|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2007 : 22:24:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
My point is that evolution is science and most scientists already agree it is true. They won't be doing investigations on how it isn't whilst they feel it's conclusive it is now would they? |
Yeah, that's why Gould and Eldridge introduced the idea of "punctuated equilibria." They didn't want to overturn the well-established apple cart of Darwin's gradualism.
It's hard to not be sarcastic when presented with someone who asserts - unreservedly - that evolution is speculative while at the same time displaying the rather normal ignorance of science in general that you display here. Most people have the humility to avoid making unqualified declarative statements about that which they know little.
Evolution is science because it's still being studied, not because it's assumed to be true.
But even more importantly, in your opinion, what kind of experiment would be required to show that humans (or some ancestor) were specially created, and not descended from fish? In other words, how could some scientists investigate your hypothesis, and determine it to carry more explanatory power than common descent? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 23:58:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
All I know is that when you said that to Dude, it didn't look like you were simply clarifying things for yourself. Not to me, at least. |
It didn't?
I think this may be a case of trying to look deeper into what I'm actually saying.
Originally posted by Dave W.
So then it's okay to toss around any number? |
Touche...
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, then, right back atcha: your use of "speculative" has become ambiguous, because you apply it to what is probably the best-evidenced, most well-supported theory in the history of modern science. And you seem to be trying to avoid talking about it further. |
I'm purposely being ambiguous by not answering all of you all's questions. I have a lot to answer, I'm just saving some of it so as not to give myself too much the next time I get here.
Originally posted by Dave W.
What is "strange" about your conception of science is that you think it goes from observation to speculation to conclusion. You're leaving out at least the predict, test and confirm portions. Without those parts, vestigal organs wouldn't be evidence for evolution, but since you said they are evidence, you must know that there's more than speculation behind that conclusion. |
The predict, test and confirm parts are too part of the speculation. I consider speculation looking at facts and then coming to a conclusion based on the evidences.
Originally posted by Dave W.
How often are people wrong about basic observations (as opposed to hypotheses)? |
That's a little ambiguous. How often are people wrong about making conclusions from basic observations as opposed to hypothesis?
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, that's not a definition of "science." |
You can't sum up science in a few dictionary terms, here's a better reference [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science]Science[/url].
Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
Originally posted by Dave W.
To reiterate: would you care to discuss just how God is not speculative? |
What observations or facts were considered and then a conlusions drawn from it?
Originally posted by Dave W.
The truths that science can't find are those for which there can be no unequivocal evidence. |
But alike for evolution there are evidences or proofs which help elucidate those truths.
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, "Ford a |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 00:13:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Coelacanth
My point is that evolution is science and most scientists already agree it is true. They won't be doing investigations on how it isn't whilst they feel it's conclusive it is now would they? |
Yeah, that's why Gould and Eldridge introduced the idea of "punctuated equilibria." They didn't want to overturn the well-established apple cart of Darwin's gradualism.
It's hard to not be sarcastic when presented with someone who asserts - unreservedly - that evolution is speculative while at the same time displaying the rather normal ignorance of science in general that you display here. Most people have the humility to avoid making unqualified declarative statements about that which they know little.
Evolution is science because it's still being studied, not because it's assumed to be true.
But even more importantly, in your opinion, what kind of experiment would be required to show that humans (or some ancestor) were specially created, and not descended from fish? In other words, how could some scientists investigate your hypothesis, and determine it to carry more explanatory power than common descent?
|
Oh please, if you really want. Do be sarcastic, but know that I will retaliate and this will very quickly turn from civilised debate to a sarcasm war and then perhaps to a flame war and then lead to anything from there.
As for the experiment to show a experiment that scientists could do?
I think those have already come up in the fossil record, but they're not paying any attention to it because one of the laws of science is that you can't claim any supernatural cause...
Which is what that would signify. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 01:54:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I think those have already come up in the fossil record, but they're not paying any attention to it because one of the laws of science is that you can't claim any supernatural cause...
Which is what that would signify.
|
Are you saying that there is evidence of special creation in the fossil record? You keep dropping these hints but you need to point out the actual evidence.
You mentioned that you don't see an explanation for how lungs and other organs evolved. Now I don't know much about lung evolution in particular but what about the evolution of the eye. Does the eye lack a coherent evolutionary explanation in your view? If so maybe you could point out what you think the shortcomings are. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 01:59:52 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth said:
I consider speculation looking at facts and then coming to a conclusion based on the evidences.
|
That would be the exact opposite of speculation.
