TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Samoan Butterflies Evolving Fast / Butterfly shows evolution at work
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Ok you win.

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN excuse me? could you give us ANY examples of creationists engaged in anything but?? creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists. sounds like you've spent too long in those US museums that claim man existed around the same time as dinosaurs

While I know creationists are pursuing a ridiculous agenda (religion, sigh), I don't see why something of this degree of entropic enthalpy couldn't have been partly devised by some sort of "intelligence". I only use the word intelligence because whatever it is obviously will defy any vocabulary we could fathom up. At the same time, maybe not. Who knows?

Keep in mind that we are reverse engineering existence through the pivotal perspective of our own minds. Thus, in itself, we inadvertently and constantly change the medium which we study.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'de love to debate whale evolution. I'll start.. Please list the transitional speciation of the whale from a land-dwelling creature to that of a completely sea-borne animal. Is this correct?

He is.

Whales ancestors were actually land dwelling cows.Whale DNAs are very similar to cows u get ur milk from.

and if u want proof from fossils..then start looking for old tar pits and start digging asshole.

u know how hard it is to fossilize ur bones? It takes SHEER luck to have your bones last for millions of years.

I'm not going into the actual process. You are a numbskull and I really hope u find ur 'god' someday.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN excuse me? could you give us ANY examples of creationists engaged in anything but?? creationists = holocaust deniers = 9/11 conspiracy theorists. sounds like you've spent too long in those US museums that claim man existed around the same time as dinosaurs

LOL!!

Creationists don't deny they are advocating a theistic view of the origins of the universe. You failed to understand the statement pertained to evolutionists denial that their theory is based on assumptions just like the creationists assumption of a Creator being. For evolution to be true, one must assume life came about by random processes. Science is guided by the scientific method, of which niether creationism or evolution can be proven by the scientific method alone. The only way to prove either theory is by taking on their assumptions: either there is a Creator/ or / the Cosmos itself is responsible for our origins. Science is not based on assumptions.

quote:

First off, are you going to acknowledge that you are essentially ripping your documentation entirely from Harun Yahya, the Turkish Creationist otherwise known as Adnan_Oktar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar He's a very talented fellow in his own right, unfortunately his talent is almost exclusively plagiarizing from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) as well as threatening people in his own country who believe in anything but creationism: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._12_30_1899.asp Furthermore, this same interestin fellow and his network also depicts Darwinism as the true "ideological root" of terrorism: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php So if this is the guy you're laying you're bed with, best of luck. But let's take a look at your/his claim anyway:

I use several sources in my debates. Whatever the personal views of my sources are doesn't concern me. It is the substance of the arguements they present, and if they are useful, I'll use them.

quote:

So you see that your author changed a few things from the original article such as changing turtles to tortoises (thereby making it look more terrestrial), and claiming that snails and crocodiles are purely terrestrial (which some snail species are but not the ones mentioned). Furthermore, I emphasized that the sediments these fossils were found in are fluvial, i.e. river beds (and therefore NOT terrestrial). Are you beginning to understand why you need to have a more critical view of the sources you are using from creationists? So Pakicetus wasn't entirely fully aquatic as our modern day whales, and Gingrich's article also demonstrates the fossils were found in sediments deposited in fresh water, not just associated with terrestrial mammals but also with aquatic invertebrates and amphibious invertebrates. So if we go with a prediction of whales arising from land animals, then we would have to conclude that their ancestors arose from land with 4 legs with characteristics that were depicted here, and that is exactly what we find with Pakicetus.

Great demonstration of how assumptions work to prove evolutionary theory. When Pakicetus inachus was first found, all Mr. Gengrich had was a posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. Yet, he claimed this creature as the ancestor of the whales, when even with a complete skeleton, there is no link between the creature and whales. Are you going to say that two completely different systems somehow are related, especially when saying a wolf-like animal (relatively small) evolved into a gigantic animal totally suited for life in the open ocean, NOT flaviul riverbed environments. We have hundreds of millions of fossils, and should find no difficulty finding clear relationships between kinds. Pakicetus inachus, even if found in riverbed material does not prove ANYTHING. Evolutionists were declaring this a missing link before a complete skeleton was even found.

