Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 121 of 457 (707872)
10-01-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:25 PM


Re: Back on topic
The Bible is way older than the ToE and is a source of hundreds or thousands of quotations everybody uses. JAR has used this one many times here, and I'm sure he got it from the Bible, and just loves to turn it against creationists.
But then again this response has nothing to do with what I posted does it. Show me the use of the term willful ignorance and you might have something.
Claiming the bible is older than TOE is just another one of your lame strawmen

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 457 (707873)
10-01-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
10-01-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Back on topic
No, you have never found transitional fossils according to the huge numbers and varieties that Darwin recognized would be required to prove the theory, in the bazillions. You've found a few fossils that share features of different species and you call those transitions. Just part of the way you all delude yourselves.
However your argument relies on an assumption - a big assumption that you have no evidence for. The assumption that diversity cannot recover.
No, this is not my assumption. I do believe that mutations cannot bring about such recovery, but recovery is possible by many means. The point I have made over and over is that increasing genetic diversity can only defeat the purpose of developing varieties or breeds, or new "species." If the ToE depends on this, as it does, as "speciation" is considered the stepping-off point to further speciation, it is defeated by the very processes it claims as its engine of change, because either evolution, that is, further variation, will have to cease because of lack of genetic diversity, or it will have to cease because of increased genetic diversity, which only destroys the established new phenotype, by whatever means (the usual means is the reintroduction of genes from a previously inaccessible mother population or another daughter population, or hybridization etc.)
We know that diversity can and does increase at the level of the genome.
See above.
We have every reason to believe that the same applies at the level of the phenotype - especially given the timescales involved.
Producing a new phenotype is a very simple matter of reproductively isolating a small portion of a population and letting it inbreed for some number of generations. You don't need massive timescales, all you need is GENETIC REDUCTION.
We also know by your own admission that your theory is not compatible with an old Earth and old life - and we know that the Earth and life on it have been around for a very long period of time.
What you think you "know" is just a matter of what you BELIEVE, as you cannot KNOW anything about the unwitnessed past, ALL you can do is speculate. That's why the ToE is, always was and will remain a "theory" in the sense it was a theory in Darwin's day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:54 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 123 of 457 (707874)
10-01-2013 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Back on topic
The only people that don't know that the Theory of Evolution is a successful theory are those who are completely ignorant of its existence, and those who purposefully deny it for religious reasons.
The reason it is successful is because it has great explanatory power and we have yet to see any data that goes against it. The stuff you've brought here is just a bunch of nonsense that stems from your attempts at keeping the Bible accurate. It has nothing to do with any real scientific data.
The ToE has even been used to make successful predictions, I'm sure you've heard of how the Tiktaalik was discovered. Every single sign we have points to it being an accurate reflection of reality. Unfortunately for the Bible-based Christians, the Bible got the explanation wrong.
The ToE has been tested and tested and retested and it has passed every single time. All of biology now relies on the facts that the ToE explains. It would be incredibly easy to falsify the ToE. All we'd need to do if find one animal that is out of place. But, as it turns out, everything we find lines up as if it had evolved.
It is breathtaking that such a simple process can lead to so much diversity. Life truely is amazing. The stuff you call facts that you say you've brought here is just a bunch of misplaced nonsense. Its obviously false when you have a simple written "proof" that the ToE is wrong while everything around you continues to evolve just like the theory explains.
That you refuse the theory on religious grounds is you're own problem to deal with, though. Nobody cares what you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 124 of 457 (707875)
10-01-2013 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:21 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:
Sheesh you guys are credulous people. All it takes is a drawing of a bunch of skulls to "prove" the ToE to you.
Well, no. The chart is a compendium of the various facts and data points collected over the years which demonstrates the veracity of the theory.
And for the record, all it takes to prove anything to a Creationist are words in a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders who would have thought an iPad was a gift from Jehovah himself.
And as for 'proof' of evolution. Why, we have that right here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/10/091018141716.htm
Speciation occurring right before our eyes. And also a finding which led to one of the most embarrassing gaffes by Creationist Uber Apologist, Andrew Schlafly:
Lenski affair - RationalWiki
So take heart Faith. None of your rantings here can come close to the massive facepalm Schlafly received in that exchange.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:34 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 125 of 457 (707877)
10-01-2013 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:39 PM


