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.
Got to highlight right here the irrefutable proofs, easily seen, that in fact you don't know what you talk about: Let's start, shall we (if you haven't in fact gathered up your last few marbles and run off the playing field...)" (And BTW, I've point-formed your various insightful comments to make it easier to see your fault-lines)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
1) whether "speciation" exists or doesn't exist is IRRELEVANT to the debate of Evolution Theory versus Intelligent Design theory. You see ... you have to have a species first, before it could "speciate". And that's really the issue here ... how did it all start ... not how life progressed, changed, adapted, survived or regressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
Well well. The mechanisms of Evolution must now also account the origins of life? That's news to us biologists, and has been so well hashed to bits that it's idiotic inclusion here as some sort of salient point speaks to my contention of your understanding of Evolution.
2) Now, tell me ... given that "natural selection" is said to play a major role in the "evolutionary" process .... just how did natural selection play any role in the creation of life before that original organism (to which all other things are supposed to have evolved from) achieved the ability to reproduce? You see ... reproduction must be present BEFORE natural selection could possibly take part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifle
Here you just reinforce your utter lack of understanding. Get a biology book, read it, and then come back. You wouldn't let a 12 yr old kid work on your Ferrari engine would you? Why not? Because he obviously has no technical knowledge of it. Get the picture? Why are you here trying to convince us you do understand anything about Evolution?
√ You see, the biggest flaw (but by far not the only one) in evolution theory comes in at the very beginning! What mutated to form the first form of life? You can't just start counting and theorizing, and justifying and creating elaborate connections after the appearance of replicating organisms which come equipped with complex DNA coded instructions. So explain to us, in evolutionary terms, how did the original lifeform to which all other life is based, come into existence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yawning_rifle
And so it continues unabated; fabrications built upon mis-information standing on illogical errors. Quite the basis for a belief system, I'd say!
√ I'm curious as to just how much BS you're willing to spread here by answering that question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Answer: I don't respond to illogical, idiot-based questions frankly. Who would?
√ Now that's funny ... most of these "evolutionary" mutations are lethal, but given quadrillion chances, an occasional positive change will take hold? Simple huh? YEAH ... simple ... simply one of the stupidest things posted thus far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupidrifleman
Hard for you to grasp simple statistics huh? By your concept, no-one would EVER win at a slot machine in Vegas. And yet...
Why would chance mutations not be mostly lethal? Well, in fact, we have observed them to be just that, and it makes sense logically. You can't just go into the micro-design levels of the latest Panasonic big screen LED HD TV and tinker with the design purely by chance and hope to get an improvement. But Panasonic will improve it, they just go about it through directed engineering, just like on your silly example of the Space Station.
The changes they make could also, statistically, occur purely by chance if we had some system that created the same TV in trillions of reproductions (like, you know, countless bacteria in the oceans?), with minor changes happening in each one, and the system could recognize when an improvement did occur. That system is the now very easily observed DNA system. It has this unique habit of recording any changes and replicating them, good or bad, in it's offspring, but if they are lethal, BANG; elimination! It's out of any future running. If it's neutral, nothing changes, but that information is still stored for possible use when it might be more applicable. But if it is potentially and immediately positive, it gets held onto in the overall "engineering specs". Just as Panasonic, or the ISS, does in their engineering specs.
Still can't quite grasp it? Or won't?
Yeah baby ... we're losing $5 on each one of these widgets we're selling ... but we'll make it up in volume sales? What you just described is a formula for EXTINCTION! (or a pretty apt description of playing the Slots in Vegas .... which I promise you ... if you do it long enough, you will EVOLVE into a homeless person)
I think I've been overly generous with my time on this tripe filled post.
I think so too. You won't grasp the obvious, and so I think you should leave. It'd be better for all of us, to lose your insulting ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deathfromabove
k then why r der still apes?
No reason for them to not be here. Evolution does not require that the originating species depart. It still fills a valid niche. We just filled a different one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
I am freaking speechless!! The severely impaired mind that accepts this blathering of nonsense as meaningful, is beyond comprehension.