Can we demonstrate in a laboratory that fully functional land-dwelling animals can evolve into fully functional open-ocean dwelling animals? No, and never.

quote:

That's a "God excuse"? Actually every single researcher I've ever known simply points me to the primary literature and says, "read". Funny you should argue that.

I don't argue this, evolutionists do. When asked to demonstrate complete transitions between species through scientific methodology, "The process takes millions of years." is the excuse to explain why they can't demonstrate this assumed process (species level) here and now in the laboratory environment.

quote:

Ummm, there's more than just a "few": http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html And that doesn't even touch the plants or microorganisms.

From my point of view, these so-called transitional fossils are all fully functional animals in their own right whose species is either extinct or living. If extinct, they do not pass on their genes, so no transition to another species is possible. If not, they should still be alive, and demonstrate here and now that they are transitional.

quote:

Gullible indeed. Perhaps you should actually read Gould and others similar to him before finding those creationists who deliberately distort and misrepresent his works for their own personal propaganda.

When it comes down to it, I believe in a Creator being, and universal purpose. I'll always argue this point of view. Everyone starts at a basic assumption of which everything else they believe comes from. I've just chosen to believe that we did not come about by unguided, random change that somehow brought together an infinite number of systems into one inter-dependant system. I simply cannot ever see how there could not be a Creator.

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy and if u want proof from fossils..then start looking for old tar pits and start digging asshole. u know how hard it is to fossilize ur bones? It takes SHEER luck to have your bones last for millions of years. I'm not going into the actual process. You are a numbskull and I really hope u find ur 'god' someday.

So now, I'm an asshole?

Where's Lira?

To answer your semi ad hominem argument, we have hundreds of millions of fossils with over 100 years to study them. By now, there should be at least one clear cut laboratory demonstrated lineage that cannot be denied. We are hardly there.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton When it comes down to it, I believe in a Creator being, and universal purpose. I'll always argue this point of view. Everyone starts at a basic assumption of which everything else they believe comes from. I've just chosen to believe that we did not come about by unguided, random change that somehow brought together an infinite number of systems into one inter-dependant system. I simply cannot ever see how there could not be a Creator.

Just don't forget that the reason humans have a nose bridGe is because we frolicked in the sea for a few million years

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL!! Creationists don't deny they are advocating a theistic view of the origins of the universe. You failed to understand the statement pertained to evolutionists denial that their theory is based on assumptions just like the creationists assumption of a Creator being. For evolution to be true, one must assume life came about by random processes. Science is guided by the scientific method, of which niether creationism or evolution can be proven by the scientific method alone. The only way to prove either theory is by taking on their assumptions: either there is a Creator/ or / the Cosmos itself is responsible for our origins. Science is not based on assumptions.

wrong. scientists base their assumptions upon EVIDENCE. creationism is based upon myopic religious dogma. completely different kettles of fish. which is why creationism isnt taught in the science classroom.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wrong. scientists base their assumptions upon EVIDENCE. creationism is based upon myopic religious dogma. completely different kettles of fish. which is why creationism isnt taught in the science classroom.

One huge assumption you might of forgot about was, "Life arose from non-living matter." If this is the case, why hasn't it happened again and again over all these billions of years, and why hasn't it ever been demonstrated in a laboratory? Putting together useless amino acids in a test tube does not constitute a proof of spontaneous life generation.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton One huge assumption you might of forgot about was, "Life arose from non-living matter." If this is the case, why hasn't it happened again and again over all these billions of years, and why hasn't it ever been demonstrated in a laboratory? Putting together useless amino acids in a test tube does not constitute a proof of spontaneous life generation.

its interesting you keep harping on about "proof". pretty laughable coming from a theist mate.

i'll post this again for your reading pleasure

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

pointing at supposed "holes" in evolution is not giving credence to any alternative theory. evolution stands up to much more rigorous scientific inquiry than ANYTHING creationists have had to offer. so until you can provide a more compelling and plausible position, supported by as much evidence as evolution is, you've got absolutely nothing to be complaining about.

the entire world is still waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL!! Creationists don't deny they are advocating a theistic view of the origins of the universe. You failed to understand the statement pertained to evolutionists denial that their theory is based on assumptions just like the creationists assumption of a Creator being. For evolution to be true, one must assume life came about by random processes.

