is absolutely essential to understanding the precise point of speciatic change. It's not change on a family, order, kingdom, etc... level - it's change on the species level. Once again, using mitochondrial DNA, it makes us easier to put all of our species in the proper clades. Unfortunately, your third-grade cladistics just say "Fish, Fruit Fly, Lizard, Monkey" as though you're sitting around waiting for a Lizard or a Monkey to turn into something of a completely different phylum, family, or kingdom. It's a disingenuous strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
Mutations by definition are mistakes and yes therefore are random since they are'nt planned. To say they are purposed is to say that the programming must have been purposed and intelligently designed. The other problem which I don't usually get into because it goes nowhere is that according fossil arguing people all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. That actually would agree with the way various ecosystems are designed and put together. Proof of that is to take away a few major compoents or even add a few introduced foreign species, be it plant or animal. Then sit back and watch the whole system collaspse. Actually, we don't even have to do that since humans, and some well intenetioned scientists have done this for free. Hence we have a planetary system that is now presently failing all over the place.
Yes, mutations can be deemed random but the whole point of what I was trying to get at earlier was that those "mistakes" are selected by way of natural selection as existing further or undergoing annihilation (extinction). You can try to put my frame of reference into a completely reductionist manner by saying that randomness is what immutably governs the theory of evolution. However, this is patently false once the term selection is thrown into the mix.
As I said before, the whole notion upon which we perceive the world is through existence. Things exist (no matter what we are talking about) because they have undergone a formidable process of selection. This selection process does not have to be, nor should it be, undermined to the point of saying that selection must be inherited as only something done by conscious effort. The dinosaurs don't exist any more because they failed to adapt to extreme natural selection efforts forced upon them (the giant meteor - presumably). We must always keep in mind that what we presently see is here because it best suits the natural selection model of the ecological niche it resides in.
You continue to border on the "Monkeys Hammering Away At A Keyboard" theory which states that a monkey could not write an entire work of Shakespeare if it sat in front of a keyboard and randomly hit keys. I would absolutely agree. But, allow me to explain this position a little better.
If we were to expect a monkey to randomly type the word 'banana,' the odds of it doing so would be extraordinary. In fact, if we set the monkey down on a 26-letter keyboard (excluding spaces, commas, etc... for convenience of the argument) the chances of it randomly hitting each successive stroke of the keyboard so as to produce the word 'banana' would be statistically represented as such:
Those odds seem so out of touch with reality that while there is a statistical chance of it happening, it would be so unlikely that we simply could not put any sort of credence to believability behind it. However, if we selected the errant typings of the most accurate form of the word 'banana' and kept them because it best fit the word 'banana' then things begin to change.
In other words, for the first letter 'b' to be typed there is only a 1:26 chance the monkey will do so. This may take several tries or it may take only one or two. If we kept the random input of 'b' as the first letter once that key were hit, we could move on to the next part of the word in that of 'a'. In any case, there is only a 1:26 chance the monkey would hit the correct letter for any given sequence of the word 'banana.' Thus, for each successive mutation, there stands only a 1:26 chance of the most suitable letter to make the word 'banana' as being typed. You can try this with a blindfold and your own keyboard seeing as you're just as much an ape as I am and you possess a keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
The problem is that you still have not cited an example of how a brilliant code of informational wonder morphs from nothing more than chemicals and physics.
I believe I just did so. If you do not have the wit or wherewithal to see how selection can produce varying degrees of complexity to such a finite degree than I simply cannot help you. It will forever remain in your pool of collective ignorance to simply insert your dogmatic Magic Man into the argument whenever it suits you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
I understand that most of these artificial intelligence evangelists explain away this by saying intelligence just automatically morphs from complexity and leave it at that. Repititiously pounding this over and over in journals, thesis' , in TV shows and Hollywood movies for entertainment value and effect does not make it FACT. Their line of reasoning is always that the original pre-biotic soup magically insta-poofed protein molecules, which in turn jumbled around in a bubbling mud soup, some forming membranes and other components and the very last thing to appear is informational digitally encoded magic on some of those same proteins. In actuality the Central Dogma of molecular Biology by Crick & Watson showing that only DNAis the only mechanism which controls the production of protein molecules, not the other way around. Proteins NEVER control things the other way around. They are simply material componants as you would have in any computer, with the exception that they are more brilliantly designed and constructed.
I'm not sure why you put the explanation of proteins in here for me in order to harangue the Creationists. I fully understand their presuppositions of lies and misinformation to a vast degree. It's just a pity you've fallen into some of the bait-laden traps they've set for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
Information is not a bottom up phenomena, our every experience in life with regards any type digital communications systems shows us it's without fail the exact opposite. Darwinian Theory is backwards when it comes to this. There is always a heirarchal structured order when it comes to informatiom, with information being on top and in subjection ONLY to the one who created it.