Let me give you an example of "irreducibly complex" .... let's just use the environmental system on the international space station as an example. One part breaks ... a critical part ... and the system will not function without it. Now it may be true that you could take that system apart, and make all sorts of cool crap out of the components ... maybe a radio ... maybe an easy bake oven ... or even the biggest, baddest Keg cooler in the universe. Fat lots of good that will do you .... YOU"RE DEAD.
(etc etc)
Until then, we'll just take their word it ... the evolution theory without answers. Brilliant!!
You should be more careful about quoting anything from science as being absolute. What if ongoing and relentless studies have since filled in a gap of understanding? Where are you then, being stuck in time and space as you so obviously are by your one and only bible? If you hang your entire argument on one bit of , say, 1996 information, you'll only get intellectually burned. That part's inevitable.
Your supposedly illustrious example of the design of the Space Station is not related to chance mutation and Evolutiion through successful adaptation. The ISS cannot try out a chance-based revision to it's design, on the order of trillions of reproductions over billions of years, spending all the known and future resources of this entire planet to try to get there purely by chance. That's why we achieve what we have by focused design, pre-determining what we want to achieve, and selecting "for" by a process of logical elimination. A chance-designed ISS? As an engineer and a biologist, I can assure you that that denialist idea, yours, is a load of illogical nonsense. And yet, it's your best shot...
And BTW, it's not our job here to provide all the education necessary to bring you up to our level of education and thinking on this subject. It's more than just some simplistic concepts; the proofs are all demonstrable.
Q: Have you read even the summary of Lenski's 2008 speciation research yet? Of his remarkable 22 yr long experiment, culminating in the use of modern DNA genome mapping {which he had no knowledge of that amazing technique when he started, but he still kept DNA samples of each and every generation} to irrefutably show speciation? The unambiguous proof? Apparently not. Why would you read it, after all? Such facts would only damage your personal veldt-geist.
{BTW those disbelievers who have read it then try the "Well, it's still not speciation. It's only a bacterium, after all" as their feeble deflection strategy argument. Nope; he didn't make a cat give birth to a dog overnight. Sorry. We'll have to wait for that humorous "proof"...}
RE: GuyInTexas' illuminating and simultaneously insulting comment about us not knowing what we're talking about {"I think I've been overly generous with my time on this tripe filled post."}:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
That's okay. We rely entirely on you to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
(etc etc)
Only a hopeless amateur who doesn't know the first thing about how natural selection works or what it even is would even ask such a stupid question.
What you have pulled here is the classic creationist abandonment of the field. (rifleman's prediction: they also yell: "Well, I' just pick up my marbles and leave then!") All your arguments having been proven worthless, you leave evolution completely and change subjects to abiogensis.
It's the ultimate expression of "the incredible shrinking creation model," and it proves that creationism (and its ID child) are intellectually vacuous.
Evolution explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life. Your fall back to abiogenesis is a concession of the entire argument.
So nicely summarized, HD. He apparently doesn't see it yet. Or, (horrors!) it's just a deflective strategy? SayItIsn'tSo!!! OMG
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
Do you even know the definition of a scientific theory. It's repeatedly tested and supported by facts and observal natural phenomenons.
Gravity is also a theory.
Nope, they don't know that definition, or refuse to accept it. Defiant Christians will never abandon this false talking point. They love to confuse their mindless listeners that their definition of "theory" is the same as science's; that our theories are just a of bunch wild unsupported guesses. Another Deflection Strategy. if I had a $10 bill for every time I've heard this very dead canard, I'd be, well, a multi-millionaire!
_______________________________
"canard": "1. a: a false or unfounded report or story; especially: a fabricated report; a groundless rumor or belief ."
"theory": "A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable scientific laws that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. It is also testable and confirmable."
Got it this time? Promise to never use the scientifically illiterate version ever again in a discussion of science? I doubt it. After all, what else do you guys have to fall back on but incorrect, revised or mis-informed definitions?