Let's make sure we are speaking the same language before we go any further:

Do you understand the concept of abiogenesis?

Do you understand the concept of biological evolution?

Now, you realize that the former is NOT related to the latter?

I really think this is important for us to get down before we move on. So please respond with your understand of these two when you have a chance.

quote:

Science is guided by the scientific method, of which niether creationism or evolution can be proven by the scientific method alone.

Are you sure you understand evolution well enough? Do you have any knowledge of what researchers do with methodological naturalism (via the scientific method) that demonstrates the factual basis of a change of allele frequencies in a population over time via the known mechanisms of mutation and natural selection? Because this what appear that you do not.

quote:

The only way to prove either theory is by taking on their assumptions: either there is a Creator/ or / the Cosmos itself is responsible for our origins. Science is not based on assumptions.

Hmmm, where have I heard this "assumptions" argument before?:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=2

You're welcome to continue on that thread with our discussion "assumptions" if you like. Or if you've actually read it in full and still have difficulties, feel free to discuss those here. Otherwise I'd prefer not to cover ground that's been discussed in very explicit detail before.

quote:

I use several sources in my debates. Whatever the personal views of my sources are doesn't concern me. It is the substance of the arguements they present, and if they are useful, I'll use them.

Judging by the arguments presented with one of your sources that I flushed out, one would hope you examine their arguments with a bit more scrutiny prior to using them.

quote:

Great demonstration of how assumptions work to prove evolutionary theory. When Pakicetus inachus was first found, all Mr. Gengrich had was a posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. Yet, he claimed this creature as the ancestor of the whales, when even with a complete skeleton, there is no link between the creature and whales.

Hmmm, I see. You do realize that there is a great amount of information that can be told from a skull, right? Let's take an initial look at the Pakicetus skull:



Now compare that to the skull of a modern-day false killer whale:



and now compare to that of a modern german shepherd:



Which one does it look like to you?

Some more discussion on the aquatic features:

quote:

Most interesting are two partial innominates that together show the ilium to have been shorter than the ischium (Thewissen et al. 2001: p. 277 and Fig. 1n ). Length of the ilium is the most important determinant of the PC-II score reflecting aquatic adaptation (Tables 6 , 7 , Figs. 3 �6 ), and an innominate with a short ilium implies that Pakicetus was much more aquatic than a tapir. Gingrich, Philip D. (2003). Land-to-sea transition in early whales: evolution of Eocene Archaeoceti (Cetacea) in relation to skeletal proportions and locomotion of living semiaquatic mammals. Paleobiology: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 429�454.

That paper is in response to this:

quote:

Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...l/413277a0.html

More on the tapir:

quote:

Nearly always found near water, the Brazilian tapir is a good swimmer and diver but also moves fast on land, even over rugged, mountainous country http://mbgnet.mobot.org/sets/rforest/animals/tapir.htm

IOW, what we're seeing here is Pakicetus is demonstrating exactly what we would expect from the early transition from land to sea - primitive features of cetaceans that also lived around the water.

More here as well:

quote:

Some features of the pakicetid skull (Figure 2a) suggest an amphibious lifestyle; the eyes, for instance, are on top of the skull. ...The skull of Pakicetus has orbits that are high on the side of the skull and face up, or dorsally (Figure 9) . This placement is unique among cetaceans and is similar to that in crocodiles. Dorsally facing orbits help submerged crocodiles in watching potential prey items above the water. THEWISSEN, J. G. M., BAJPAI, SUNIL. Whale Origins as a Poster Child for Macroevolution. BioScience: Vol. 51, No. 12, pp. 1037�1049.

Now if you have peer-reviewed primary literature that supports your claims that Pakicetus is terrestrial only, I'd love to see them. There are most certainly terrestrial features (tympanic membrane, no pressure from pressure changes in the ear, molars similar to mesonychids), but we also have the aquatic features as well (features mentioned previously plus the other teeth similar to later cetaceans like premolars, whale-like sagittal skull crest, narrow braincase, and jaws more elongated) - hence a wonderful transition with a semi-aquatic animal.

quote:

Are you going to say that two completely different systems somehow are related, especially when saying a wolf-like animal (relatively small) evolved into a gigantic animal totally suited for life in the open ocean, NOT flaviul riverbed environments.

