12 Dec 05
Here are some fairly well known examples of speciation:
Between 1958 and 1963 a new species of Drosophila was artificially created using selection in the lab. (The guy's name was Dobzhansky I think if you want to look it up).
The famous cichlid fish species that were seperated from their original lake about 4000 years ago.
The Faeroe Island mouse, it was brought to the island 250 years ago and is now a seperate species from the common house mouse that was brought over.
And of course, there is the current example of flies that infect hawthorn trees and more recently apple trees, which we believe is speciation in action right now.
Plus how do you explain the fossil record or things like the human tail or the egg tooth on egg-laying mammals, which do not need it.
Why would it be more probable to assume that God is just playing tricks on us to convince us of common decent instead of just looking at where the evidence points.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by TetsujinI don't think 'Hijacked by evolutionists' is really a fair comment. This is merely the direction that the forum has taken. Feel free to start another on a more clearly defined topic...
I didn't state my position on the matter. Rather, I availed myself as a mediator and chose to remain as one who can be consulted for matters regarding the aforementioned faiths.
Once again, someone on this site assumes I have said something I have not. It does get tiresome. 🙁
In retrospect, if I had known this discussion would soon be hijacked by ev ...[text shortened]... and I should have, I might have added that to my list as well.
Too late for that I suppose...
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe one I was thinking of was MRSA, Staphlococcus aureus that is now resistant to basically all the antibiotics that we currently have (there are still a couple). The chances of a single Staph microbe getting all those mutations to allow it that immunity to anitbiotics is higher than all the Staph a. microbes that have ever or will ever exist. But, no, not the way ot happened. The Staph a. microbes picked up immunity to the antibiotics one at a time, when the selection pressure was that antibiotic. i.e. Staph a. infects a host. The host is treated with, say, amphicillin. Most of the bacteria are killed but a couple have a mutation that allows them to survive. These bacteria multiply and now represent a new, amphillicin resistant strain. And so on.
Here are some fairly well known examples of speciation:
Between 1958 and 1963 a new species of Drosophila was artificially created using selection in the lab. (The guy's name was Dobzhansky I think if you want to look it up).
The famous cichlid fish species that were seperated from their original lake about 4000 years ago.
The Faeroe Island mou ...[text shortened]... icks on us to convince us of common decent instead of just looking at where the evidence points.
Unfortunately because microbes don't exhibit sexual reproduction, and can swap DNA about randomly between partners of the same or different species (via plasmids) we aren't going to see speciation. Never mind.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, I believe there is now a strain with resistance to everything, even tetracyline which was what worked on most MRSA strains for a while. It is an excellent point that selection makes things possible that wouldn't work through straight, unselective probability that creationists seem to think we are talking about. I do feel the need to point out that one mutation, the ability to create beta-lactamase, breaks apart a carbon ring that is common to many antibiotics. So the same mutation does provide resistance against penicillin, ampicillin, and the cephalosporins.
The one I was thinking of was MRSA, Staphlococcus aureus that is now resistant to basically all the antibiotics that we currently have (there are still a couple). The chances of a single Staph microbe getting all those mutations to allow it that immunity to anitbiotics is higher than all the Staph a. microbes that have ever or will ever exist. But, no ...[text shortened]... of the same or different species (via plasmids) we aren't going to see speciation. Never mind.
Also, bacteria do have conjugation, where one cell forms a conjugation pillus which it attaches to the other cell and transfers DNA directly. This is often thought of as the bacterial equivalent of sex.
You make a good point, but for some reason bacteria do not count with creationists because it is just "microevolution" and they think there is some difference that allows them to admit that it happens in bacteria but they think they can refuse to believe evolution on a larger scale.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt is still between the ears, you see a set of bones, you give it a
Well, for example, most people complain about the lack of missing links, however two spring to mind. Archaeopteryx, with characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs, and the Coelacanths - fish with proto-legs. Look them up.
The thing that differentiates science from belief is that we use physical evidence to make our predictions, such as the use of radioactive decay in dating things, the fossil record etc.
name and say it is this or that, you connect the dots as you think
they should to be connected. It is all between the ears, we both
are applying our beliefs using our foundational world views to look
at and judge reality as we see it. I don't have issue one with science
and rely on it daily, but it can only take us so far. The distant past
is a place where it is all faith and belief, logic can be used, but the
results cannot be proven right or wrong, only accepted as possible
or to the completely gullible, factual.
Kelly
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, accepting facts that have been proven and reproven is considered to be gullable, but believing not only everything you read in one single book, but also that the world was created in six days by an old man with a big beard living in the clouds isn't?
[b]It is still between the ears, you see a set of bones, you give it a
name and say it is this or that, you connect the dots as you think
they should to be connected. It is all between the ears, we both
are applying our beliefs using our foundational world views to look
at and judge reality as we see it. I don't have issue one with science
and rely on it ...[text shortened]... be proven right or wrong, only accepted as possible
or to the completely gullible, factual.
