Evolution...Fact or Myth

Originally posted by Coletti
No doubt about it! 😀

Colletti,

If there were "universal and provable" truth... All we would have to argue about would be whether the commies and socialists can change us from "money grubbing" chimps to "caring, kind, thoughtful beings."

Gag. That ain't good. We need this rancor between religion and society to keep from having to listen to the redmikes of the world.

They keep spoutin' all the grand notions and never 'splain how to irradicate greed and need.

Originally posted by Wheely
I think some people are making a very good try at proving it, regardless of it's definitiion

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1

Great article. Would any creationists care to comment on it?

Originally posted by steerpike
Great article. Would any creationists care to comment on it?

Sure. All code is good until it fails.

errrr...

What? What did you say dear?... really? are you sure.

Nevermind. I was lost in a coding frenzy for a moment. I have been told that you are talkin' about god and us. Sorry.

Originally posted by Coletti
No doubt about it! 😀

Thanx bud, I love your open mind!

ES

Originally posted by Wheely
I think some people are making a very good try at proving it, regardless of it's definitiion

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=666435&page=1

Interesting article. But what was new about what they found? It's well known that we can produce morphological changes in creatures through selective breeding - dogs for instance. I didn't see anything that shows speciation. It was a horizontal change in the critter's shape and size. Hardly an example of a creature evolving into a new species or more complex life form.

The evidence supported the idea of creatures adapting to a change of it's predator - in this case fewer predators. Now the these tiny shrimp have smaller spines. And if there was an increase of predators, we might see the spines grow longer again, or some other adaptation.

This doesn't do much to support TOE. And it's not really anything new.

Originally posted by Coletti
Interesting article. But what was new about what they found? It's well know that we can produce morphological changes in creatures through selective breeding - dogs for instance. I didn't see anything that shows speciation. It was a horizontal change in the critter's shape and size. Hardly an example of a creature evolving into a new species or more ...[text shortened]... other adaptation.

This doesn't do much to support TOE. And it's not really anything new.

This was not selective breeding - there was pressure by predators which resulted in a change in characteristics of a species. The word for this is evolution - and this was observable. So - evolution is not a mtyh, a belief system or a religion and experimental evidence shows it happens.

So starting with evolution being observable and working quickly enough to change a species within a hundred years, we can ask how much a species can change. The estimate of life on earth is 4 thousand million years - so there was forty million periods of life such as this to create new species or more complex life forms.

Originally posted by steerpike
This was not selective breeding - there was pressure by predators which resulted in a change in characteristics of a species. The word for this is evolution - and this was observable. So - evolution is not a mtyh, a belief system or a religion and experimental evidence shows it happens.

So starting with evolution being observable and working quickly en ...[text shortened]... was forty million periods of life such as this to create new species or more complex life forms.

And the result of the reduction of the predators is that wimpy shrimp survived and bred resulting in more wimpy shrimp. The changes were a result of breeding.

A change within a species in not evolution. Evolution requires a lower species evolving into high more complex species. Not the case by this example. All we have here is a morphological change within a species - and not one that could be called in increase in complexity. Nothing new. We see that all the time.

Originally posted by Coletti
And the result of the reduction of the predators is that wimpy shrimp survived and bred resulting in more wimpy shrimp. The changes were a result of breeding.

A change within a species in not evolution. Evolution requires a lower species evolving into high more complex species. Not the case by this example. All we have here is a morphological chang ...[text shortened]... not one that could be called in increase in complexity. Nothing new. We see that all the time.

So we accept individuals in a population can change over time - changing in size, shape, and behaviour. I agree this is nothing new - this had been observed on many occasions.

Do you hold the view that every species was individually created - or do you accept a process of change in an isolated population could lead to a different species of shrimp from those in neighbouring ponds?

Originally posted by Coletti
And the result of the reduction of the predators is that wimpy shrimp survived and bred resulting in more wimpy shrimp. The changes were a result of breeding.

A change within a species in not evolution. Evolution requires a lower species evolving into high more complex species. Not the case by this example. All we have here is a morphological chang ...[text shortened]... not one that could be called in increase in complexity. Nothing new. We see that all the time.

There are a lot of interesting independent examples that when taken together as a whole suggests strongly that Darwinian evolution is the likely cause of them all. Like that of a criminal case, each piece of evidence individually might have a number of different explanations, and not one of them capable of substantiating a conviction, but if all of them together share but one and only one common explanation, then it becomes more and more likely that that is the reason for their existence.

How do you explain new viruses?

Originally posted by Coletti
Interesting article. But what was new about what they found? It's well known that we can produce morphological changes in creatures through selective breeding - dogs for instance. I didn't see anything that shows speciation. It was a horizontal change in the critter's shape and size. Hardly an example of a creature evolving into a new species or more ...[text shortened]... other adaptation.

This doesn't do much to support TOE. And it's not really anything new.

What's a "horizontal change"? Would you mind taking a look at this thread and giving your input:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541

I don't think "horizontal change" actually means anything on a scientifically rigorous level. I think it's one of those phrases that sounds kinda scientific and you think supports your position, but doesn't hold up to rigorous investigation.

Originally posted by Coletti
And the result of the reduction of the predators is that wimpy shrimp survived and bred resulting in more wimpy shrimp. The changes were a result of breeding.

A change within a species in not evolution. Evolution requires a lower species evolving into high more complex species. Not the case by this example. All we have here is a morphological chang ...[text shortened]... not one that could be called in increase in complexity. Nothing new. We see that all the time.

I'd love it if you'd discuss "lower species" and "more complex species" in the thread I gave the address for. I really want to discuss this issue and show that there's no scientific basis for creationists to make these claims.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What's a "horizontal change"? Would you mind taking a look at this thread and giving your input:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541

I don't think "horizontal change" actually means anything on a scientifically rigorous level. I think it's one of those phrases that sounds kinda scientific and you think supports your position, but doesn't hold up to rigorous investigation.

I suppose there is a "scientific" term for it. The idea of evolution is simple life forms evolving into much more complex forms. In this case - it does not appear to be a more complex form, only different. The creatures does not appear to have gotten smarter, or able to do something new, that sort of thing.

I expect that some changes lead to less complexity when a particular function or feature is not needed. I that case - survival might best be promoted by dropping access baggage.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd love it if you'd discuss "lower species" and "more complex species" in the thread I gave the address for. I really want to discuss this issue and show that there's no scientific basis for creationists to make these claims.

I contribute some. I may be over my head on that one.

Originally posted by Coletti
I suppose there is a "scientific" term for it. The idea of evolution is simple life forms evolving into much more complex forms. In this case - it does not appear to be a more complex form, only different. The creatures does not appear to have gotten smarter, or able to do something new, that sort of thing.

I expect that some changes lead to less co ...[text shortened]... s not needed. I that case - survival might best be promoted by dropping access baggage.

No. Evolution is not about life forms evolving into much more complex forms. If you don't undetrstand evolution, don't try to define it.

Originally posted by steerpike
No. Evolution is not about life forms evolving into much more complex forms. If you don't undetrstand evolution, don't try to define it.

The definition of the Theory of Evolution is always debatable - but if you are going to argue against someones position - you should know what it is.

I object to the TOE that says all life is a result natural evolutionary processes from the simplest self-replicating life forms all the way up to Homo sapiens. Do you agree with the aspect of TOE or not, because that is the issue.

Or you may object to any part.

Do you believe TOE is about the origins and development of lifeforms - speciation?
If you say no, then you have no dog in this fight and you might as well stay out of it. There's no point in you taking a side because you don't understand the issue that is being debated.