I don't have to say anything - the data clearly depicts that just fine.

quote:

We have hundreds of millions of fossils, and should find no difficulty finding clear relationships between kinds.

1. Define "kinds". Be specific in your description

2. What's your point?

quote:

Pakicetus inachus, even if found in riverbed material does not prove ANYTHING.

Because you say so? Or is there other positive verifiable evidence that somehow repudiates it better than your word?

But if your incredulity simply does not allow you to examine the aquatic features of the skull, then can you tell me what it is and why it shares features to that of both aquatic AND terrestrial critters?

quote:

Evolutionists were declaring this a missing link before a complete skeleton was even found.

One does not need a complete skeleton to deduce common features of the skull with certain aquatic critters. It really isn't that difficult.

quote:

Can we demonstrate in a laboratory that fully functional land-dwelling animals can evolve into fully functional open-ocean dwelling animals? No, and never.

If we could, that would be a tremendous falsification to evolution. You do understand this concept, right? It's the basic tenet of evolution with the known mechanism of mutation and natural selection. Such mutations combined with the process of natural selection does not simply occur with a "poof!" that delineates in such a drastic manner that you are desperately hoping for to supposedly "prove" evolution. That simply does not occur along such a short timeline. Sorry.

quote:

I don't argue this, evolutionists do. When asked to demonstrate complete transitions between species through scientific methodology, "The process takes millions of years." is the excuse to explain why they can't demonstrate this assumed process (species level) here and now in the laboratory environment.

You do realize that evolutionary researchers are not confined to their laboratories, right?

I'm just curious - how do you personally define "macroevolution"?

And why is the thought of evolution taking so gosh darn long so gosh darn difficult for you to accept?

quote:

From my point of view, these so-called transitional fossils are all fully functional animals in their own right whose species is either extinct or living.

No problems with me on that. Agree 100%.

quote:

If extinct, they do not pass on their genes, so no transition to another species is possible.

I think you're confusing yourself a bit here with the concept of extinction. The reason why a given critter population is extinct is NOT because it could not pass on its genes to future populations, but because that given population simply could not hack it out in its given environment or got outcompeted in its environment.

It seems that you're representing the concept of extinction purely in biological/genetic thoughts without the fundamental influence of the surrounding environment as well.

quote:

If not, they should still be alive, and demonstrate here and now that they are transitional.

Oh dear. That's a horribly erroneous thought, but let's go with it for a moment. If we are to assume that these "transitional" species that are now extinct are somehow still alive today, why would they have gone extinct in the first place?

Can you not see that basic contradiction in the logic? How could an extinct transitional fossil demonstrate itself to be a transition by being alive? Or to ask another question along those same lines - what compels you to think that a transition species MUST be alive today in order to aptly demonstrate it is a transition?

It kinda defeats the purpose of being a "transition", does it not? If it were indeed a live "transition", then it would no longer be extinct, correct?

And as Neo pointed out it would do you a bit more credit to know a bit more about speciation before arguing further on this point:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

quote:

When it comes down to it, I believe in a Creator being, and universal purpose.

Because the positive, verifiable and falsifiable evidence points to such? Can you give some examples that verify this, or are we simply going on unfounded beliefs? Because quite honestly I really don't appreciate inserting unsupported beliefs in the realm of methodological naturalism whenever one sees fit.

quote:

I'll always argue this point of view.

Suit yourself. We'll continue to wait for the positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence that demonstrates your argument.

quote:

Everyone starts at a basic assumption of which everything else they believe comes from.

What was the "assumption" again of evolution that you seemingly keep referring to? I guess I'm a little confused at what you call an "assumption." Are you referring to dating methodology? If so, explain.

Genetics and molecular biology? If so, explain.

Paleontological evidence? If so, explain.

quote:

I've just chosen to believe that we did not come about by unguided, random change that somehow brought together an infinite number of systems into one inter-dependant system. I simply cannot ever see how there could not be a Creator.

