quote:It is not clear that it furthers the discussion to exchange any personal information. It is the ideas, concepts, facts and reasoning that one brings that counts
Ideas concepts and reasoning that someone promotes tend to be products of the environment that the person was raised in or works in.A bit of background about each other also humanises the debate.
I was thinking about this and decided to tell a little of my background .I was raised in a small rural town,in a country known as the worlds biggest farm,my father and mother were both animal lovers and my father was also an obsessive organic vegetable grower.
We grew up over time with 2 dogs,5 cats,8 chickens,8 rabbits,3 budgies,and perhaps over 100 tropical fish and 10 goldfish.We lived within 5 mins of a river that held wild fish that we would catch and attempt to domesticate,usually ending up in dead fish.We would try to domesticate the wild birds that surrounded our property.It usually ended up in dead birds.
Ive worked in horticulture,agriculture and now in forestry.Im not a microbiologist but have had hands on experience with animals.Curiously im not an animal lover and am quite detached.To me they are generally nice to eat.
quote:Is this how you think evolution happens? That individual organisms "transform" into new organisms?
Ill clarify.My understanding of evolution is that desirable traits are promoted down thru generations until the organism looks nothing like its ancestors.It even means according to you that the organism could even change kinds.I agree with aspects of evolution that of course there is a certain amount of natural selection and variety.I dont believe this means that kinds can change into other kinds.There seems to be genetic boundaries that of course evolutionary scientists attempt to blur.
quote:The process of evolution occurs constantly, all around the world, in all forms of life
But not to the extent you and your kind claim it to be.You raised an alarm in my head when i asked where in the natural world could you point out the type of evolution that you promote.You immediately pointed to a textbook instead of an example in your mind.Which should of come easily to you after your countless hours here.You could quite easily point to some tenuous examples in the fossil record.But to point to an artists impression doesnt sit easily with me.Heck you could of just said we are all transitional....without any proof of course.
quote:Darwin's insight was that this simple process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Darwin observed animals and saw tremendous variety.He never saw reptiles turning into birds.Thats something yall made up to suit the godless philosophy you promote.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
quote:It seems you only deal with small bits of information at a time, so I'll try to reply in kind.
Hmm.Im searching for an appropriate net owning comeback,but i got bored.
quote:That is Dawkin's walking back through the evidence to see where it leads. It is not the theory of evolution
Semantics.Please no more.After looking over the length of your posts and your habit of repeating yourself,im wondering if my approach might be the more economical one.After all waste not,want not.
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.
quote:So you are admitting that you are intolerant of other beliefs, while expecting us to be tolerant of yours? Glad you realize it.
You made quite an error here.You misrepresented what i said.Thats all i have to say.
quote:My personal belief is that god/s (unknown, unknowable) created the universe with all the physical laws etc such that life was inevitable, and the evolution of that life also was designed to reach - ultimately - a level equal to theirs. We are nowhere near that now, but life is not over yet either, nor is life necessarily limited to this planet.
Now im interested.What evidence do you have of this apart from your own personal take on it.Free thinking is fine and dandy.But without a basis,i can just dismiss.
quote:Now, see if you can get off your high horse and prove that my god necessarily does not exist if evolution is true
lol we cant even agree on evolution.Slow down a tad sport.The rest isnt on topic and you havent factored in humans freewill into the equation.I want to focus on the chart from now on if i may?Thanks for your time.
Hi seekingfirstthekingdom, glad you found this topic.
On personal information, what I have made public is on this thread: Cancer Survivors. Other tidbits that have been passed on in other discussions include:
I grew up in Ann Arbor, a university town that was rural in the summer, urban in the winter, where my dad taught biology and did research at the University of Michigan. He would take us on field trips (he was a naturalist biologist) to places to test them out before taking his students.
I was a boy scout, later became a scoutmaster, and prefer minimalist wilderness camping.
I am a birder, and a hobby naturalist with a wide interest, including archeology.
I've lived in the north, east, west, and south and been to all but four states and one province in the US and Canada, as well as trips to Russia (before collapse), France, England, Mexico, etc.
Hmm.Im searching for an appropriate net owning comeback,but i got bored.
Yet you continue to post in tid-bits at a time. Interesting.
Semantics.Please no more.After looking over the length of your posts and your habit of repeating yourself,im wondering if my approach might be the more economical one.After all waste not,want not.
Sometimes repetition is the only way to get a point across when it is ignored.
It is not semantics to differentiate the theory from the evidence, it is proper procedure in order to discuss the tentative theory vs the factual evidence.
The evidence of fossils and the genetic record etc shows how life has developed on this planet, from the oldest fossils of single cell life to what we see in the modern world. These are the facts that need to be explained, and the theory of evolution explains how such diversity develops.
You made quite an error here.You misrepresented what i said.Thats all i have to say.
Sorry about that, however I went with all the evidence at my disposal.
Now im interested.What evidence do you have of this apart from your own personal take on it.Free thinking is fine and dandy.But without a basis,i can just dismiss.
I'll just say I had a personal experience. Feel free to dismiss it, that does not concern me, as another personal belief is that any persons religious path to enlightenment is their own, and cannot be shared by others.
lol we cant even agree on evolution.Slow down a tad sport.The rest isnt on topic and you havent factored in humans freewill into the equation.I want to focus on the chart from now on if i may?Thanks for your time.
Focus all you want, take your time. The world won't go away, nor will reality change.
But what's to agree about? You either use a definition of evolution that is used in the biological science of evolution or you are talking about something else.
Evolution impacts some religions, others not at all, and the difference is the religion, not evolution.
I agree that religion isn't on topic, this is just an aside to clear the air about the position of religion in science: science is agnostic.