You can't sum up science in a few dictionary terms, here's a better reference [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science]Science[/url].
Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
|
To paraphrase from one of the top 5 best movies of all time.... This does not mean what you (apparently) think it means.
Science never claims absolute knowledge (that is the realm of religion), and scientific theories must be falsifiable. What that means is if there are no conditions that would negate your hypothesis, then you have a very serious problem with your logic.
What it does NOT mean is that there is some doubt cast upon scientific conclusions just because they are open to falsification.
It is not actually surprising to see a self proclaimed theist not comprehend this, happens all the time when you suffer from theistic confirmation bias.
There are actually many inferences that would indicate some omnipotent being, just because you don't think there are or perhaps don't want to, doesn't mean there aren't.
|
Let me type this slowly, so maybe you will get it....
Go.... to... the... religion... folder... and... start... a.. thread... where.. you.. make... a.. case... for... the... existence.. of.. some.. deity.
I'm confident you won't have anything original or compelling to say, but I am always interested on the off chance I am wrong. So please.
| Oh please do, as I said, no skin off my nose. I may clear up this issue another time, but for now I'll just take to answering your considerations. |
While I am not quite sure what "answering your considerations" actually means.... I'll take the context que. The only way you can "answer my considerations" is to start a new thread with one piece of evidence for evolution you consider "speculative" and explain why it is "speculative". Its a challenging task, so I really do understand why you would refuse to do so. But I'll ask again. Please give it a shot.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2007 : 02:47:32 [Permalink]
|
You know filthy, I pretty much agree with everything you say. There are just a few rudimental issues that we conflict in.
I understand what you're saying about belief in the theory of evolution. My main point however is that there isn't a single observation or fact we know that conflicts with what God has put forth, only conclusions (speculations) made from hence that do. of course that doesn't prove god's existence, that's not what I'm saying. I only intend to illuminate how much science has no religion, yet it shouldn't manipulated a means of advocating athiesm as that's not it's purpose. It works in conjunction with many religions and doesn't pose a threat to them. When people make is seem as if it does, we have the problem in today's world where people begin to teach their children that science is evil.
Yeah... people actually do that. |
As far as gods, demons, angels & the rest are concerned, science is strictly neutral. There is no way any of it can be tested and falsified, therefore it is all outside of science's province. Science is neither theist nor atheist, although many creationists use atheism for an argument, and I have no idea why unless it is to impress the ignorant.
Dr. Jonathon Sarfati, of Creation Ministries International, has coined a rather neat and sarcastic term: "Goo to you via the zoo." I used to, and still do, get a chuckle every time I hear/read it because it so blythly ignores virtually all of evolutionary science in it's over-simplification, and yet is perfectly correct. Oh no... I only base my understanding on evolution on what has been observed and not by what people want to believe. Creatures diversify, that has been observed. Lungs being developed by mutatations... that would be "want to believe".
I see no objective reason of believing so. |
The evolution of lungs corelates directly with the evolution of the heart. The harder a heart must work, the more oxygen it will need. Lungs evolved long before some amphibian or even perhaps some fish, first wandered ashore. Many ancient fish had a lung and some still have one today. Lungfish, gars & grinnels go 'way back in the earth's history.
But in evolution, one thing always ties into another & others & others. Those fishes that became amphibians had to develop a jaw before they could come ashore. The earliest fish had none and some fish today are jawless, the sea lampery and the hagfish being the most notable examples. And jaws led to such fascinating creatures as Dunkleostous and Crocodiles, and indeed, H. sapiens.
There has been plenty of time for all of this to occure. The oldest known fossil of a vertebrate is some 560,000,000 years old, surpassing the previous oldest by some 30 million years. And, evolution being what it is, there are no doubt others much older.