Terrific. Now tell me, what exactly differentiates your belief from that of my personal God, the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks!?:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...+cookie+monster

Or the Incredible Flying Spaghetti Monster?:

http://www.venganza.org/

How does one differentiate the two with positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence? Please explain.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton One huge assumption you might of forgot about was, "Life arose from non-living matter." If this is the case, why hasn't it happened again and again over all these billions of years, and why hasn't it ever been demonstrated in a laboratory? Putting together useless amino acids in a test tube does not constitute a proof of spontaneous life generation.

Again, let's make sure you understand the difference between abiogenesis and biological evolution. You do realize that these concepts are quite different, correct?

It's a very common misconception to combine the two together for creationists to label as "evolution."

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its interesting you keep harping on about "proof". pretty laughable coming from a theist mate. i'll post this again for your reading pleasure pointing at supposed "holes" in evolution is not giving credence to any alternative theory. evolution stands up to much more rigorous scientific inquiry than ANYTHING creationists have had to offer. so until you can provide a more compelling and plausible position, supported by as much evidence as evolution is, you've got absolutely nothing to be complaining about. the entire world is still waiting.

The alternative is a universe designed, created, and set into motion by a Creator being. The universe is fine-tuned, shown by the fact that if the cosmological constant was changed by just a small amount, carbon would never have formed, and niether carbon-based life. Now, life arising from anything other than carbon has never been demonstrated, because we've never found life anywhere else. So, so far, we can say that life must be carbon-based. This is better explained in the idea of Anthropic Princple.

We know the universe has a beginning, including a start point for time and the expansion of space. New theoretical theories (M theory, sting theory) of physics are discovering alternate realities outside of own space and time. It's mathematically proven.

We know the universe is decaying in entropy, devolving on a cosmological scale.

We know the universe is packed full of information on seemingly infinite scale. Where does this information come from? Why is there a limit to the speed information travels? Why can't we access the information of other "branes" or from places outside the visible universe? What set these limits, placed the variables in the right place, for even matter to form. Information does not spontaneously put itself together?

Evolution is actually the alternative to the common-held belief through countless generations of human that this reality is derived from an intelligent source. Only in the last 200 years has darwinism become the alternative to the traditional theory of origins, of which several of the greatest scientific minds since Newton believed in anthropic principle and some of its implications. So pointing out all the inherent flaws in evolution does point credance to the traditional alternative to evolution. I'm not saying, religion explains it all. But as I've researched evidence presented, it points me to some mysterious intelligence outside of our container of space/time and is responsible for the existance of the fundamental parameters or laws of physics.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Again, let's make sure you understand the difference between abiogenesis and biological evolution. You do realize that these concepts are quite different, correct? It's a very common misconception to combine the two together for creationists to label as "evolution."

So, how does evolutionary theory suppose how life arose from non-living matter (which has never been documented in a lab)?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So, how does evolutionary theory suppose how life arose from non-living matter (which has never been documented in a lab)?

It doesn't - exactly my point. The concept of abiogenesis (life from non-life) is separate and distinct from evolution (change of allele frequencies in a population over time). Evolution research does not touch abiognesis research, nor should it.

Granted, there might be some similar ideas with abiogenesis (i.e. possible mutation events in amino acids of sorts), but the research albeit very interesting in abiogenesis is both distinctly separate and very incomplete (to the nth degree of incompleteness compared to evolutionary research).

So the comparison of life creation you are creating by lumping these two concepts together and calling them "evolution" versus a theistic involvement of some sort is incorrect on those grounds.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The alternative is a universe designed, created, and set into motion by a Creator being.

i know what the alternative is, the point im making is you have exactly ZERO evidence to support it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The universe is fine-tuned, shown by the fact that if the cosmological constant was changed by just a small amount, carbon would never have formed, and niether carbon-based life. Now, life arising from anything other than carbon has never been demonstrated, because we've never found life anywhere else. So, so far, we can say that life must be carbon-based. This is better explained in the idea of Anthropic Princple.

this is a typical fallacy you find repeated by the theist. it takes the form "life exists, therefore god does". there are innumerable, precise conditions that must have arisen to grant life on planet earth. this does not equal design. who knows how many universes exist/have existed where the parameters were not conducive to life? its the same argument regarding the very particular positioning of earth around the sun, yet theists seem to ignore the billions of galaxies, billions of stars, and presumably, billions of planets.

