Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2006 19:27:50 GMT -5
L . . . . O . . . . L . . . . I quite like the dinosaur-bird thing too, and I'll tell you why - earlier this week I managed to PROVE beyond ANY doubt the EVOLUTION of the large hot chocolate mug, from an espresso mug - just line up anything that looks similar until you end up with the final product, all made at the same time and by a COMMON DESIGNER! Anyone with half a brain cell can put things together that look the same and I'm afraid using that as a proof of evolution is just clutching at some pretty poor straws - think about the evolution from a knife, through spoon, to spork, to fork - again with a common designer, which I'm sure even you evolutionists out there have to concede to?! Let me know what you think anyway - I'm open minded and if I've got it wrong I really don't want to be committing my life to a waste of time, which is also what I hope is true for you too!! There are several problems with this argument, the main one being your examples have more in common with manner in which we classify organisms, rather than the process of evolution itself. A far better analogy would involve the idea that two siblings would likely look more similar than two non-siblings.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 25, 2006 18:03:35 GMT -5
Not quite understanding what that means I'm afraid - I'm not very clever and I'm English so cut me some slack - but let me try to rephrase what you said in monosyllabic words, purely for my benefit so I understand:
(btw I know that sounds so sarcastic I honestly don't mean it to!!)
"I look more like my brother than you, so we can deduce there's a higher chance we came from a common ancestor (my father). However you and I look similar in our body shape and therefore we can be classed as the same kind."
Is that right? If so, I understand how this provides more speculation about, for example, different breeds of dog all coming from one kind of dog.
However, I still can't see how all plants and animals all grew out of a rock somewhere, and for that matter how, as organisms on this planet, we EVOLVED sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction . . . let me just throw a coupla questions out there, to be answered if possible:
Which gender evolved first? Why? On a planet this size, how did one of each random new gender find each other and manage to reproduce?
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 25, 2006 19:41:00 GMT -5
Neither gender evolved first. The origin of sexual reproduction is an issue. There's several theories, but I'm not a microbiologist and I can't do them justice. Obviously, it confers a huge selective advantage. Many bacteria can, while asexual, exchange genetic code, which is how a resistance to a certain antibiotic moves so fast. Sexual reproduction is an interesting variation on this process, since it favors mutations. It's just a fancy way of code swapping, and has been gained and lost apperantly more than once.
The dog arguement is spot on - you can also say the chihuahuas are more like other chihuahuas than like a husky, but huskies are more like chihuahuas than Siamese cats, so huskies and chihuahuas have a more recent common ancestor with each other than they have with Siamese cats. It's certainly not based solely on appearance, but a variety of factors including morphology, genetics, and skeletal adaptions. Heh. I'm such a cladistics woman. Down with Linneaus!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2006 21:30:08 GMT -5
Not quite understanding what that means I'm afraid - I'm not very clever and I'm English so cut me some slack - but let me try to rephrase what you said in monosyllabic words, purely for my benefit so I understand: (btw I know that sounds so sarcastic I honestly don't mean it to!!) "I look more like my brother than you, so we can deduce there's a higher chance we came from a common ancestor (my father). However you and I look similar in our body shape and therefore we can be classed as the same kind." Is that right? If so, I understand how this provides more speculation about, for example, different breeds of dog all coming from one kind of dog. To a certain extent, you are a correct, although your use of the term "kind" is a bit problematic. What would be the equivalent modern taxonomic group? However, I still can't see how all plants and animals all grew out of a rock somewhere, and for that matter how, as organisms on this planet, we EVOLVED sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction . . . let me just throw a coupla questions out there, to be answered if possible: Which gender evolved first? Why? On a planet this size, how did one of each random new gender find each other and manage to reproduce? With regards to the idea that life grew out of a rock, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, it attempts to explain the process by which species adapt and change over time. Now, as to the origin of sexual reproduction, there are a few theories out there as to why it developed, though this isn't an area in which I have alot of expertise. What I do know, however, is that it seems likely that species that were able to exchange genetic material had more of an advantage than those that could not. As to gender, there are many species where individuals can take on the role of either gender, so there really isn't a problem with individuals needing to find a member of the opposite sex.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 26, 2006 2:45:34 GMT -5
With regards to the idea that life grew out of a rock, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, it attempts to explain the process by which species adapt and change over time. Uh . . . forgive me for being ignorant here but evolution surely can't just be that - there are five stages of evolution: Big Bang Theory Evolution of the elements Stellar evolution Origin of life (at least on this planet) Macro evolution "Micro evolution" imho is a bad term and ought to be replaced with adaptation or variations within a kind - by kind I mean animals that can bring forth, ie two dogs of different species could bring forth a new dog, or donkeys and zebras together can bring forth a zeedonk - they are obviously different species, yet are of the same kind . . . it's hard to even imagine an elephant bringing forth with a cow, or with a lettuce . . .
