01 Jan 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you mean I've never seen a single cell turn into a blue whale then you're absolutely correct - I have never seen that. However, all the tennents of evolution ARE proven - genetic variation, speciation, mutation and extended time frames. The fossil record is essentially a series of snap shots of the way life was on earth throughout it's history. We can see the development of morphological body plans, and indeed even of groups of organisms (i.e. reptiles -> birds). True, we weren't there, but that doesn't mean that the information is not there. None of the tennents of god can ever be proven or disproven, only believed or not belived. That is the difference.
Trick or faith? You buy into the theory you have never seen do the
things you say to the degree you say happens, and when it is pointed
out to you...you refuse to acknowledge this and call into quesiton the
thing you do put your faith into. It is what you want here, the truth is
there no matter what. God isn't tricking anyone, you want to refuse
to ack ...[text shortened]... ant
and you will live and die with the results. As we all do with all of our
choices.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Jan 06
I dont see how evolution can be disproved. It is a logical consequence. It is even applied to enquiries outside of biology.
Given that
1. there is something that can vary (i.e. genes)
2. variation can arise
3. there is a pressure which selects efficacious variations (natural selection)
Then evolution will happen. it is inevitable.
Most ID proponents have stated that evolution is valid, however they belief it can't account for the complexity of life. Hence, it is the predictions of evolution that are being questioned not evolution. We can falsify predictions. To disprove ID we have to prove the the predictions
of evolution (i.e. that A evolved from B) and then prove a designer was
not responsible (which seems impossibe). The predictions of evoltuion can be falsified but ID cannot. Hence, evoltuion is scientific and ID
is not.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe fossil record doesn't come with little time stamps upon all the
If you mean I've never seen a single cell turn into a blue whale then you're absolutely correct - I have never seen that. However, all the tennents of evolution ARE proven - genetic variation, speciation, mutation and extended time frames. The fossil record is essentially a series of snap shots of the way life was on earth throughout it's history. We ...[text shortened]... god can ever be proven or disproven, only believed or not belived. That is the difference.
fossils getting the dates right, and even if they did, any attempt to
say you know what creature was related to another is pure guess work
on your part. As far as genetic variation, speciation, mutation and
so on, those would be true even if evolution didn't go from cell to
whale. You have nothing to show that changes within DNA actually
go to that degree outside of you saying so.
Kelly
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by KellyJayOne, fossil dating using isotopes would get the right order even if the absolute dates were wrong (for which there is no evidence, but plenty evidence that they are correct).
The fossil record doesn't come with little time stamps upon all the
fossils getting the dates right, and even if they did, any attempt to
say you know what creature was related to another is pure guess work
on your part. As far as genetic variation, speciation, mutation and
so on, those would be true even if evolution didn't go from cell to
whale. You ...[text shortened]... g to show that changes within DNA actually
go to that degree outside of you saying so.
Kelly
Two, pure guess work? Not exactly, you can tell alot about an organism from its bone sturcture. In my finals of my biology degree we had to classify a Boa constrictor skull based on the bone morphology. If two organisms have similar bone structures, let's say a fused dentary we can tell it's a mammal, not a reptile for example. Paleontologists classify things typically using multiple identifiers.
I don't even understand what you are talking about with your final sentence. I think you mean that DNA sequence does not privde evidence of evolution between cells and whales?
If so, WRONG. Every step is there - you just need to look in a clever enough way. Gene homology shows alot of similarity between all eukaryotes. Genes are not identical between species, but we can group organisms into more and less alike based only on genetic differences. It's called cladistic analysis.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzTalking to some people is like blowing on soup still in the pot, still on the stove, heat set to high.
One, fossil dating using isotopes would get the right order even if the absolute dates were wrong (for which there is no evidence, but plenty evidence that they are correct).
Two, pure guess work? Not exactly, you can tell alot about an organism from its bone sturcture. In my finals of my biology degree we had to classify a Boa constrictor sk ...[text shortened]... into more and less alike based only on genetic differences. It's called cladistic analysis.
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs far as my last sentence, evolution does not go from a single cell
One, fossil dating using isotopes would get the right order even if the absolute dates were wrong (for which there is no evidence, but plenty evidence that they are correct).