quote:

We know the universe is packed full of information on seemingly infinite scale. Where does this information come from? Why is there a limit to the speed information travels? Why can't we access the information of other "branes" or from places outside the visible universe? What set these limits, placed the variables in the right place, for even matter to form. Information does not spontaneously put itself together?

so who created god then? surely a being with as much information as god must therefore have been put together by something else. and who but that being together etc?

quote:

Evolution is actually the alternative to the common-held belief through countless generations of human that this reality is derived from an intelligent source. Only in the last 200 years has darwinism become the alternative to the traditional theory of origins, of which several of the greatest scientific minds since Newton believed in anthropic principle and some of its implications.

irrelevant. that's like saying computer don't exist coz they're a recently recent "discovery".

quote:

So pointing out all the inherent flaws in evolution does point credance to the traditional alternative to evolution. I'm not saying, religion explains it all. But as I've researched evidence presented, it points me to some mysterious intelligence outside of our container of space/time and is responsible for the existance of the fundamental parameters or laws of physics.

no, no it doesn't. all it does is make a joke of intellectual debate, by arguing "there appears to be a hole in the theory here, let's place god in that hole". which is un-scientific nonsense. there is no "hole" in creationism simply because there is no proper theory to begin with.

and of course religion doesn't "explain it all". it explains NOTHING. unless you wish to argue that genesis is somehow realistic, there is nothing in any religious text to give us any kind of blueprint for how things were created, and certainly doesn't give us ANY reason to doubt the volumes of scientific evidence that has categorically supported evolutionary theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So, how does evolutionary theory suppose how life arose from non-living matter (which has never been documented in a lab)?

Remember we're living in a very chaotic planet with a lot of elements;

though I believe that life will arise from any elements, and not in limited circumstances, but in abundance; the universe is large, and we're a speck of dust, but one day our progeny's collective will perhaps grasp a part of the whole, just like we have always done through exploration and imagination.

The movement of air and water through galactic satellites, and gravity, and who knows what; clay and mud and sodium and who knows what; even glaciers in the hemispheres, or non-oxygenated environments beneath the sea; life doesn't seem to be so much about constants, it seems inevitable.

Now it's just a matter of finding out how and why and where and what. We've got this pull of religious bullshittery yanking at us, from the last several thousand years, and we need to look beyond it, and beyond our current scientific ethos, to discover the new.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So, how does evolutionary theory suppose how life arose from non-living matter (which has never been documented in a lab)?

When defeated divert attention from the particular topic. If you had read what Opus has posted numerous times, you would've been able to answer your own question. Too bad he's wasting his time on someone who has convinced himself that his point of view is right and there is nothing else to be studied or worth considering. Shame, because Opus is really good at constructing and documenting his arguments; you could've learned something from what he posted.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX When defeated divert attention from the particular topic. If you had read what Opus has posted numerous times, you would've been able to answer your own question.

I think (at least I hope) that the point I was making on this particular subtopic has been made, and I think Krypton understood it once it was pointed out (at least I hope). Again this is a very common misconception of what evolution encompasses, not just by creationists but by pretty much the majority of folks out there.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So, how does evolutionary theory suppose how life arose from non-living matter (which has never been documented in a lab)?

how did god make the world if it has never been documented in a lab????

Now god is not a "term" krypton would accept. He wants something along the lines of intelligent being. This intelligent being may be mortal too.. he just was sooo fucking smart.. he created the universe out crazy mathematical formulas and experimented and and poof...BIG BANG.

Seriously, why do people need some sense of meaning in their pathetic lives??

U are a living organism! Just fucking live and die. Thats it. U want some sort of afterlife to show that ur insignificant life would be rewarded in a place where there is a load of blow where u can snort all u want and wont die of overdose???

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy U want some sort of afterlife to show that ur insignificant life would be rewarded in a place where there is a load of blow where u can snort all u want and wont die of overdose, Acid really makes you fly, and you can bang britney spears, paris hilton and kate moss without getting VD???