Refer to the bold section: Backed by what evidence?
The List:
[1] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Nylonase enzymes in Japanese Flavobacterium species:
A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp. By Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, PP. 2421-2425, April 1984
Insertion Sequence IS6100 on Plasmid pOAD2, which degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, Feb 1994, PP 1197-1200
[2] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid fishes:
Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3817-3822, 1997
Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, vol 401, PP 443-444, 1999
Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. DeVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 94, PP 3811-3816, 1997
Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 20, no 11, PP 1897-1908, 2003
Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 103, PP 10491-10496, 2006
[3] Speciation events observed in the laboratory:
Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, PP 1214-1220, 1992
Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 - 292 (02 April 1971)
Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 (Speciation event in Drosophila melanogaster)
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity byM.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998
Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966
The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa by Tom Cavalier-Smith, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology vol 52, pp 297-354, 2002
[4] Speciation events in nature and supporting phylogenetic evidence:
Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)
Cichlid Species Flocks of the Past and Present by A. Meyer, Heredity vol 95, 419-420, 20 July 2005
Drosophila paulistorum: A Cluster of Species in Statu Nascendi by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Boris Spassky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 45(3): 419-428 (1959)
Hybridisation and Contemporary Evolution in an introduced Cichlid Fish from Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, vol 13, pp 2471-2479, 21 April 2004
Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O'hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)
Mitochondrial Phylogeny of the Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Tanganyika in Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 10, No. 4, pp 751-768, 1993
Multilocus Phylogeny of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison of Microsatellite and Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, Vol 15, No 7, pp 798-808, 1998
Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003
Phylogeny of African Cichlid Fishes as Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, vol 80, pp 702-714, 1998
The Species Flocks of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances in Molecular Phylogenetics and Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, vol 91, pp 277-290, 20 April 2004
[5] Evolution of specific features in humans:
Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion by Natalay Kouprina, Adam Pavlicek, Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, Gregory Solomon, William Gersch, Young-Ho Yoon, Randall Collura, Maryellen Ruvolo, J. Carl Barrett, C. Geoffrey Woods, Christopher A. Walsh, Jerzy Jurka and Vladimir Larionov, Public Library of Science Biology, vol 2, No 5, e126 (23rd March 2004)
Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, A Major Determinant of Brain Size by Jianzhi Ziang, Genetics, vol 165, pp 2063-2070 (December 2003)
Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes in the Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 100(21) 12235-12240 (14 October 2003)
Evolution of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).
Human Brain Evolution: Insights from Microarrays by Todd M. Preuss, Mario Cáceres, Michael C. Oldham and Daniel H. Geschwind, Nature Reviews of Genetics, vol 5, no 11, pp 850-860 (November 2004)
Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a Gene Involved in Speech and Language by Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano Anthony P. Monaco and Svante Pääbo, Nature, Vol 418, pp 869-872, 22 August 2002
Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain size by Yin-Qiu Wang and Bing Su, Human Molecular Genetics, Vol 13, No 11, pp 1131-1137 (1st June 2004)
Organisation and Evolution of Olfactory Receptor Genes on Human Chromosome 11 by J.A. Buettner, G. Glusman, N. Ben-Arie, P. Ramos, D. Lancet and G.A. Evans, Genomics 53(1): 56-58 (1 Oct 1998)
Primate evolution of an olfactory receptor cluster: diversification by gene conversion and recent emergence of pseudogenes by D Sharon, G Glusman,Y Pilpel, M Khen, F Gruetzner, T Haaf, D Lancet, Genomics, 61(1) 24-36 (1 Oct 1999)
The Evolution of Mammalian Olfactory Genes by L. Issel-Tarver & J. Rine, Genetics, 145(1): 185-195 (January 1997)
The Human Olfactory Subgenome: From Sequence To Structure To Evolution by Tania Fuchs, Gustavo Glasman, Shirley Horn-Saban, Doron Lancet and Yitzhak Pilpel, Human Genetics, 108: 1-13 (3 January 2001)
[6] Bird evolution and feathers:
Avian Skin Development and the Evolutionary Origin of Feathers by R.H. Sawyer & L.W. Knapp, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Devlopmental Evolution, 298(1): 57-72 (15 Aug 2003)
Bird Evolution by Julia Clarke and Kevin Middleton, Current Biology, 16(10): R350-354 (23 May 2006)