Say hello to your grandpa! One of 'em, anyway. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 02:56:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
What the hell are you on about?
|
I'm trying to deal with a rather devious argument style, in which you claim to support evolution, while trying to pick away at it. Each time you are shown to be wrong in a criticism, you simply protest that you think evolution is correct. It's intentionally frustrating.| No... I'm not giving a doubt on the knowledge discovered by science at all. I'm giving a generalised doubt on the knowledge pertaining to evolution. |
Bingo; see my last point. Please don't keep claiming you're an evolutionist. You are clearly a tricksy fundy in stealth mode.| Yes we do know that creatures diversify, we know how much difference that can make over time or even a short amount of time as seen in Dogs, but what we don't know is the fish-to-man theory. That much is pretty uncertain. |
"Fish-to-man-theory?" So, evolution you support, except for everything between fish and humanity? There's pretty damned solid science for the evolution of that whole period, by the way.| The fact remains that one can accept all the observations of science and not come to the conclusion that man evolved from sea dwelling creatures. |
No, that's not a "fact." Totally false, since that is exactly what science observes. I don't know whether you are dissimulating, or are simply dreadfully and willfully ignorant, but the result is the same.| Abolishing sectarianism is a solemn and honest cause, but then it will only create a whole new group of cults and confusion. You only need to look around at the amount of different cult-like atheist groups. |
You only wave your hands and state conclusions, but give not an ounce of evidence that atheism is "cult-like" I've noted before that fundy religionists love to accuse atheists of possessing their own evils, as that kind of ancient theist crap is the nastiest thing they can think to accuse their opponents of.| Your intentions are strictly honorable, but unfortunately humanity on a whole is too stupid for atheism. |
Well, some are. Most Creationists, to start with. Then, again, some of the pious frauds among them are quite clever.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 04:07:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
The same thing, organs and limbs (among others) appear instantaneously in the fossil record and sometimes even sporadically in a different line of species. yet the same organ... interesting huh? |
Is this the kind of thing you would present as evidence for special creation? http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.html |
|
|
|
recurve boy
Skeptic Friend
Australia
53 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 04:40:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by Kil
Whatever… So let me ask you again, why is natural selection not a viable explanation? |
It is a very viable explanation, but not as to how lungs and other organs develop.
Originally posted by Kil
An example of “Kinds” would be “canine kind.” Wolves and foxes and dogs can speciate but only a canine will ever evolve from a canine ancestor. Your "problems" with evolving limbs and new organs is that it does the same thing, by setting arbitrary limits on natural selection that are, for whatever reason, acceptable to you. Only, I suppose, and correct me if I'm wrong, you will allow for mammals to evolve new families, but you will not allow reptiles to be ancestral to mammals or birds in your thinking. Or, on a larger scale, (no pun intended) fish to mammals, or anything else at the class level. So, in creationist terms that you don't happen to use, but your “problems” amount to the same thing, “kinds” are at the class level of the family tree. |
Oh no... I only base my understanding on evolution on what has been observed and not by what people want to believe. Creatures diversify, that has been observed. Lungs being developed by mutatations... that would be "want to believe".
I see no objective reason of believing so.
|
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyes.gif
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/ridley_eyesim.gif
So indeed there is a reasonable and objective example of how evolution can come up with complex organs. Note that one of the diagrams illustrates examples found in molluscs.
So I guess you'll be adjusting your beliefs to fit the evidence now right? Was that snarky? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 07:55:38 [Permalink]
|
filthy said:
| As far as gods, demons, angels & the rest are concerned, science is strictly neutral. There is no way any of it can be tested and falsified, therefore it is all outside of science's province. |
I'm sure we have had this discussion a few dozen times over the last several years... but science is anything but neutral with regard to the supernatural. No, you can't make a positive case argument against such things, but they can be entirely dismissed! No evidence, no actual claim, claim dismissed.
To most people that may seem like there is some reasonable wiggle room for the possible existence of the supernatural, but it doesn't actually mean that. It leaves the door open only so far as it also leaves the door open to Ricky being able to shit out a fully functioning SUV (remember THAT thread? hehe...). To validate such a claim would require that pesky evidence stuff. The repeatable, verifiable kind.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 10:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth:
Oh no... I only base my understanding on evolution on what has been observed and not by what people want to believe. Creatures diversify, that has been observed. Lungs being developed by mutatations... that would be "want to believe".
I see no objective reason of believing so. |
Okay, so let me understand. Your position is that limbs and organs are “irreducibly complex” and point to a creator. Is that correct?
Coelacanth:
The same thing, organs and limbs (among others) appear instantaneously in the fossil record and sometimes even sporadically in a different line of species. yet the same organ... interesting huh? |
What we see in the fossil record are less complex life forms at the lowest levels, with a rather steady increase in complexity as we move up through the geological column. And of course, the theory of evolution makes that prediction. While I think that convergent evolution is happens, based on entirely different members of families of animals taking on some of the same shape that are sometimes so close that without cladistic comparisons, they would appear to be the same animal outwardly. They were shaped by their taking advantage of a very similar niche. I don't think the organs of these animals evolved separately. Move back in time and we will find a common ancestor.