By definition science only deals with natural world processes, what can be subject to scientific study via the scientific method to see what part of reality we can understand as a result.
Religion is free to believe anything. Religion only comes into conflict with science when it includes beliefs that are contradicted by the evidence of reality that science has determined - the shape of the earth, the orbits of the planets, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of life.
Curiously when such conflict arises it is again only between some religious beliefs and not with others, and the fault is with the belief that is contradicted by the evidence.
Ill clarify.My understanding of evolution is that desirable traits are promoted down thru generations until the organism looks nothing like its ancestors.It even means according to you that the organism could even change kinds.I agree with aspects of evolution that of course there is a certain amount of natural selection and variety.
There is no such thing as "desirable traits" what you have is an organism and an environment. In that environment the organism has some traits that are adapted to that environment and enhance the organisms ability to survive and reproduce, and some traits that inhibit the organisms ability to survive and reproduce, and some traits that do not affect the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Different organisms have different mixes of traits, so as a result some are better able to survive and reproduce than others in that environment. Change the environment and the mix of adaptations changes, and different organisms will be better able to survive and breed than the others.
If two populations of the same species inhabit different environments for several generations without interbreeding they will accumulate different mutations and different new hereditary traits.
I dont believe this means that kinds can change into other kinds.There seems to be genetic boundaries that of course evolutionary scientists attempt to blur.
Now you are going to need to define what a "kind" means. Then you need to actually show there is a genetic boundary, something in the cell that prevents mutations beyond a certain level.
But not to the extent you and your kind claim it to be.
Can you point to one single population of organisms that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation?
You raised an alarm in my head when i asked where in the natural world could you point out the type of evolution that you promote.You immediately pointed to a textbook instead of an example in your mind.
Seeing as I have not referenced a single textbook this is rather dubious. Perhaps you are confused by the number of posts from different people on the old thread.
Heck you could of just said we are all transitional....without any proof of course.
We are, all life forms are, all fossils are. Evolution is not a process that ends, it is continuous.
The evidence is the life around you.
Darwin observed animals and saw tremendous variety.He never saw reptiles turning into birds.Thats something yall made up to suit the godless philosophy you promote.
Curiously, no evolutionary biologist would claim that, rather it is a straw man that creationists have made up.
We can agree that this type of transformation does not and has not occurred, that this transformation of organisms is a false concept.
Then we can move on to what evolution actually says and what the evidence actually shows.
quote:The evidence of fossils and the genetic record etc shows how life has developed on this planet, from the oldest fossils of single cell life to what we see in the modern world. These are the facts that need to be explained, and the theory of evolution explains how such diversity develops.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.even the turtles with no shells that you posted as "proof" would need many transitional forms in order to show progression from no shell to fully shelled.this isnt apparent.if there was, no doubt evolutionists would make sure we knew about it.that type of turtle can be easily explained away as another variety that became extinct.and my caps lock has decided to not work.
quote:Sorry about that, however I went with all the evidence at my disposal.
apology accepted
quote:I'll just say I had a personal experience. Feel free to dismiss it, that does not concern me, as another personal belief is that any persons religious path to enlightenment is their own, and cannot be shared by others
fair enough.i was harsh to word it the way i did.
quote:Religion is free to believe anything
correction.morons will believe anything.im quite happy to believe science until it comes into conflict with the bible.this is where we differ.you hold science as the ultimate authority ,i do not despite all the good(and bad) its done for mankind.
I think I can struggle through that. More separation between sentences and more paragraphs would help.
even the turtles with no shells that you posted as "proof" would need many transitional forms in order to show progression from no shell to fully shelled.
Not at "proof" but as actual evidence of reality. This fossil exists, these organisms used to exist.
And actually it was half-shelled - there was shell on the bottom but not on top. Here it is again:
Ever wonder how a turtle got its shell? You're not the only one. Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have long been stumped by the question. But a recently unearthed turtle fossil, the oldest on record, may hold the answer. Researchers report in Nature today that the fossil indicates shells evolved as an extension of turtles' backbones and ribs.
Scientist have been in the dark until now because all fossilized turtles previously discovered had complete shells. But this 220 million-year-old fossil is an ancestor of the modern turtle at a stage when its shell was still evolving.
The newly discovered species sported a shelled belly and a little extra bone on its spine, supporting the theory that turtles' shells formed over eons as their backbones and ribs grew.
(color for empHAsis)
That puts it half way between no shell and shelled. That you now want fossils between no shell and this fossil, and between this fossil and modern turtles, means you are just arguing the "god of the gaps" typical creationist dodge.
that type of turtle can be easily explained away as another variety that became extinct.
Which it is, a variety that is older than all fossils of turtles with both shells, and younger than those with no shell.
I agree that it is easily explained by the evolution of turtles from no shell reptiles to fully shelled turtles. There could even be several species that lived at the same time with partial shells and only one evolved into modern turtles.
This still shows how existing parts of an organism were changed over time, generation by generation, into a new feature that did not exist before.
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
Seeing as the term "kind" has no definition this means nothing.
Seeing as you have not established that any genetic boundaries exist, we are left with a reductionist interpretation that you group all life into one "kind" ... past and present.
For instance you could mean that the fossil record point to all life staying within the boundaries instituted: it all has the same DNA structure, so that is what defines "kind" ... and evolution is the process from that original creation to the present day.
To mean something different you (a) need to define what you mean by "kind" and (b) establish that some actual barrier exists that blocks mutation at a certain point.
Ignore coyote's post, it will be deleted by moderators as this is a great debate thread.
correction.morons will believe anything.im quite happy to believe science until it comes into conflict with the bible.this is where we differ.you hold science as the ultimate authority ,i do not despite all the good(and bad) its done for mankind.
I would also recommend against using terms like morons.
™ Version 4.2