*fixed*

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy U are a living organism! Just fucking live and die. Thats it. U want some sort of afterlife to show that ur insignificant life would be rewarded in a place where there is a load of blow where u can snort all u want and wont die of overdose???

I have just found my new sig!!

I think Opus has already covered most of what's needed to be said, but I just wanted to ask a few questions of my own.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Great demonstration of how assumptions work to prove evolutionary theory. When Pakicetus inachus was first found, all Mr. Gengrich had was a posterior portion of the cranium, two fragments of the lower jaw, and isolated upper- and lower-cheek teeth. Yet, he claimed this creature as the ancestor of the whales, when even with a complete skeleton, there is no link between the creature and whales. Are you going to say that two completely different systems somehow are related, especially when saying a wolf-like animal (relatively small) evolved into a gigantic animal totally suited for life in the open ocean, NOT flaviul riverbed environments. We have hundreds of millions of fossils, and should find no difficulty finding clear relationships between kinds. Pakicetus inachus, even if found in riverbed material does not prove ANYTHING. Evolutionists were declaring this a missing link before a complete skeleton was even found.

I'm curious as to how you think evolutionary biologists come to the conclusions that they do, Krypton. From what you've been saying here, I get the impression that you think biologists just dig up a load of bones overy now and then, make an appoximate guess as to how old they are, make an approximate guess as to where they fit in the evolutionary tree, give it a name, kick off their shoes, pour themselves a brandy and then spend all evening laughing at the gullibility of the public. I really don't think you appreciate just how much evidence there is (i.e. all the evidence there is), from a variety of scientific fields, to support evolution. Now matter how many idle, misinformed criticisms you raise against it here, there is no other theory that can even come close to explaining the data we find.

For instance, I just typed in "whale evolution" into Google Scholar and got 18,000 results (i.e. 18,000 papers that in some way present evidence related to evolution and whales). From just the first page, I can tell you:

• Mathematical models lend support to the recent speciation of killer whales.
  
• Observed patterns of paternal care in different species of whales are a reflection of the differing selection pressures facing each of the species during their evolutionary history.
  
• A new species of "archaeocete" (ancient whale) called "Himalayacetus subathuensis" was recently discovered in India. It dates back 53.5 million years and "has Pakicetus-like molar teeth" (fancy that!) that have "an isotopic composition intermediate between values reported for freshwater and marine archaeocetes, indicating that Himalayacetus probably spent some time in both environments".
  
• Whales share SINE "genes" with the other species of the "Cetartiodactyla" superorder (whales, pigs, camels, cows etc). "[T]he possibility that the four independent SINE loci diagnosing the hippo-cetacean clade would be inserted at the same site by chance would be on the order of 1 in 10^36" - did you just catch those odds? I'll put it another way: the odds of those species of animal having those genetic sequences without sharing a common ancestor are 1 in 10 trillion trillion trillion.
  
• The study of nucleotide sequences demonstrates an ancestral link between whales and ungulates (hooved animals) about 60 million years ago and that whales themselves split into 5 unique evolutionary trees about 30-34 million years ago (which, funnily enough, just happens to correspond to what we find in the fossil record).
  
• The homology (common features due to common ancestry) of 35 individual sections of the whale skull can be demonstrated in the fossil record, going all the way back to our good friend Pakicetus.

• Paleontological evidence,
  
• Morphological evidence,
  
• Molecular biological evidence,
  
• Vestigial evidence,
  
• Embryological evidence,
  
• Geochemical evidence,
  
• Paleoenvironmental evidence,
  
• Paleobiogeographic evidence and
  
• Chronological evidence

• Which of these small evolutionary steps, each of which represents the "microevolutionary" progress of a few million years (i.e. about 1,000 times more time than creationists believe it took all 250,000 species of the world's beetles to evolve from just two individual members of beetle "kind"), is simply far too unlikely to have occurred?
  
• At what point in that tree does whale "kind" become something-else "kind"?
  
• Why do these species present themselves in exact evolutionary order in the fossil record? Why don't why find any Pakicetus bones in the same layer of sediment that we find Dorudon bones?
  
• Keeping in mind all the other evidence there is to support whale evolution (genetic etc.) how do you explain the existence of these animals we find here and what is their relationship to modern whales?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.