With the fossil record, being what it is, it is not surprising that some animals appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly.
For example, in what is referred to as the Cambrian explosion, most of the organs that survive in some form today were already established. The Cambrian marked the development of animals that had hard body parts that more easily fossilized. Soft body tissue has always been a problem because it does not fossilize well, if at all.
It would be a mistake to assume that a whole lot of evolution was not going on in Precambrian times and that the explosion also marks an inexplicable sudden appearance of complex organisms where none existed before, as though it represents some supernatural dividing line. And in fact, more and more Precambrian fossils, hard as they are to come by, are helping to shed light on the development of those animals that followed.
And Coelacanth I know you didn't mention the Cambrian or the Precambrian. But when you talk about the sudden appearance of certain animals, the Cambrian, and misconceptions about it, especially by creationists, comes to mind.
In general, when you consider how unlikely it is for an animal to be fossilized anyway, it is not particularly surprising that some animals suddenly appear. What is important is to recognize is that they appear where they should appear in the geological column and not somewhere else. As filthy likes to point out, all it would take is someone to come up with a Devonian bunny and the whole of evolution will be called into question…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 11:03:26 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth admits the existence of inches, he just doubts that they can add up to miles. An irrational argument, to say the least.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 11:08:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Are you saying that there is evidence of special creation in the fossil record? You keep dropping these hints but you need to point out the actual evidence.
You mentioned that you don't see an explanation for how lungs and other organs evolved. Now I don't know much about lung evolution in particular but what about the evolution of the eye. Does the eye lack a coherent evolutionary explanation in your view? If so maybe you could point out what you think the shortcomings are.
|
Oh no... it doesn't lack a coherent explanation at all. The story of Noah's ark doesn't lack a coherent explanation of how all the animals survived. I'm not looking for a coherent explanation, I'm looking for observations which show us similar things happening and how those could accumulate to produce the afforementioned effects.
Anyone can make a coherent explanation.
God was considered a coherent explanation once.
Originally posted by Dude
That would be the exact opposite of speculation. |
No, it's still speculation if you derive it off facts dude...
Originally posted by Dude
To paraphrase from one of the top 5 best movies of all time.... This does not mean what you (apparently) think it means.
Science never claims absolute knowledge (that is the realm of religion), and scientific theories must be falsifiable. What that means is if there are no conditions that would negate your hypothesis, then you have a very serious problem with your logic.
What it does NOT mean is that there is some doubt cast upon scientific conclusions just because they are open to falsification.
It is not actually surprising to see a self proclaimed theist not comprehend this, happens all the time when you suffer from theistic confirmation bias. |
I'm not saying they're wrong because they could be wrong, I'm saying I think they're wrong because the observations it is based upon is not conclusive and can NEVER be. The factualisation of the idea is something I find plainly farcical.
Gravity is a scientific theory I find conclusive, based on observations of not just myself but everyone else too. Evolution is something I find inconclusive because the underlaying facts and observations it is based on does not contradict with what I currently believe and have evidence of otherwise.
Originally posted by Dude
Let me type this slowly, so maybe you will get it....
Go.... to... the... religion... folder... and... start... a.. thread... where.. you.. make... a.. case... for... the... existence.. of.. some.. deity.
I'm confident you won't have anything original or compelling to say, but I am always interested on the off chance I am wrong. So please. |
Oh... lord it seems I haven't been quite clear with you on this. I read you the first time, the second and third and I'm quite plainly saying.
NO!
At least, not yet. I have other things to deal with.
Originally posted by Dude
While I am not quite sure what "answering your considerations" actually means.... I'll take the context que. The only way you can "answer my considerations" is to start a new thread with one piece of evidence for evolution you consider "speculative" and explain why it is "speculative". Its a challenging task, so I really do understand why you would refuse to do so. But I'll ask again. Please give it a shot. |
This is a thread of which I find the evidence for evolution to be speculative. I said all evidence of evolution dude, no exceptions.
Originally posted by filthy
As far as gods, demons, angels & the rest are concerned, science is strictly neutral. There is no way any of it can be tested and falsified, therefore it is all outside of science's province. Science is neither theist nor atheist, although many creationists use atheism for an argument, and I have no idea why unless it is to impress the ignorant.