On this subject, I am more of a mind that since there isn't an A+B=C answer to totally undermine the possibility that science hasn't solved the debates raised over evolution, I am somewhat offended at the dimeanor of the evolution defenders and their constant belittling of contrary opinions on this matter. It's like guessing when they are drawing the lottery numbers, because you have a "system". You folks might be right, but until the science can establish the direct connections between the supposed evolution of the species on this planet, your guessing and pimping for ideas which haven't completed the necessary steps (See Glen Beck). Financial advisors use some facts to draw a conclusion on exactly where to invest, I seem to remember that not working so well at the end of 2008. If an alien spacecraft land here, I'm sure many priests will be spiking their crosses like an unruly NFL player would spike a football. It feels as though evolutionists are a little more like DeSean Jackson spiking the ball before crossing the goal line. The creationists may not have the answers, but their beliefs haven't been totally disproven, yet.
Guessing, pimping? Hardly. Anyhoo, that really doesn't follow my comment on the fact that creation apologetic ministries strongly advise against using the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" argument. I was just helping him in avoiding any further embarrassment.
You are essentially falling for Zeno's paradox... something that we all knew was not true thousands of years ago. Achilles really can catch the turtle.
To get to now from one year ago, you only need one year. It is a good thing that we actually have had that one year, because as we all know, it really is now.
To get to now from one million years ago, you need one million years. It is a good thing that we actually have had that one million years, because as we all know, it really is now.
To get to now from an infinite number of years ago, you need an infinite number of years. It is a good thing that we actually have had that infinite number of years, because as we all know, it really is now.
No matter how old the universe is... we still end up at now.
You've mixed finite with infinite to make your point.
If the turtle were given an infinite head start, Achilles could never catch up since the turtle would be infinitely in the future.
Any point in finite time is infinitely in the future from a point infinitely in the past.
On this subject, I am more of a mind that since there isn't an A+B=C answer to totally undermine the possibility that science hasn't solved the debates raised over evolution, I am somewhat offended at the dimeanor of the evolution defenders and their constant belittling of contrary opinions on this matter.....
Evolutionists are constantly researching their theory, testing the hypothesis and looking for data that supports (or if they are honest, contradicts) their theory. I wouldn't question that there are gaps and pieces where our knowedge is incomplete. That's part of the learning process. So far, evolution is the theory that best explains observations and experimental results.
The only evidence the creationist side seems to come up with is that "it's too complex for evolution" and then attribute everything to a supernatural being. We are constantly learning. Cultures once believed "the gods" controlled everything from the weather, to the ripening of crops, to the rising of the sun, because that was the limit of their knowledge. IMO, modern "creationist" theory is no different. If there is any evidence to refute that, and actually demonstrate the existance of a creator, I'd like to learn. I understand the appeal in the belief in a benevolent creator. I'd just like to see some data to support that belief.
You've mixed finite with infinite to make your point.
And your problem with that is... what exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
If the turtle were given an infinite head start, Achilles could never catch up since the turtle would be infinitely in the future.
Now see... we know that Zeno's Paradox is wrong. We directly experience its "wrongness" every day. And yet you still feel compelled to defend it as true. This demonstrates yet another key difference in the way that scientists and mystics think.
Your specific error here comes from a false analogy. You are predefining a future point in time as if the future preexists, and asking how long it takes to get there. But the future doesn't exist. There is at best the potential of it eventually becoming "now." But until it does, it's just an idea.
Look at it this way.
Let's say Achilles still hasn't caught the turtle (i.e. reached "now.") And yet... Achilles would still be someplace right? He might not be where the turtle is, he may be surrounded by lizards or snakes or some other reptile.
But wherever he is... whatever "someplace" he has reached after infinite time... is his "now." In fact it is the only "now."
It is our "now."
We don't ever have to catch the turtle. Wherever we reach and whatever we catch, we are always "now."
Every cell that exists today is self assembled. So I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
And I said independent of space and time.
I know you did.
And I asked you show me a singe example of something that was independent of space and time.
Just one.
It's not like I'm asking you to show me God.
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.