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 26, 2006 3:54:21 GMT -5
Well, I was under the impression that we were discussing the evolution and diversification of species. Once again, macroevolution is the same thing as microevolution, just applied over Deep Time. Technically, the word evolution refers to things onfolding and developing over time.
Biological evolution is exactly what Toki said it was. The other things - well, we can debate about them, but they're not evolution. Evolution refers to biological change (there, is that a less loaded term? Means the same thing.).
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 26, 2006 7:16:20 GMT -5
Well in that case let's stop calling it micro-evolution and start calling it variation WITHIN A KIND - this religion of evolution you follow means evolving OUTSIDE of a kind, which has never been observed in any way - if it has www.drdino.com is offering a $250,000 reward for anyone who can give evidence for it!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2006 10:22:07 GMT -5
Well in that case let's stop calling it micro-evolution and start calling it variation WITHIN A KIND - this religion of evolution you follow means evolving OUTSIDE of a kind, which has never been observed in any way - if it has www.drdino.com is offering a $250,000 reward for anyone who can give evidence for it!! Why do you want us to stop using the current terminology? I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that evolution was a religion, but it isn't. Now, as to this reward, I've encountered this claim before, and from what I've seen the entire thing is rigged in order to make it impossible for anyone to win.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 26, 2006 11:24:25 GMT -5
Surely religion is a set of beliefs that require faith - and no-one's ever seen any organism evolve outside of its kind, therefore it is a belief that requires faith - just as much (or in my view even more) as that which is required to believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing God who created the world in a week!
Oh yes, and how did we evolve morals by the way?!
If the answer is along the lines of "there are many theories but no-one really knows" then how on earth can you possibly say evolution isn't a religion?!! Ask any Christian any question about their faith and even if they don't know the answer they'll know where to find it - the infallible Word of God!! At least Christians have confidence in their beliefs and never have to say that!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2006 12:23:55 GMT -5
Surely religion is a set of beliefs that require faith - and no-one's ever seen any organism evolve outside of its kind, therefore it is a belief that requires faith - just as much (or in my view even more) as that which is required to believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing God who created the world in a week! Actually, there are several instances of observed speciation (Here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html), but even if this were not the case, the evidence in favor evolution is fairly overwhelming. Now, as to bringing God into the question, if you're going to go that route I would like to ask by what method do you think this was done? What process was used to produce the different species? Oh yes, and how did we evolve morals by the way?! If the answer is along the lines of "there are many theories but no-one really knows" then how on earth can you possibly say evolution isn't a religion?!! Ask any Christian any question about their faith and even if they don't know the answer they'll know where to find it - the infallible Word of God!! At least Christians have confidence in their beliefs and never have to say that!! Firstly, evolution does not deal with the origin of things such as morals. Evolution only deals with the process by which species adapt and change over time, it does not attempt to explain things such as morals. Secondly, Evolution, like all science, does not claim to be perfect. Science does not claim to have all of the answers, and there are some things that are currently beyond our understanding, and some things may never be understood.
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 26, 2006 12:36:58 GMT -5
Mind if I go on a rant?
No? Good. (It's probably just as well that you can't do anything about it. (; )
"Kind"? What the blazes is that? There are no divisions between species, just artificial names we put on them. If you want to go from dinosaur to bird, you have a smooth grade of things that fit the traditional description of neither. Some are more dinosaur, and some more bird, but there's no clear line between the two. No little species suddenly jumped a wall. Instead, feathered dinosaurs slowly modified their breastbone, lost teeth, and had a series of changes occur in the wing. The tail underwent a huge variety of changes before one lineage ended up with the fan tail common in birds today. A bird is a specialized dinosaur. Our arms are specialized lobefins. It's out there pretty nicely in the fossil record; I just had the honor of speaking with Chiappe, one of the world's foremost experts on Mesozoic birds and dinosaurs. The evidence is all over the fossil record for transitions from one to another.
A brief point about morals - morals confer a serious advantage to a species as social as ours. It lets us live together in relative harmony. The exact circumstances underwhich such evolved can only be speculation on my part, so I won't indulge in just-so-stories.