Re: Back on topic
quote:
No, you have never found transitional fossils according to the huge numbers and varieties that Darwin recognized would be required to prove the theory, in the bazillions. You've found a few fossils that share features of different species and you call those transitions. Just part of the way you all delude yourselves.
On the contrary, Darwin never gave any such estimate. And even Kurt Wise - that rarity, a YEC palaeontologist - has admitted that they are significant evidence for evolution. The transitionals we find do not merely share features found in other species (and if they did they would NOT be expected follow the pattern predicted by evolution!). They link major groups - such as birds and dinosaurs.
The truth is no delusion.
quote:
No, this is not my assumption. I do believe that mutations cannot bring about such recovery, but recovery is possible by many means. The point I have made over and over is that increasing genetic diversity can only defeat the purpose of developing varieties or breeds, or new "species."
As I have pointed out this is simply not true. There is no such purpose. There is no breeder or other force to enforce such a purpose. There is not even a problem with the outcome - adding new variations not found in the parent species does not make a new species any less a species. The idea is absurd.
Your problem is not that your idea has not been seriously considered. It is that it HAS been considered - and found wanting.
quote:
Producing a new phenotype is a very simple matter of reproductively isolating a small portion of a population and letting it inbreed for some number of generations. You don't need massive timescales, all you need is GENETIC REDUCTION.
An increase in phenotypic diversity is caused by a REDUCTION in genetic diversity ? That does not make sense. Dogs as a whole have great phenotypic diversity but that involves the genetic diversity of the whole species, not that of a single breed.
quote:
What you think you "know" is just a matter of what you BELIEVE, as you cannot KNOW anything about the unwitnessed past, ALL you can do is speculate. That's why the ToE is, always was and will remain a "theory" in the sense it was a theory in Darwin's day.
And even in Darwin's day it was far better supported than your opinions. And we have discovered much since then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 457 (707878)
10-01-2013 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Theodoric
10-01-2013 3:29 PM


Re: Back on topic
Good grief, I must be scoring some points here because the vitriol against me has escalated to quite a pitch, and degenerated into quite an illogical mess as well.
How ridiculous to have to answer this stupidity. If the word "theory" as defined by you all to describe the ToE is a shuck, an empty pedantry, then what does it have to do with TRUTH? You guys are the ones evading the truth, as I said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:29 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 6:07 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 10-02-2013 11:58 AM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 127 of 457 (707879)
10-01-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
10-01-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Back on topic
You dint mention the single cell organism becoming a multi cell organism
1. "Observed instances of new species forming."
Yes, what evolutionists call "speciation" and new "species" do in fact occur, but they are misnamed. As I've repeatedly said it is artificial to call them new species, it's really a form of question-begging. What the ToE claims is that you can get some COMPLETELY new creature from an old, and really the term "speciation" should be reserved for that event, which of course has never occurred in observation but only in theory. All those cases of the formation of new "species" you have listed for lizards, mice, seagulls etc., are nothing but new varieties or breeds of their original Species that have for whatever reason developed an inability to breed with their former population, and they should be named accordingly instead of calling them "species" so as to confuse the ignorant. In other words this is just another case of normal variation, i.e. "microevolution" being co-opted by the ToE. This is a typical case of word magic, that is, the reification of a concept by the mere manipulation of words.
In scientific terms a speciation is when a part of the species population has changed so much it can no longer breed with the original species.
The event you want us to see does not happen ducks dont turn in to crocodiles. U might after a long process of evolution get a duck that LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE a crocodile but when classified in taxonomy it would always have the label DUCK somewhere. What you want us to present is magic. Like both fish and amphibians are BOTH STILL VERTABRETS.
2. "Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising"
From your descriptions I have to ask whether these supposed instances of "observed" mutations have actually been observed; most of them sound like the usual case of discovering a novel sequence already in existence and CALLING it a mutation, because, as I've said, that's what the ToE requires, therefore that's what it MUST be. But actually observed, not in some of the cases you describe at least.
Yea sure creation requires no mutation therefore all observations must be wrong. And everyone knows scientists are liars and deceivers from the devil.
Look, nobody denies that mutations occur, or even that what they do could be called the formation of a new "gene," or to be more precise an allele for a gene, because after all we're talking about a sequence of chemicals along the DNA strand and mutations alter that sequence, as does normal sexual recombination from generation to generation. But as Coyote affirmed, most such mutations ARE deleterious, many others do nothing that anyone can determine for sure, and very very very few can be said to have any beneficial function. Now you are giving a supposed list of beneficial mutations here. I have to suspect more word magic myself. The question is whether these new "genes" ARE of any real use to the creature. Like that man you mentioned whose X chromosome had acquired a whole bunch of new "genes." How can that be of any benefit? Such claims as this list of yours are NOT convincing, sorry.
If you accept mutations you have to accept evolution there is no way around it mutation=change in genetic structure. I told you how that means mutation can be a benifit in the end its the ENVIRONMENT THAT DECIDES IF A MUTATION IS BENEFICIAL OR NOT
[qs]3. Then -- *sigh* -- you give us a list of "Observed instances of beneficial mutations" ALL of which apparently describe nothing but the usual variation within the given genome and not anything novel at all. In other words, the usual "microevolution." ADAPTATION is NORMAL VARIATION, it is NOT the result of mutation.|/qs
O fucking no you dint
the second one says
Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
DID YOU FUCKING READ GENE DUPLICATION= FUCKING MUTATION A FUCKING CHANGE IN TIS GENOME before there was ONE such GEN then THERE WHERE TWO
4. "Observed instances of large morphological changes."
But there is nothing on this list that suggests anything more than the usual "microevolution," or adaptation by natural selection through the normal variability of the genome of each creature.
Um sure why not and then god stops them from changing even more.
. "Observed evolution of novel organs and features." Well, let's combine this with 6. "...a multicellular organism", and 7. "endosymbiosis" because all these are equally mystifying claims. You can assert anything, and scientific articles are always claiming something to support the ToE, which usually turns out to be the usual case of microevolution, the expression of a pre-existing genetic function being erroneously called a mutation, or a deleterious mutation that they convince themselves is useful etc. If there is anything at all to the titles that claim more, there is no way to tell it from a mere assertion, which of course has no value except as a tool of mystification in the service of your bias.
You sure im the one that has a bias i just told you what was seen and documented your the one screaming thats not what you saw and you lied when documenting it.
Tell me is it even possible to convince you say i had a tardis (time and relative dimension in space) And i take you with me to the very formation of the earth and we watch history fast forwarding to the present if you would have seen evolution with your own eyes would you call me a liar and deceiver manipulating your vision with spacey wacey technology or would that be what it took to convince you?
If you think it would take less to convince you then tell me what would you need to see?

