30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessNo, I'm comparing claims. Mine I've seen in practice yours, not so much!
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because you haven't seen evolution produce
entirely new organs or remove existing ones, to your mind, one has to have an incredible
amount of faith to believe that entirely new "kinds" of life can be produced by evolution,
because the right tiny changes has to happen in just the right time and order, and your
...[text shortened]... sands of different "kinds", are practically non-existant. Is that your argument in a
nutshell?
That is just the start! Mine every single experiment done can pretty much
verify what I think is true, actually is. Your "belief" about these changes
going beyond that, cannot be! What you have going for you are people's
claims that in the fossil record you see these lives connected because those
that believe should be, connect them. You asked me for my reasons for this
and I've given them to you.
I believe you can tweak a current living system, I don't believe that with
lots of time which I will grant you for your theory, with a constant mixing
of material, without a plan or purpose will develop something so complex
that thrives, and becomes more complex as time goes on. Having helped
people put together new products, the time and effort that requires to
getting all of this stuff done properly is huge. Those that believe in it just
accept it on its face. I do not believe given enough time all odds are one
if it is possible that you are chances of success are very limited in how
many times you can make an attempt due to a limitation of material in
any given area.
Kelly
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessFor life to start, I believe we would agree that certain things must come
Could you give an example of such parts?
together properly, so all the right stuff must be there, nothing left out! It
isn't enough that they just mix either, because life requires certain things
to right handed, left handed, so they must come together in the proper
amounts too having to much of one and not enough of another will also
defeat the purpose! The list goes on and on, if there is something in there
that shouldn't be your screwed, if the conditions these material are all in
are to hot or cold your screwed, and all of this is just to start the process
where a host of other issues arise, what good is mixing life together if
radiation would kill it, or lack of food? We have not even started talking
about what could go wrong if you have a current living system and started
adding to and removing pieces of it as it is just minding its own business.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by KellyJayI think your problem is that you look at all the parts of a human body, say, and think of
No, I'm comparing claims. Mine I've seen in practice yours, not so much!
That is just the start! Mine every single experiment done can pretty much
verify what I think is true, actually is. Your "belief" about these changes
going beyond that, cannot be! What you have going for you are people's
claims that in the fossil record you see these lives connecte ...[text shortened]... w
many times you can make an attempt due to a limitation of material in
any given area.
Kelly
them as completely different things; each playing a specific role without which the body
dies, and that therefore we couldn't have evolved from simpler organisms, because how
could a human survive without a heart, or nervous system, or any other part of this
biological system. Is that about right then?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by KellyJayI will say this just one last time, because it's really annoying now: evolution is not about
For life to start, I believe we would agree that certain things must come
together properly, so all the right stuff must be there, nothing left out! It
isn't enough that they just mix either, because life requires certain things
to right handed, left handed, so they must come together in the proper
amounts too having to much of one and not enough of ano ...[text shortened]... and started
adding to and removing pieces of it as it is just minding its own business.
Kelly
non-life to life. Evolution is only about how life can change over time.
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessI'll second that. The transition from non life to life is a whole other scientific discipline, one that is still open obviously since as of yet science hasn't come up with life from non-life but that is NOT evolution. That is the study of life origins. You can't have evolution if you don't have life. That is a given. Evolution starts up AFTER there already are life forms to evolve.
I will say this just one last time, because it's really annoying now: evolution is not about
non-life to life. Evolution is only about how life can change over time.
AND you can't use the fact that we don't exactly know how life started as an argument against evolution. If we finally figure out how life can start from dead rocks and so forth, the goalpost would just get moved anyway, there is no winning that argument against creationists. It wouldn't matter HOW much evidence we show, creationists will ALWAYS go NAY NAY it doesn't work that way, GOD did it, PERIOD. No other way is acceptable, I don't care HOW much life you made in the laboratory. That is cheating.