Description of the earliest fossil penguin from South America and first Paleogene vertebrate locality of Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina by Julia A. Clarke, Eduard B. Olivero and Pablo Puerta, American Museum of Natural History Novitates, No 3423, pp 1-19 (9 December 2003)
Evolution of the Morphological Innovations of Feathers by Richard O. Prum, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 304(6): 570-579 (15 Nov 2005)
The Evolutionary Origin and Diversification of Feathers by Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Brush, Quarterly Review of Biology, 77(3):, 261-295 (September 2002)
When Did Theropods Become Feathered? Evidence For Pre-Archaeopteryx Feathery Appendages by Martin Kundrát, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular & Developmental Evolution, 302(4): 355-64 (15 July 2004)
[7] General vertebrate evolution and important associated features:
Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb by Paula M. Mabee, Journal of American Zoology, 40: 789-800 (2000)
Tetrapod Phylogeny Inferred from 18S and 28S Ribosomal RNA Sequences, and a Review of the Evidence for Amniote Relationships by S. Blair Hedges, Kirk D. Moberg and Linda R. Maxson, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 7(6): 607-633 (1990) [NOTE: MINOR CORRECTION POSTED IN 1991]
Theropod Forelimb Design And Evolution by Kevin M. Middleton and Stephe M. Gatesby. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 128: 149-187 (2000)
[8] Phylogenetics and Molecular Phylogeny not covered in papers above, plus genetic and other insights into deep evolutionary time, including the reconstruction of ancient genes and proteins:
Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007)
Fractious Phylogenies by Thomas D Kocher, Nature, Vol 423, pp 489-490, 29 May 2003
Inferring The Historical Patterns Of Biological Evolution by Mark Pagel, Nature, 401: 877-884 (28 October 1999)
Estimating Metazoan Divergence Times With A Molecular Clock by Kevin J. Peterson, Jessica B. Lyons, Kristin S. Nowak, Carter M. Takacs, Matthew J. Wargo & Mark A. McPeek, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of America, April 2004, 101, 17, 6536-6541
Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code by Dawn J. Brooks, Jacques R. Fresco, Arthur M. Lesk, and Mona Singh, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19: 1645-1655 (2002)
Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004)
Taxonomic Congruence Versus Total Evidence, and Amniote Phylogeny Inferred from Fossils, Molecules and Morphology by Douglas J. Eernisse and Arnold G. Kluge, Molecular Biology & Evolution, 10(6): 1170-1195 (1993)
[9] Blind Cave Fishes and their relevance to the evolution of the eye, plus a special paper on eye evolution:
Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish by W. R. Jeffrey, journal of Heredity, 96(3): 185-196 (Jan 2005)
Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Devlopmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001)
Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004)
The Master Control Gene For Morphgenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes To Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996.
Why cavefish are blind by N.M. Tian & D.J. Price, Bioessays, 27: 235-238 (Mar 2005)
[10] Evolution of photosynthesis:
Early evolution of Photosynthesis: Clues from Nitrogenase and Chlorophyll Iron Proteins by Donald H. Burke, John E. Hearst and Arend Sidow, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 90, No. 15, pp 7134-7138 (1st August 1993)
Evolution: When Did Photosynthesis Emerge on Earth? by David J. Des Marais, Science, Vol 289, pp 1703-1705 (8th September 2000)
Molecular evidence for the early evolution of photosynthesis by Jin Xiong, William M. Fischer, Kazuhito Inoue, Masaaki Nakahara and Carl E. Bauer, Science, Vol 289, pp 1724-1730 (8 September 2000)
Origin and early evolution of photosynthesis by Robert E. Blankenship, Photosynthesis Research, Vol 33, No 2, pp 91-111 (August 1992)
Tracking major evolution of photosynthesis by characterisation of a major photosynthesis gene cluster from Heliobacillus mobilis by Jin Xiong, Kazuhto Inoue and Carl E. Bauer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 95, Issue 25, pp 14581-14586 (8th December 1998)
[11] General evolutionary theory and supporting evidence:
Empirical Fitness Landscapes Reveal Accessible Evolutionary Paths by Frank J. Poelwijk, Daniel J. Kiviet, Daniel M. Weinreich and Sander J. Tans, Nature, 445: 383-386 (25 January 2007)
Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider, Nucleic Acids Research, 28: 2794-2799 (2000)
Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant hybrids in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors by Hermann Joseph Müller, Genetics, 3(5): 422-499 (1918)
The Cost of Natural Selection Revisited by Leonard Nunney, Ann. Zool. Fennici, Vol 40, 185-194, 30 April 2003
[12] Hominid Ancestry
A New Primate from the early Eocene of Myanmar and the Asian Early Origin of Anthropoids by J.-J. Jaeger, Tin Thein, M. Benammi, Y. Chaimanee, Aung Naing Soe, Thit Lwin, Than Tun, San Wai and S. Ducrocq, Science, 286: 528-520 (15 October 1999)
Initial Sequenceing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium, Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005
The oldest known anthropoid postcranial fossils and the early evolution of higher primates by D.L. Gebo, M, D'Agosto, K.C. Beard, T, Qi and J Wang, Nature, vol 404 (6775), pp 276-78, 16 March 2002