Dr. Jonathon Sarfati, of Creation Ministries International, has coined a rather neat and sarcastic term: "Goo to you via the zoo." I used to, and still do, get a chuckle every time I hear/read it because it so blythly ignores virtually all of evolutionary science in it's over-simplification, and yet is perfectly correct. |
I don't get it... "Goo to you via the zoo" I don't see how that's correct or even what it's supposed to mean. I'm not good at things like this, sorry.
Originally posted by filthy
The evolution of lungs corelates directly with the evolution of the heart. The harder a heart must work, the more oxygen it will need. Lungs evolved long before some amphibian or even perhaps some fish, first wandered ashore. Many ancient fish had a lung and some still have one today. Lungfish, gars & grinnels go 'way back in the earth's history.
|
Yes, I done research on lung evolution. They have some very interesting stories, but in essence the fossil record shows the lung appearing suddenly. I know, I know there are explanations why that would have happened, but the lung isn't alone in this at all, which is why this supports creation. You must note that support for creation doesn't necessarily mean argument against evolution, but IMO the sudden appearance of limbs (on tetrapods) and organs like this. Are one of the lines of support for creationism.
Whether or not evolutionist have an explanation (speculation) of how it could be so...
As for the Jaw evolution, I've always been skeptical of the genetic studies, this one seems not to provide much to my skeptism. It seems to show that the Jaw and the lips before come from different genes, but do similar things. Under the idea that they are from the same creator this is very understandable.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'm trying to deal with a rather devious argument style, in which you claim to support evolution, while trying to pick away at it. Each time you are shown to be wrong in a criticism, you simply protest that you think evolution is correct. It's intentionally frustrating. |
I've been honest about my beliefs from the very start of this thread. You can't get much more honest than "I will admit that some of this skepticism does stem from my theistic upbringing." If you find me devious, then you must be very gullible and very very easily fooled.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Bingo; see my last point. Please don't keep claiming you're an evolutionist. You are clearly a tricksy fundy in stealth mode. |
Your point is plainly stupid and offensive. Accusing me of being a tricksy fundy is just pathetic. If you have a problem debating with me then don't debate with me. It's quite a simple concept. Making statements like, "you're tricky" isn't debating, that's just an ad hominem fallacious attempt to defile my character in order to claim victory.
Stop it!
Originally posted by HalfMooner
"Fish-to-man-theory?" So, evolution you support, except for everything between fish and humanity? There's pretty damned solid science for the evolution of that whole period, by the way. |
That's the face of the problem I have. There are many underlaying aspects of the fish to man idea that I disagree with too. Such as the assumption that mutations could bring about such a change... When infact no mutations which lead to that kind of change has been observed.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
No, that's not a "fact." Totally false, since that is exactly what science observes. I don't know whether you are dissimulating, or are simply dreadfully and willfully ignorant, but the result is the same. |
Ok... let's look at some facts shall we?
Homology or more simply put:-
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
surely they evolved from a common ancestor.
No... that's under the assumption that evolution CAN happen.
So is:-
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
Surely they have the same designer.
Under the assumption that God exists.
Basically anything can be put there...
Creature A has X
Creature B has X
Surely they <insert your connection here>.
None of the facts of homology require a person to believe evolution happened.
Same applies with Gene Comparison
Creature A uses Gene X to develop Ya
Creature B uses Gene X to develop Yb
surely they evolved from a common ancestor.
Again that's under the assumption that evolution CAN happen.
So is:-
Creature A uses Gene X to develop Ya
Creature B uses Gene X to develop Yb
Surely they have the same designer.
Assuming God exists again.
OR
Creature A uses Gene X to develop Ya
Creature B uses Gene X to develop Yb
<insert connection here>.
Ok... let's look at vestigiality
Creature A has fully functional X
Creature B has partially functional X
Surely they evolved from a common ancestor and one of them degraded.
^^^Evolution perspective^^^
Creature A has fully functional X
Creature B has partially functional X
Surely God knew Creature B didn't need all the functions of X it bearly uses them.
^^^Creationist perspective^^^
Creature A has fully functional X
Creature B has partially functional X
<insert reasoning here>
Ok... how about the order of the fossil record. Water dwellers to land dwellers.