THAT would be the argument if ever we show how life could have started going from water and ions or whatever and ending up with a new life form. It wouldn't matter to creationists. Not now, nor a thousand years from now, even given the next thousand years of solid scientific discovery and development, creationists will ALWAYS say NAY NAY, ONLY GOD CAN CREATE LIFE.
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess I'm confused.
My point exactly. Do you think that when Kelly said 'dog' he was including wolves? One would think he would have used a different word/phrase if that was the case.
So in one example, he was saying that you can't even cross a sub-species boundary, and in the other example he happily included over 150 000 species.
Glad to see that you are amused by his obvious lack of forethought.
Here's Kelly's original statement (which was in response to yours), from a few pages ago:
Don't you know that a wolf is the same kind of animal as a dog?
What did you think he meant when he used the term "kind," if not classification?
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessI know evolution is not non-life to life, I've used the word abiogenesis to
I will say this just one last time, because it's really annoying now: evolution is not about
non-life to life. Evolution is only about how life can change over time.
describe that part of the discussion. We have hit on both.
Kelly
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessI don't have a "problem", and yes a heart is different than a brain. I think
I think your problem is that you look at all the parts of a human body, say, and think of
them as completely different things; each playing a specific role without which the body
dies, and that therefore we couldn't have evolved from simpler organisms, because how
could a human survive without a heart, or nervous system, or any other part of this
biological system. Is that about right then?
when you don't have a heart or brain then certain things don't move along
properly till you get one. You don't just acquire the proper blood pressure
randomly either, if it is a hit and miss while that is going on, you die. They
work together because they are part of a living system.
Kelly
31 Jul 14
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI have to take several blood pressure pills to try to keep my resting blood pressure from getting too high. People like sunhouse doesn't help it either. Neither does my bad typing.
I don't have a "problem", and yes a heart is different than a brain. I think
when you don't have a heart or brain then certain things don't move along
properly till you get one. You don't just acquire the proper blood pressure
randomly either, if it is a hit and miss while that is going on, you die. They
work together because they are part of a living system.
Kelly
31 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI believe twhitehead was just being asinine on purpose.
I guess I'm confused.
Here's Kelly's original statement (which was in response to yours), from a few pages ago:
Don't you know that a wolf is the same kind of animal as a dog?
What did you think he meant when he used the term "kind," if not classification?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
31 Jul 14
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayGood, good. Now, we're getting somewhere. So, you believe that evolution between "kinds" requires that a complete organ develops first, then another and so on until they're all done? A human needs a heart, a liver, blood vessels, muscles, bones and so on, so which came first, and how did the organism survive until the other organs evolved? Yes, I can see how evolution seems impossible if that's how you think about it. Of course, that's not how it works, and I'm surprised you'd think that. Do you honestly believe that all scientists are that dumb and naïve? That they'd ignore a problem like that and move on assuming that such a thing can happen?
I don't have a "problem", and yes a heart is different than a brain. I think
when you don't have a heart or brain then certain things don't move along
properly till you get one. You don't just acquire the proper blood pressure
randomly either, if it is a hit and miss while that is going on, you die. They
work together because they are part of a living system.
Kelly
We can observe organisms from all walks of life today. Some with the most rudimentary brains, not much more than bundles of nerves, others with no brains at all. Some have circulatory systems without a heart, such as ants*. The heart is really only necessary as the organism grows bigger and more complex. You can find organisms everywhere today, that are somewhere in between having complex organs and not, and these organisms thrive. Eyeless to light-sensitive skincells, eyes that are little more than intrutions, pinhole eyes and so on all the way to our own complicated eyes. To then say that evolution is a fairytale because you couldn't have a human without a heart or whatever, is to completely ignore all this evidence thriving in nature as we speak, and to not get that we're talking small, progressive changes which means that never would you expect to find an organism as complex as a human but missing a vital organ.