Kelly
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzFacts, what facts? I accept there are fossils, what you claim is true
So, accepting facts that have been proven and reproven is considered to be gullable, but believing not only everything you read in one single book, but also that the world was created in six days by an old man with a big beard living in the clouds isn't?
about those fossils are not necessarily facts as it fits in reality, but
instead what you say about those fossils are simply your views about
them nothing more. To be honest you must even say that if you get
new data, something else to add to the equation, you must adjust
your 'facts' to fit reality. Which means even your views are not on
solid ground, but instead are all simply what people think about
certain things, today.
Kelly
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayOur ideas change, yes. As new data comes in we review our position - that's what makes science strong. The bible doesn't review, even when evidence is presented that doesn't reconcile with the bible. Look, I've defended science throughly, and indeed these arguments before. I can't be bothered to do it again, especially when you simply don't seem to be listening to me.
Facts, what facts? I accept there are fossils, what you claim is true
about those fossils are not necessarily facts as it fits in reality, but
instead what you say about those fossils are simply your views about
them nothing more. To be honest you must even say that if you get
new data, something else to add to the equation, you must adjust
your 'fact ...[text shortened]...
solid ground, but instead are all simply what people think about
certain things, today.
Kelly
Radioactive decay is constant - this has been proven time after time after time. The science is sound, it's predictions are sound. From the fosssil record we can date when birds evolved, and it was after land animals. Based on the ratio's of hydrogen to helium in the sun we can work out its age. Nothing in your argument is going to change any of that.
You are completely unwilling to accept multiply verified streams of evidence. Why? Because it doesn't say so in your book? Come on!
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAdjusting your position to make sense when new evidence shows up is just smart. Refusing to do so is what makes one's position weak. What people think about things today, when they look at and weigh all the evidence, seems a lot better than just listening to what people thought about things a few thousand years ago when lightning and clouds and rain and leprosy were all thought to be just acts of god.
Facts, what facts? I accept there are fossils, what you claim is true
about those fossils are not necessarily facts as it fits in reality, but
instead what you say about those fossils are simply your views about
them nothing more. To be honest you must even say that if you get
new data, something else to add to the equation, you must adjust
your 'fact ...[text shortened]...
solid ground, but instead are all simply what people think about
certain things, today.
Kelly
And scientific theories and hypothesises are changed when new evidence is discovered. But laws are never changed, they are simply observations of what is going on with no attempt to explain why. We have a theory for why carbon-14 decays at a constant rate, but it is an irrefutable fact that it does decay at this rate. That is not something that will change with evidence, merely our explanation of why (although we have a pretty good idea in this specific case, I'm just saying it isn't set in stone).
So we have fossils that date to before you say the earth existed. Please explain this, or explain why you think we can just ignore observed facts here.
13 Dec 05
There are three main arguments that point towards the existance of God.
The Cosmological Argument
The Anthropic Principle
The Argument from Religious Experience.
It is quite ignorant to say that you state that God does not exist when you clearly have not undertaken research, if you look at these principles and you still do not believe in God then fair enough.
But for all of the people who think that only idiots believe in God, two of the most intellegent people I know do. They are Dr. Peter Vardy (Vice-Principal of Heythorpe College) and The Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by smokeymcpot420Well, I is not beleevin in no gods neether, but in dont meen that you and I is igorunt, pal. I fink we is wickid cleva, and all, an I reckon the wrest of yous is just bleedin' stoopid, init! These uther geezers is just kiddin demselves! Dey is so igorant!
Cmon all iam an anthist not cuziam ignorant but cuz I no theres no god and there no proof so give me proof and i shall be set free!lol but really there is no god!
I is finkin we do be representin for the old skool of intemulectuals who is all anthist and all.
[b]Word, bruvva! Respec!
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by MRobertsOkay, so hit us with your arguments (btw I've already discredited the Anthropic principle, read the thread through) and we'll respond with our counter arguments. That's the way a debate works my friend. And trust me, citing your friends means nothing. Of all the scientists I know I only know one who is religious, and he's not even creationist in out look! (I don't like to drag their names in without their consent, but happily will if necessary).
There are three main arguments that point towards the existance of God.
The Cosmological Argument
The Anthropic Principle
The Argument from Religious Experience.
It is quite ignorant to say that you state that God does not exist when you clearly have not undertaken research, if you look at these principles and you still do not believe in God then fa ...[text shortened]... ey are Dr. Peter Vardy (Vice-Principal of Heythorpe College) and The Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnthropic principles fall quite short of any sort of proof, it's much the same as most of darwin's early work.
Okay, so hit us with your arguments (btw I've already discredited the Anthropic principle, read the thread through) and we'll respond with our counter arguments. That's the way a debate works my friend. And trust me, citing your friends means nothing. Of all the scientists I know I only know one who is religious, and he's not even creationist in ...[text shortened]... k! (I don't like to drag their names in without their consent, but happily will if necessary).
That is to say, you use the same observations used to create the hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
Although, evolution has gotten better at that over the years.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by TetsujinIndeed, evolutionary theory has itself evolved as new information (a selection pressure, selecting for the ideas that fit the real world better than previous ideas) has become available.
Anthropic principles fall quite short of any sort of proof, it's much the same as most of darwin's early work.
That is to say, you use the same observations used to create the hypothesis to prove the hypothesis.
Although, evolution has gotten better at that over the years.