How many times must I say this? Macroevolution, as the biologists understand it, is microevolution applied over Deep Time. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing. Sorry if I sound testy, but I'm really tired of having to point this out.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 26, 2006 19:07:15 GMT -5
Ok couple of answers here:
1. ""Kind"? What the blazes is that?"
A KIND is defined by two animals that can bring forth, e.g. two dogs, or a donkey and a zebra - they are different species yet can bring forth a zeedonk . . . cats bringing forth with a dog is pretty difficult!! What I'm saying is within the kinds, species can adapt and vary depending on environment etc, however changing from one kind to another in my humble opinion has never, and will never happen.
2. "Now, as to bringing God into the question, if you're going to go that route I would like to ask by what method do you think this was done? What process was used to produce the different species?"
Um, God created all the KINDS - as a kind of template, e.g. generic "dogs", from which all modern species of dog originate . . . the process used to develop each of these different species is the method of variations within a KIND, as I have previously stated, and I must say that I can imagine two different species of dog bringing forth an odd cross-breed (as is my beautiful dog), whereas I really cannot by ANY stretch of the imagination properly imagine what a cat crossed with a dog would be, or a hippo crossed with a lizard, or a banana crossed with a wasp . . . different kinds cannot bring forth, never have been able to, never will be able to, and kinds do not randomly turn into other kinds - hence no evidence for it!!
And as I'm sure you know, the fossil record isn't actually a record - a bunch of fossils in the ground that could have been from any period of time ago (you says millions of years, I say a coupla thousand) just tell you one thing. It died. No fossils tell you what it gave birth to or what it eventually changed into, that's just pure IMAGINATION and guess work!! In fact, the only fossils we know what they gave birth to are the ones where we see them giving birth - which calls into question how long this fossilization process takes anyway!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2006 19:59:15 GMT -5
Ok couple of answers here: 1. ""Kind"? What the blazes is that?" A KIND is defined by two animals that can bring forth, e.g. two dogs, or a donkey and a zebra - they are different species yet can bring forth a zeedonk . . . cats bringing forth with a dog is pretty difficult!! What I'm saying is within the kinds, species can adapt and vary depending on environment etc, however changing from one kind to another in my humble opinion has never, and will never happen. A major problem with this definition is that the offspring of a horse and a zebra or a horse and a donkey will be sterile, while the offspring of a dog and a wolf would have the ability to reproduce. I really don't see what the problem is with simply using the current system of classification. 2. "Now, as to bringing God into the question, if you're going to go that route I would like to ask by what method do you think this was done? What process was used to produce the different species?" Um, God created all the KINDS - as a kind of template, e.g. generic "dogs", from which all modern species of dog originate . . . the process used to develop each of these different species is the method of variations within a KIND, as I have previously stated, and I must say that I can imagine two different species of dog bringing forth an odd cross-breed (as is my beautiful dog), whereas I really cannot by ANY stretch of the imagination properly imagine what a cat crossed with a dog would be, or a hippo crossed with a lizard, or a banana crossed with a wasp . . . different kinds cannot bring forth, never have been able to, never will be able to, and kinds do not randomly turn into other kinds - hence no evidence for it!! The question I was asking was what method this God used to produce life. did he use some sort of nanorobots to construct each molecule atom by atom? Did he just magically poof it into existence? How was it done? Now, as to the question of interbreeding, I must say that this term "kind" is causing a few problems. It would be far easier to understand your point if you specified the equivalent taxonomic group. Are these "kinds" on the level of genus? Or is it higher up, possibly Family, Order, or Class? And this also begs the question of what exactly is preventing organisms from evolving beyond these groups? Also, would you please clarify with regards to your comment about the breeding of two dogs, because you referred to them as being separate species, but unless you were speaking about something along the lines of wolves or coyotes breeding with domestic dogs, this would involve members of the same species, rather than separate species. And as I'm sure you know, the fossil record isn't actually a record - a bunch of fossils in the ground that could have been from any period of time ago (you says millions of years, I say a coupla thousand) just tell you one thing. It died. No fossils tell you what it gave birth to or what it eventually changed into, that's just pure IMAGINATION and guess work!! In fact, the only fossils we know what they gave birth to are the ones where we see them giving birth - which calls into question how long this fossilization process takes anyway!! Actually, the fossil record can be dated through several methods, the two I can think of off hand being radiocarbon dating and examination of geologic layers.
|
|
Katrina Rix
Apprentice
Del pasado al presente, vivimos en un universo encantado.