Evolutionist: The order clearly shows they evolved from each other, because evolution predicts the creatures will all descend from a common ancestor.
Creationist: The order clearly shows God's work of progression, because God has always proffessed his creation of the world in 6 days and not instantaneous as he could.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You only wave your hands and state conclusions, but give not an ounce of evidence that atheism is "cult-like" I've noted before that fundy religionists love to accuse atheists of possessing their own evils, as that kind of ancient theist crap is the nastiest thing they can think to accuse their opponents of. |
Whoah Whoah Whoah!!!!
TIME OUT!
I did not say atheism is cult-like, I said there were cult-like atheist groups, but not that atheism is cult-like. You're trying to read into what I say WAY too much.
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Well, some are. Most Creationists, to start with. Then, again, some of the pious frauds among them are quite clever.
|
Creationists?
do you mean theists?
You know, a lot of creationists are just in denial because they think evolution could be true, some of them lie a lot. Especially back in Darwins time, when religion was a very lucrative business, not that it isn't now.
Yeah... I guess so... why do you ask?
My my... you seem to be making the same mistake a lot of evolutionists make.
WHAT evidence? You didn't post evidence at all. You only posted an explanation of how someone thinks it could have happened. Not evidence of it happening. If I post a quote from some monk explaining how Moses crossed the Red Sea and how it could happen. That doesn't mean anything... It's just an explanation.
Try and think about whether something is actual evidence before you post it.
Eye evolution is a very fickle subject, it is a thing that supposedly evolved and "devolved" many times, however I find convergent evolution to be quite farcical for several reasons.
1. They lack a mutation which demonstrates how these supposed evolutionary traits could have happened in the first place.
2. The amount of mutations to compliment each other is astronomical in just one evolutionary leap. Not to mention that the eye, nerve, brain and memory has to evolve for such as thing to work.
3. This is supposed to happen several times throughout time. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2007 : 11:31:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What we see in the fossil record are less complex life forms at the lowest levels, with a rather steady increase in complexity as we move up through the geological column. And of course, the theory of evolution makes that prediction. While I think that convergent evolution is happens, based on entirely different members of families of animals taking on some of the same shape that are sometimes so close that without cladistic comparisons, they would appear to be the same animal outwardly. They were shaped by their taking advantage of a very similar niche. I don't think the organs of these animals evolved separately. Move back in time and we will find a common ancestor.
With the fossil record, being what it is, it is not surprising that some animals appear suddenly and disappear just as suddenly.
For example, in what is referred to as the Cambrian explosion, most of the organs that survive in some form today were already established. The Cambrian marked the development of animals that had hard body parts that more easily fossilized. Soft body tissue has always been a problem because it does not fossilize well, if at all.
It would be a mistake to assume that a whole lot of evolution was not going on in Precambrian times and that the explosion also marks an inexplicable sudden appearance of complex organisms where none existed before, as though it represents some supernatural dividing line. And in fact, more and more Precambrian fossils, hard as they are to come by, are helping to shed light on the development of those animals that followed.
And Coelacanth I know you didn't mention the Cambrian or the Precambrian. But when you talk about the sudden appearance of certain animals, the Cambrian, and misconceptions about it, especially by creationists, comes to mind.
In general, when you consider how unlikely it is for an animal to be fossilized anyway, it is not particularly surprising that some animals suddenly appear. What is important is to recognize is that they appear where they should appear in the geological column and not somewhere else. As filthy likes to point out, all it would take is someone to come up with a Devonian bunny and the whole of evolution will be called into question…
|
Actually, creatures that exist at the beginning of the fossil record aren't less complex at all. Maybe one could say less intelligent, but not less complex, they all suit their environments quite nicely. Some of them even have features more complex than our own. As discovered from the Coelacanth (ironically enough).
I don't mind if people want to believe this kind of evolution did happen when no evidence of some of these creatures even exists, but I will tell you this. You are assuming they did exist, when you don't have evidence of them existing.
I'm not saying that you aren't correct, but it is an assumption. However do be ardent and loyal, don't give up on the theory because of a few inconsistencies. Evolutionists have done it in the past and ended up correct so don't be afraid to do it now. I think they call this faith.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Coelacanth admits the existence of inches, he just doubts that they can add up to miles. An irrational argument, to say the least. |
And the next strawman award goes to H. Humbert, for his deficit in contributing to the debate and pouncing in to lie on the person he doesn't like.
A round of applause everyone. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
