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.
Actually the theory of “universal common decent” has been called into question with advances in current biotechnology. However, few Evolutionists want to acknowledge this and consequently refuse to look at the evidence. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Right, because evolutionary scientist want to avoid the awards and accolades they would receive by making a huge scientific discovery. No, no... better that they keep the really big discoveries secret.
Actually the theory of “universal common decent” has been called into question with advances in current biotechnology. However, few Evolutionists want to acknowledge this and consequently refuse to look at the evidence. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Christian makes broad claim with no supporting links or evidence and then hints at conspiracy. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Actually the theory of “universal common decent” has been called into question with advances in current biotechnology. However, few Evolutionists want to acknowledge this and consequently refuse to look at the evidence. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan
Please support that claim with evidence.
Roxolan,
Am I safe to assume that you are unfamiliar with the fact that Universal Common Decent, the theory that depends on another theory known as Universal Genetic Code, has been called into question?
Wow! I go away for less than 12 hours and there's 5 pages here.
Most of the posts here do not disprove Evolution, but rather that Creationists have literally no understanding of it, what it means, or what the mechanisms are.
As in this classic unrelated argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
That's not evolution. That's mutation. I don't think anyone disputes mutation and selection of the fittest. It's the idea that life evolved from dead matter that just happened to spring to life one day and then evolved into us that's the issue.
My personal question is how we got from single celled organisms that divide to reproduce to male/female organisms that must mate to reproduce. Let me know when your bacteria get to that step. You'll have my attention then.
Also, if you really want to prove evolution, wouldn't you need to start with dead matter and have it, spontaneously, come to life? Starting with bacteria is kind of cheating as it's already alive.
Nope. As I said; you show virtually no technical or scientific understanding. A better question is: how can you honestly debate something that you have just proven that you know absolutely nothing about?
Evolution ONLY defines how an existing organism, in this case, a bacterium, changes through recorded mutations in its DNA, into an organism that science, not you or the Church, defines as an organism that is sufficiently different in functionality that we give it a new name, or species.
Not life from no life. not life from nothing. Unrelated. But then, I'm not here to argue. Lenski et al just provided irrefutible proof of what the entire scientific world already knows. You want to argue with yourself in the closet, be my guest. I'm completely aware that YEC-Creationist-Christian fundies are incapable of accepting anything that counters their mythology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Sorry, but you have to get to life first. Evolution can't happen without life now can it?
(snip)
Proving that mutations happen doens't prove evolution. (rflmn's cmnt: WRONG) There's nothing new here. We know mutations happen. No one disputes selection of the fittest. (rflmn's cmnt: WOW!!! A complete acceptance of Evolution!) It happens every day. The dispute is whether or not this is how life got here and to where it is today. THAT you haven't proved.
Nor was I or Lenski trying to. I'm not disputing how life got here in the first place. I just reported the absolute & irrefutible PROOF that Evolution, through the "natural selection" that you just agreed with, doesoccur, and it's how we all got to the current level of bio-diversity. It's Not how life arose, silly!
Mutations that are recorded within the DNA ISEvolution, laddie. You can dispute how life got here all you want, but start another thread; Evolutionists (which, sadly for your level of knowledge on the subject, I happen to be)do not concern themseslves with abiogenesis (i.e.: how life got here in the first place.)
That's COMPLETELY Unrelated to Evolution; sorry! Better look up the difference before you show us more of your scientific illiteracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Just food for thought... if this was a proof ( fini) of evolution then I suppose nothing would die off? right?
WRONG. A new species evolves and may or may not push aside the old one. Think about it: simplecompetition for an existing niche by an organism that's better adapted to it, or: the new organism moves into an entirely new niche, leaving the older organism and it's niche intact. Logical, common-sense, and proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
by the same logic applied... if life evolves (absolutely) then life should evolve in such a way that no species would become extinct, ever.
Read my last comment to your previous post. Same answer. WRONG Not to mention large asteroids hitting the earth and killing off the cold-blooded super-lizards when the solar radiation input was severely restricted for a few years. A few nice warm-blooded mammals hiding in caves, etc, though; now that was using their hereditary noggins, eh? So: Extinction is accomplished via: competion for limited resources or for available "niches", or through external events (volcanos, asteroids, disease, new more successful predators, etc. etc.).