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 1:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:35 PM frako has replied
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 5:24 PM frako has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 457 (707880)
10-01-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Diomedes
10-01-2013 3:48 PM


Re: Back on topic
Puhleeze. Bacteria are so utterly different from sexually reproducing animals I have no idea what conclusions to draw from such an experiment, except to say that variation that leads to an adaptation is the normal genetic thing, normal "microevolution," in sexually reproducing organisms anyway, and I can't expect that it is anything more than that in bacteria either, just one way the creature adapts NORMALLY, not speciation in any meaningful use of the term at all.
Sigh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Diomedes, posted 10-01-2013 3:48 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 457 (707881)
10-01-2013 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by frako
10-01-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Back on topic
About the single cell becoming a multi celled organism as I commented that is just a title and an assertion and I have NO idea what it means in reality.
And I have no interest in talking to someone who slings the profanities as you do. Get lost.,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:31 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:41 PM Faith has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 130 of 457 (707882)
10-01-2013 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
10-01-2013 4:35 PM


Re: Back on topic
Im slinging profanities because you are not consistent in one message you agree mutations happen changes in the genome. In the other you claim thats not what happens. You claim we just documented variation and not mutation but in the verry second line of the part you where talking about it said what gen mutated how can i stay calm when you are actin in such an insane mannor. Now dont be a baby because i refereed to sexual intercourse and answer my previous post.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:48 PM frako has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 457 (707883)
10-01-2013 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by frako
10-01-2013 4:41 PM


Re: Back on topic
I'm getting tired and you are obviously misunderstanding me, no doubt because you have a completely different idea about what the words mean that we use to describe genetic events. I guess I could explain and explain and never get it across to you. But a lot of that is simply because you don't WANT to get it. Anyway, maybe I'll come back later to try to answer whatever it is you are complaining about. And the f word does NOT refer to anything sexual as used as an epithet and you know it. Besides which if it did it would be out of place here anyway. Such language is puerile.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:41 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 133 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 132 of 457 (707884)
10-01-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
10-01-2013 4:48 PM


Re: Back on topic
Ok just tell me in detail what you would need to see to believe in evolution