I'm returning your neanderthal style of courtesy. Next time it might behoove you for the benefit of an intelligent discussion to actually look up terms, definitions and the historicity of the phraze "Creationism" coined back around 1979-80 which involved a court case in Arkansas for pushing an unbiblical fairytale version of the Genesis creation account. It has nothing to do with the Bible. In actual fact their own holy book (I assume is the Bible) condemns them for sticking their nose in politics in the first place to have their version of truth shoved down others throats. Taking the time to study and research the words/terms of what the account actually means and speaks of when using the term 'day', you find that the word day, especially in reference to the creator is much longer than 24 hours. Cross-referencing finds the term defined in some cases as 1000 years. Looking at the 7th day mentioned in Genesis, we see that not only was it mentioned thousands of years later in the Bible as continuing, but in actuality it is still ongoing today. So the Hebrew word "yohm" and the Greek word he-me'ra are used in both a literal way and a figurative way, or even in a symbolic way. This is not hard to understand since we can use the English word day similarly. The creative days are nothing more than great lengths of time periods or epochs, much the way science invents terms like Miocene, Pliocene, Eocene, Holocene , etc to describe difference epochs ot time periods of Earth's geological and natural history. The opening statement in Genesis1:1, allows for the passage of biilions of years for the formation of the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems with suns, planets, etc. Then following in verse 2 the statement of the Earth being nothing more than formless and waste is prior to that 1st day. It had already existed for perhaps millions of years, the universe billions of years.
Now having explained this, if you still choose the term creationism with me as a blanket statement for my belief, then I'll continue to use evolution as a blanket term for your belief and refuse to conveniently divide and separate abiogenesis or any other fractured breakoff descriptive statements of terminology. You use it in a derogitory sense. You are not allowed here to use and pursue the usual vulgarities you get away with at "The Lounge", but you still manage to misquote and butcher every post for the purpose of deflecting from the question asked.. Needless to say, I can play the word games (minus vulgarities) as good as you can.
If you'd take the time to seriously look at the true meanings of some things, you'll actually find that the Bible actually agrees with many things non-believers in God believe in or don't believe. But you've got to dump the attitude.
Once again, please cite us an empirical scientific example of how an intelligent informational code comes about as if by magic with nothing more than chanced unpurposed chemistry and physics.
I don't believe how ignorant you are. Christianity = creationism++. By your child like logic, black holes didn't exist, until 1973.
I believe in physical evidence and reasoned logic. Stop presuming you can read my mind.
Yes I have heard similar claims before.Yet when I have ask people to quote these claims about my style of replying they fail every time.
"true meaning" of the bible. No true Scotsman I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
You have'nt even answered the question. Give us an empirical scientific example of how an intelligent information code (such as the brilliant informational encoding/decoding mechanism in DNA) came about by nothing more than purposeless blind pointless chemistry and physics. I'll give you a hint, this has ZERO to do with molecules. Information is immaterial from the medium in which it may be used like matter/energy for transmission. So cite an empircal scientific example of how intelligent informational codes come about naturalistically from nothing more than physics and chemistry ???
I already gave you an example. But you decided to cut it out in your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
The theory of evolution does not say that humans arose purely by chance. To say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance. "Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature."
Everything we know of is govern by chemistry and physics. You belief that it is pointless and purposeless is your opinion nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific
Making ongoing and continuing childish statements that I clearly don't know a thing about science and I'm inferior to your genius does not answer the question. Cite us an empirical scientific example of how a brilliant informational code morphs magically from nothing more than pointless blind indifference of physics and chemistry.
"Pointless" and "magically" is your opinion. Seriously? I figure this out when I was just going into college.... Just as compounding interest, or sediments building up on the ocean floor, things tend to get more complex with new additions from something outside.
You are show your ignorance of DNA by calling it "brilliant informational code". Google
GCSTroop that is one super long post.... I agree with everything you said, except for the macro and micro evolution. They are valid terms, that creationism misunderstand. Macro evolution is a lot of micro evolution put together.
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.
Creationism has been around for thousands of years. Why are you talking about the political movement we have today?