Posts: 108
|
Post by Katrina Rix on Mar 26, 2006 23:44:43 GMT -5
... I'm a paleontologist. I know the fossil record. It's guesswork in the same sense that physics and chemistry is guesswork. So, what you're essentially saying is that all of geology is bunk? The principle of uniformitarism is all an illusion? The methods of dating rocks are just rubbish - forget carbon, potassium, and uranium, in addition to the other radioactive isotopes one uses for dating stuff? If so, would I assume that, in the past, carbon, ect, decayed at a different rate? Rocks were layered in some amazingly fast process never witnessed in our modern world? There's certainly no evidence for that. How about paleomagnetic tracking, which is how we can tell that the continents changed in position? Lava, when deposited, has the magnetic minerals line up with the north pole. It shows how the continents have changed position with respect to magnetic north. Should I assume they're moving much slower in the present than the past? Ditto on the evidence for pole reversal recorded on the bottom of the sea floor in the igneous rocks. What causes earthquakes and volcanoes, if not plate techtonics, which, if applied uniformly to the past as well as the present, provides strong evidence for Deep Time?
Evolution is not saying a dog will give birth to a zebra. Evolution is saying that, with enough time, with small modifications, a coyote can become a dog. It seems that you agree with evolution, but disagree that Deep Time exists, so we're arguing the age of the Earth, not evolution.
|
|
|
Post by samdman on Mar 27, 2006 5:08:20 GMT -5
Ha ha well ok then I guess I do think the earth is a different age to what the majority of you seem to!! With regards to the geologic layer let me ask a couple of questions:
1. How do we know how old the layers are?
2. Why can't the layers have been formed, for example, in a worldwide flood as is described in the Bible and pretty much every other culture around the world - if I put grit, mud and sand in a glass of water and shake it around, in about 5 mins everything will have settled - I'm sure you're aware that if there were a global flood the tides would all synchronise, causing matter to be pulled out into layers
3. Why do we find petrified trees passing through several layers?
4. Looking at the fossils in the layers, how come we see fossils that are apparently very young appearing in much "older" layers, and vice versa?!
And carbon dating I'm afraid I have no confidence in - I recently saw a riverbed that was published as being dated 300,000 years old, give or take 300,000 years!! I also saw a live organism carbon dated as 62,500 years old!! I know carbon dating can only be used for things 50,000 or less years old, but I'm intrigued as to where the ages of the layers came in . . . the original geologic column was dreamt up, along with the layers, in the 1820s I think, which was WAAAAAAY before anyone really knew anything, yet we still use this as "evidence"!! And as a side note the geologic column doesn't actually exist anywhere except in the textbooks so no actual help from that anywhere!!
And in regards to "how did God create the species?!" - all I can say is "yer what?!!!" He's God!!! He just spoke them into being - I have seen God do awesome miracles in my own life, from financial gifts to physically seeing peoples legs grow in front of me, as well as seeing the blind see and the deaf and dumb speak and hear - God is ALL-POWERFUL, our laws don't apply to Him - He is outside of time and space, yet can inhabit it at the same time in a way we don't understand. Jesus came to save us literally when He wanted to, which happened to be about 2000 years ago - which was about 2000 years after the global flood, which was about 2000 years after the creation of the universe. This is what is written in the Bible, which I believe to be the Word of God - now all the evidence available to us points to one of two things . . . a) evolution b) Biblical creation - as far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Bible was written 3000 years ago, and to write a theory that works about evidence that won't be discovered for millennia is pretty clever, you have to admit!! I also believe that if you are being misled by something that COULD - I say could because I know you think what I believe is rubbish - be of Satan, you are just completely throwing away God's awesome gift of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ - I don't wanna throw that away for anything, which is why I lean more to the side of creation . . . when only 55% of scientists in America believe in evolution I have to say I'd prefer to worship an all-powerful God who saved me, rather than get depressed that I just came here by chance after a stupidly long time of everything else dying!!
Just as a warning, straight out of the Bible:
"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." - 2 Peter 3:3-7
I put forward that evolutionists are scoffers, who scoff at God's Word. They say everything is continuing in the same way as it always has. They deliberately make themselves ignorant of God's power and need some kind of biological explanation for everything.
Now either Peter was a inspired by God when he wrote that, or he's really lucky . . . if he's really lucky then none of this matters and when you and I die we'll both have hopefully passed on our genes to the next generation, and possibly go towards creating new fossil fuels.
However, if he was actually writing the Word of God then we're in big trouble, we need a saviour and we have one through Jesus Christ, who's the only One who can protect us from that fire!! Which means that when we die, we will have passed on our genes, our bodies will be dead in the ground BUT I will be in paradise worshipping my almighty God!!!
Where will you be?
|
|