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 133 of 457 (707885)
10-01-2013 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
10-01-2013 4:48 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:
I'm getting tired and you are obviously misunderstanding me, no doubt because you have a completely different idea about what the words mean that we use to describe genetic events.
One of the wonderful things about science is that no-one - not even you - is allowed to have his or her own definition of scientific terms. And yours, Faith, are wrong.
You think that you can sit at home and self educate by reading bits of the internet - you can't, all you can do is confirm your own bias.
If you really cared about this stuff, you'd enrol in a course of study about evolution and get a real glimpse of what it entails. There's no substitute to holding a real fossil in your hands and properly understanding what it is.
But you won't, you'll continue to think that you have a better understanding of palaeontology, geology and gentics than the millions of real scientists that have worked for over a hundred years to discover - yet you have never formally studied any of those disiplines. Now that is truly weird.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 4:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 134 of 457 (707888)
10-01-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by frako
10-01-2013 4:31 PM


Re: Back on topic
In scientific terms a speciation is when a part of the species population has changed so much it can no longer breed with the original species.
Yes, I thought I was clear that I'm objecting to that definition, not that I'm not aware of it. It's a tendentious question-begging definition that obscures the fact that you still have the same genome and therefore the same species, not a new species in the sense you would have to have to validate the claims of the ToE. All that has happened in most cases is that you get a very small population that has become reproductively isolated and inbred over many generations, and the inbreeding over those many generations of this group with severely reduced genetic diversity does lead to genetic incompatibility with the original population. It's still the same species nevertheless and the term "speciation" only serves to obfuscate that fact. I refer to it by that name anyway, but every time I do I have to append all these caveats and qualifications.
I also then point out that this new population exhibits the very reduction in genetic diversity I've been talking about, which is a trend AWAY from what would be required if the ToE were true because it makes further variation LESS possible, not more. And again, since you are going to want to throw mutations in here to claim that this reduction is not inevitable, if its genetic diversity DOES increase then you will lose the breed/race/variety/species and the whole idea of speciation that supposedly is evolution's springboard to further speciation.
The event you want us to see does not happen ducks dont turn in to crocodiles. U might after a long process of evolution get a duck that LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE a crocodile but when classified in taxonomy it would always have the label DUCK somewhere. What you want us to present is magic. Like both fish and amphibians are BOTH STILL VERTABRETS.
This is silly. I've never said I WANT you to see any such thing, I'm emphasizing that you CANNOT, that all you have is SPECULATION about anything in the unwitnessed past, it's all inferred from the ToE. And again what I've been describing MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAPPEN AT ALL ANYWAY.
I haven't called scientists liiars and deceivers. You keep putting words in my mouth, bringing up the Bible and God and your own crazy nonsense about what creationists believe though it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I believe scientists have bought into a plausible theory, I believe the theory is wrong and the scientists are deceived and I wish they'd wake up. What is often described as "observed" simply is not. It's "observed" the way the fictitious line of descent depicted on the various charts that have been posted here are "observed," that is, they aren't, they're imagined into existence.
No, I do not have to accept evolution if I accept mutations. I only accept mutations as being events that occur as mistakes, certainly not as viable new genes; that's just something you guys believe. Sorry, if the environment, such as malaria, is what it takes to make a mutation viable, that's not normal genetics, that's a disease process compromise.
I have no idea what you are ranting about in response to my saying that adaptation is normal variation. It is. Normal variation under selection or other form of reproductive isolation. It does not require mutations.
Since what "large morphological change" means was not given, all I can do is assume it's built into the genome and was selected.
Sorry, I did not find your lists convincing. Of course you are going to scream that they are.
I spent thirty years believing in evolution and made some attempts to verify it, all of which left me with the sense that the supposed evidence really didn't support what it claimed to support. Nevertheless I went on "believing" in evolution until I became a Christian and eventually discovered creationism which made sense of all that nonsense. Of course IF you could SHOW me via your time machine that it actually happened I'd have no choice but to change my beliefs again, wouldn't I? Of course that is not what your time machine would show, if it was an honest time mchine.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:31 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 6:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 6:22 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-02-2013 7:47 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 135 of 457 (707890)
10-01-2013 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:00 PM


where's the cheese?
Look, I've given FACTS in support of my position that you can't get "evolution" without reducing genetic diversity, it's something breeders and conservationists have to deal with IN REALITY all the time, and guess what, reducing genetic diversity means that eventually as creatures are engaged in evolving you run out of the stuff that fuels evolution.
If that is true then you should be able to provide a link to where you provided said facts?
Edited by jar, : appalin grimmer

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024