Two, pure guess work? Not exactly, you can tell alot about an organism from its bone sturcture. In my finals of my biology degree we had to classify a Boa constrictor sk ...[text shortened]... into more and less alike based only on genetic differences. It's called cladistic analysis.
to a whale over time. Sorry it has been something I have been saying
for awhile.
I have no doubt you can tell a lot from organism from its bone
structure, and in addition you can classify many things that look alike
in some manner or another, I guess when you ID something it is
okay to do so to prove your point, ID being identify whatever it is you
are looking at.
Kelly
02 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzLike I told you before, You think Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution and adaption, It is not!
If you mean I've never seen a single cell turn into a blue whale then you're absolutely correct - I have never seen that. However, all the tennents of evolution ARE proven - genetic variation, speciation, mutation and extended time frames. The fossil record is essentially a series of snap shots of the way life was on earth throughout it's history. We god can ever be proven or disproven, only believed or not belived. That is the difference.
Microevolution
"Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."8
The formation of new subspecies does not conflict with creation. The problem arises when "microevolution" is extended to macroevolution.
When people speak of microevolution, they often use it as evidence for evolution in general. For example, US News and World Report, in a feature article by Thomas Hayden called, "A Theory Evolves", states in large letters,
"By now scientists say evolution is no longer ‘just a theory.’ It’s an everyday phenomenon, a fundamental fact of biology as real as hunger and as unavoidable as death."9
This statement of evolution being "as real as hunger and as unavoidable as death" is about adaptation, not macroevolution. No one observed the evolution of fish to amphibians or how reptiles (or dinosaurs) evolved the ability to fly! That’s confusing the issue; therefore, to avoid such confusion, the word "adaptation" will be used in regard to small changes.
Macroevolution
"Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups."
This is what evolutionists must prove, not microevolution or adaptation, which we all agree occurs in nature. Confusion reigns when biological adaptation is given as proof for macroevolution.
Here are 5 factors why Macro evolution is inpossable,
http://www.proving-it.com/bcell2.htm
There hasnt been one case where scientist made a living cell from nothing, even from the perfect conditions with all our technology, and there hasnt been one case where scientist made a cell more complex, and remember, making it more adaptive is not making it more complex,
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by flyUnityFirst of all "adaptions" lead to macroevolution. It is the accummulation of "adaptions" that leads to new organisms.
Like I told you before, You think Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution and adaption, It is not!
Microevolution
"Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."8
The formation of new subspecies does not conflict with creation. The problem arises when "microevo ...[text shortened]... more complex, and remember, making it more adaptive is not making it more complex,
Second of all macroevolution has been proved. Kind of. It really depends how strongly you are persuaded by the evidence. The theory of evolution is true. It cannot be refuted. However problems arise when we use evolution to speculate on the origins and development of life. When we look at a fossil from 10,000 years ago and we an animal with similar bone structure to one
already existing we can infer that it evolved into the present day animal. What more evidence do you need? No scientist can sit for 10, 000 years to watch macroevolution happen.
Nor have you clearly defined the difference between marco and micro evolution except that macroevolution has more adaptions and micro- has less. There is no evidence available either to to suggest that one species cannot become another over time (generations). So if you accept microevolution why can't you accept macroevolution?
Thirdly, just because life hasn't been "created" in a laboratory doesn't mean it can't be. A cell is the sum of all its components. Vitalism was disproved 200 years ago. There is no "vital' substance that a cell requires to exist. It does not transcend the laws of chemistry and physics. However scientists have suceeded in making adaptions to cells. Complexity is completely irrelevant to evolution. Evolution has no direction. It doesn't lead to complexity or intelligence. Sometimes a simplicity is better. Macroevolution is the accummulation of microevolutions. Wow, someones done a number on you!
02 Jan 06
Originally posted by flyUnityPlease explain what mechanism prevents the accumulation of ';micro'-evolutionary changes over time acting as a 'macro'-evolutionary change.
Like I told you before, You think Macro evolution is the same as Micro evolution and adaption, It is not!
Microevolution
"Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."8
The formation of new subspecies does not conflict with creation. The problem arises when "microevo ...[text shortened]... more complex, and remember, making it more adaptive is not making it more complex,
By the way, your 'five factors' website is laughable. Please don't humilificate yourself by posting such crap.
03 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzPost him a spring loaded bible that will jump up and twat him round the head. Any other approach in pointless with these people.
I'm just sick of going round and round with Fly whilst he brings up the same objections that I showed were wrong 5 minutes previously.