The evidence that evolution works at its most basic assumption (small changes over time lead to big changes) are all around us, living and thriving today. The evidence that evolution is indeed happening can be found in the fossil record, our own genes and cellular makeup, and in the study of organisms living today where the only mechanism required for evolution to work can be directly observed - mutation between generations.
It's hardly a religious belief system if everything that evolution predicts can be directly observed in nature, now is it? I also would like to stress how different organs are not completely different from each other. They're all made up of the same kind of cells that carry the same DNA and the only difference between them is from which part of the DNA they were created.
Thankyouverymuch!
{Elvis has left the building}
* Sorry, ants have rudimentary hearts, but no blood vessels. They lack lungs too.
31 Jul 14
Originally posted by C HessI believe within kinds you are slightly altering an already established
Good, good. Now, we're getting somewhere. So, you believe that evolution between "kinds" requires that a complete organ develops first, then another and so on until they're all done? A human needs a heart, a liver, blood vessels, muscles, bones and so on, so which came first, and how did the organism survive until the other organs evolved? Yes, I can see how ...[text shortened]... m which part of the DNA they were created.
Thankyouverymuch!
{Elvis has left the building}
system, within which all the necessary things required for life are already
built in. Tinkering with these in the wrong way could end up in death, or
have some major illness take place, a defect in the wrong area could
take out vital organs or systems. If you alter things that do not run the
risk of ending a life you may end up with a different type of butterfly,
or a larger or smaller dog.
What you are suggesting is that a life form over time through random
mutation get very small changes that after awhile build up into a big
change. All the while not breaking or robbing any key organs or systems
already functioning properly. I've heard one comparison suggest it is
no different than adding gears that are not connected to anything inside
an old watch and excepting it to continue to work.
I would also point out these changes are not like someone just altering
a picture on a monitor, the changes take place within the DNA and they
are supposed to be random mutations. Random mutations can add too,
and take away, I don't see that as a possible driving force to build
complex systems within life.
Do I honestly believe that all scientist are dumb and naive, I do believe
those that want to believe in evolution will make the dots connect no
matter what. I do not believe seeing different creatures with different
types of eyes show one must of come from another. All that shows in my
opinion that there are different types of designs for the same function,
not that one which is simpler was here before another which is more
complex. I've never called evolution a fairytale, as I have admitted to
believing its real, why would I?
A true believer will just assume its real without questioning it, and I
guess you fit the bill.
Kelly
31 Jul 14
Originally posted by C Hess"* Sorry, ants have rudimentary hearts, but no blood vessels. They lack lungs too."
Good, good. Now, we're getting somewhere. So, you believe that evolution between "kinds" requires that a complete organ develops first, then another and so on until they're all done? A human needs a heart, a liver, blood vessels, muscles, bones and so on, so which came first, and how did the organism survive until the other organs evolved? Yes, I can see how ...[text shortened]... e building}
* Sorry, ants have rudimentary hearts, but no blood vessels. They lack lungs too.
What they do have works for that lifeform. Not sure what you are
suggesting here, or why? I bet if you took away from the ant those things
it does have that keeps it alive it would die.
Kelly
31 Jul 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, you are confused. That was not Kellys post, it was RJs. Kelly has consistently stuck with the word 'dog' throughout this thread and not given any further clarification.
[b]I guess I'm confused.
Here's Kelly's original statement (which was in response to yours), from a few pages ago:/b]
What did you think he meant when he used the term "kind," if not classification?
I don't think he knows himself. Its basically a flexible classification that has no set boundaries. So if I show that one organism has evolved from one to another, he can always say 'but they are the same kind, show me where one kind evolved to another'. Which of course is impossible because the 'kind' boundary is undefined. He can potentially claim that all life is one kind.
But his examples of 'kind' are on the one hand a subspecies, and on the other hand a group of over 150,000 species, suggesting he didn't think before he posted.
I can guarantee that he will never give an explicit definition of 'kind' and where its boundaries lie. Vagueness is Kellys hallmark debating strategy.