Get your false theories straight, fellas and don't try to confuse the issue; it won't work anymore; most people have too good a basic scientific education to be fooled any more by unrelated arguments.
So, to review the last 12 hours of posts: as anticipated, there's the usual straws, deflections, or uneducated mis-representations. But there's no disproofs of this study and its results, because...
Evolution's been proved, no contest. No-one can disprove the truth, but by trying to do so with false, illogical or just-plain-wrong arguments, what is it you show us?
That's right.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-18-2009 at 01:18 AM..
Reason: typos
Right, because evolutionary scientist want to avoid the awards and accolades they would receive by making a huge scientific discovery. No, no... better that they keep the really big discoveries secret.
Yes, of course, let's save the awards for their best accomplishments. While they're at it, they should congratulate both religion and secularism for jointly making our planet such a joyous happy place.
as a matter fact if we all evolved from a bacteria we should have a 99% proof of stages of evolving species, which most are forge. A bacteria does adjust to their environment, this type of transformation is known as micro-evolution. I don't believe in the evolution of changing from one animal to another, i know there is no proof in that.
But there is a proof in different species, even humans we see this proof all around us such as different races and breeds of animals, that is certainly not the macro-evolution, but Micro-evolution. otherwise we should have had a lot proof than counting on instinct animals and missing bones of an Zebra's fossilized hoofs?
I think you lost to believe that God does not exist, yet the proof is all around us
But how can you expect outsiders to take any of you seriously Jack when most of Christendom does'nt even believe and follow it's own holy book. Both sides here are of equal fault in many areas of our society's downfall. At one time Christendom had the upper hand and power to influence the secular/scientific of mankind and failed or rather refused. Below is a clip of condemnation on both sides, with Christendom being the most reprehensible of the two.
Even the non-Christian Ghandi realized the value of the "Sermon on the Mount", so why has Christendom still refused recognize this to this very day ??? Why do they insist on pursuing politics as a means of saving mankind as opposed to God's Kingdom by their own claimed king Jesus Christ ??? I think there's more to the story here that will shortly unfold soon !!!
Psuedo-Science Possibly, but Pseudo-Christianity Definitely
Dr. Richard Lenski and his two associates at Michigam State University, in mid-2008, published the results of their 22 year long experient. In that benchmark study, he provided a species with it's normal environment, plus an environment unusable to the original species.
At one point (# 31,500), well into the experiment that logged about 44,000 generations, (all saved in the freezer for subsequent study, or as proof to the dis-believers...) the test organism mutated (by chance) in its ability to move into that new but previously unusable niche. Since DNA records things for all future offspring, and this one wasn't lethal, this adaptation was reliably expressed from that point on.
This was using bacteria because you can produce tens of thousands of generations in a relatively short period of time. You know, the same organisms we originally came from. This study, supported inerrantly by the spectacular new science of DNA genome mapping, allows anyone to look at the sudden changes in DNA patterns that allowed this species' migration into the new niche.
This is Evolution, clean and simple. Any arguments to the contrary will be but deflections, or the "Oh Yeah? Well, it was only a bacterium! I wanna see a giraffe turn into a bear, overnight!" type. In other words, arguments coming from the scientifically and genetically illiterate.
Well, again, isn't it the YEC/Creationists who claim we didn't come from "no stinkin' bacteria?"
Sorry. Here's exactly how it started. And it's whayyyyy more convincing, common-sense and logical, since it in fact happened, than some nonsense "Insta-Poof" argument; one moment nothing was here, the next, EVERYTHING was. Now that surely makes a lot of sense, no?
To quote an observer:
"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
And yet....
PS: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT El Toro FIGURINES, ICE CORES IN ANTARCTICA, THAT SILLY ARK, ETC. ETC. JUST THE INNERANT CONCLUSIONS THAT RATIONAL READERS MUST COME TO AS REGARDS DR. LENSKI'S AMAZING STUDY. CLEAR ENOUGH?
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.
Dr. Richard Lenski and his two associates at Michigam State University, in mid-2008, published the results of their 22 year long experient. In that benchmark study, he provided a species with it's normal environment, plus an environment unusable to the original species.
