God vs. Science

ICANT writes

quote:

---

I hunt the Internet for information of any animal ever becoming another animal. There is no place I find that so states.

---

You have a strawman concept of what evolution is. Note that I'm not saying I believe in evolution, but if you want to "disprove" evolution make sure you know what it is first. Arguing against strawman evolution just makes you look... dumb.Edited by teen4christ, : Added signature. I keep forgetting to do that.

---

http://millionfagmarch.com/Date: March 30, 2008
Time: 11:00 AMWhere: Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, KSRequirements: This is not a “gay-only” event. Just come with the ability to send a message to the WBC and Fred Phelps that intolerance is unacceptable.

ICANT

quote:

---

I know what evolution is.

---

No, you don't. The fact that you used your farm animal as examples of "evolution" tells me you don't know what it is. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population, not a few individuals.

quote:

---

Evolution = change over time.

---

No, it's not, at least not completely.

quote:

---

I do not believe evolution as preached here.

---

And what is being preached here about evolution?

quote:

---

I started out with a hog and I ended up with a hog.

---

That's because the smallest unit that could evolve is a population, not an individual or a few individuals. When I say a population, I mean thousands of interbreeding individuals occupying a well defined niche.You're not even getting the very basics of evolution right. Why would anyone believe you when you get up on your podium with your reverend hat on and start preaching against evolution?Again, I'm not saying I believe in evolution. In fact, I don't think I've ever stated on here my stance on the matter. But that doesn't mean I have to accept strawman arguments.

Rahvin writes

quote:

---

Again, crocodiles haven't changed much in the past several million years, and neither have sharks - they're very well adapted for their biological niche.

---

While I mostly agree with you, I'd be careful with the use of the word "change" in this context. The fossil record can only tell us about the physiological changes or nonchanges. It tells us nothing about the chemical changes or nonchanges.The sharks and crocs today may resemble greatly the sharks and crocs a hundred million years ago, but their biological chemistry could have gone through myriads of changes that could prevent gene flow if we were to somehow bring forward through time a group of sharks or crocs and introduce them into the current population today.So, I'd say that the crocs and sharks have not changed much physically for millions of years because their physical features are very well adapted to their environment, but we can't say for sure if the sharks and crocs today actually resemble the sharks and crocs a hundred million years ago.

Ichthus writes

quote:

---

Yes, but what if there are huge walls that you can't possibly get through between you and the next 'house'?

---

Your huge walls are imaginary when we are talking about biology. All biological lifeforms share the same genetic language. You could literally take a set of human genes and insert them into a bacterial plasmid and the bacteria would express those genes as if they were their own.Your so-called impassable barriers just doesn't exist. The only real barrier is distance just as the only real barrier in biology between one species and another is time.

quote:

---

Remember Mendel's laws....

---

Mendel was talking about inheritence from one generation to the next. Going back to the analogy of walking, Mendel was talking about standing still. He didn't know that DNA existed or that DNA mutation was inevitable. In other words, he didn't know that you could walk. All he knew was that if you stood still in one position at 12 o'clock, at 12:01 you'd still be at that position. He didn't know that you will inevitably start walking.

Ichthus writes

quote:

---

I personally believe that either

​

science will never be able to do that

---

Do precells count?

Sorry for the very late response. There was a shooter at my school and effectively shot 5 people dead. So, I have been elsewhere for the past week.

quote:

---

Are they made from one or more cells?

---

Well, the point of precells is that they are primitive form of cells.

quote:

---

Do they require energy?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Do they respond to stimuli?

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Do they reproduce?

---

Noone has been able to make this observation yet.

quote:

---

Do they display organization?

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Do they adapt?

---

Define "adapt".

quote:

---

Do they grow?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Do they maintain homeostasis?

---

Yes.Further experiments since the Urey-Miller showed that the organic molecules formed from the original experiment would sometimes assemble themselves accordingly to resemble the cell. Given enough energy, they pump ions in and out of their systems as a primitive form of metabolism. Noone has seen them "reproduce" yet, so that's why they are called precells. They lack this very important characteristic of life.The more important point is that just this much has been said to be impossible to achieve. Keep in mind that people have only had the opportunity to work with these chemicals in the laboratory for the last few decades while the Earth had a much much longer time than that. Your "nay" saying is premature.