At one point (# 31,500), well into the experiment that logged about 44,000 generations, (all saved in the freezer for subsequent study, or as proof to the dis-believers...) the test organism mutated (by chance) in its ability to move into that new but previously unusable niche. Since DNA records things for all future offspring, and this one wasn't lethal, this adaptation was reliably expressed from that point on.
This was using bacteria because you can produce tens of thousands of generations in a relatively short period of time. You know, the same organisms we originally came from. This study, supported inerrantly by the spectacular new science of DNA genome mapping, allows anyone to look at the sudden changes in DNA patterns that allowed this species' migration into the new niche.
This is Evolution, clean and simple. Any arguments to the contrary will be but deflections, or the "Oh Yeah? Well, it was only a bacterium! I wanna see a giraffe turn into a bear, overnight!" type. In other words, arguments coming from the scientifically and genetically illiterate.
Well, again, isn't it the YEC/Creationists who claim we didn't come from "no stinkin' bacteria?"
Sorry. Here's exactly how it started. And it's whayyyyy more convincing, common-sense and logical, since it in fact happened, than some nonsense "Insta-Poof" argument; one moment nothing was here, the next, EVERYTHING was. Now that surely makes a lot of sense, no?
To quote an observer:
"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
And yet....
PS: THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT El Toro FIGURINES, ICE CORES IN ANTARCTICA, THAT SILLY ARK, ETC. ETC. JUST THE INNERANT CONCLUSIONS THAT RATIONAL READERS MUST COME TO AS REGARDS DR. LENSKI'S AMAZING STUDY. CLEAR ENOUGH?
hi , rifleman
first of all , i want to thank you for posting such scientific knowledge , actually it help me to submit to my Gods commands as for he command us to ponder about his creation and search about how he originated it
allah discuss such a matter with the disblievers in quran saying to them
18 - And if ye reject (the Message), so did generations before you: and the duty of the apostle is only to preach publicly (And clearly).
19 - See they not how God originates creation, then repeats it (by sexual intercourse) ?! : truly that is easy for God.
20 - Say(to the disbelievers): Travel through the earth and see how God did originate creation; so will God produce a later creation (in the resurrection): For God has power over all things.
anyway , if what you says is true and the origins of creature was the bacteria , then let me tell you that quran informed us more than that .
quran actually informed us the origins of this bacteria
6 - Such is He, the Knower of all things, hidden and open, the Exalted (in power), the Merciful;
7 - He Who has made everything which He has created most Good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, 8 - then , made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised:
9 - then , He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give.
i have no problem with what you say . rifleman
Muslims acknowledge that life developed over period of time, but see Allah's power behind it all
While Islam recognizes the general idea of the development of life in stages, over a period of time, human beings are considered as a special act of creation. Islam teaches that human beings are a unique life form that was created by Allah in a special way, with unique gifts and abilities unlike any other: a soul and conscience, knowledge, and free will. In short, Muslims do not believe that human beings randomly evolved
holy quran (71:13-17).
"What is the matter with you, that you are not conscious of Allah's majesty, seeing that it is He Who has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, and made the moon a light therein , and made the sun as a (glorious) lamp? And Allah has produced you from the earth, growing (gradually)"
An interesting little video on abiogenesis, just in answer to this question that constantly comes up in these threads.....
Let's be honest, this separation of the abiogenesis and evolution doctrines has been a convenient avoidance of something that can never be explained by any scientists, but also equally important is the "How" question can never be explained by the religious side either.
The Bible only states the "What" and "Why" and nothing more. Man has all eternity to figure out the "How". So I can understand the wish to separate these two doctrines and avoid any discussion of the Thomas H Huxley (1870) coined phraze or term. It simply creates problems for them.
The problem however here in doing so is the same when so-called Christians take a scriptural text out of it's context to justify a God Dishonouring belief like a firey Hellfire. The mistake is that everything in the natural world is all connected to a natural order of things. Much the way the Bible's theme is God's Kingdom, nothing more nothing less. Bible was never meant as a science book. If so-called Christians actually lived by many of the major laws and commands given by the one they claim as their saviour, then there would'nt be any arguements such as these.
For the moment I have'nt the time, but maybe later a different specific thread can be done on "Abiogenesis", so as not to gum up the works on Rifleman's thread and thoughts.
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.
Now that surely makes a lot of sense, no?
