Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theory of Evolution and model of evolution
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 54 (440030)
12-11-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:44 AM


Creationists at least have the argument that God came into time and space and created life. What do y'all think of that?
I think it tells us nothing and so is worthless drivel. For it to have any value what so ever, it would need to explain "How God did it."

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:44 AM newflyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:51 AM jar has replied

  
newflyer
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 54 (440031)
12-11-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
12-11-2007 9:48 AM


But it's an explanation, where none exists on the evolutionist side. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it can't be disproven, and it's more of an explanation than you offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-11-2007 9:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-11-2007 10:00 AM newflyer has replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 12-11-2007 10:24 AM newflyer has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2007 8:51 PM newflyer has not replied

  
godbuster666
Junior Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 12-11-2007


Message 18 of 54 (440032)
12-11-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:44 AM


Ok ,get your facts right
If there's one thing i cant stand is a bunch of bobble headed bible thumping "christians" who think just because they have a mystical book full of nice stories about jesus (who by the way tricked thousands just for personal gain) they are experts on the feild of evolution. The only reason why you believe in a god in the first place is because you want a new car or a big house. God dosent exist because of all the amputees and homless people out there. does god care about them?
Back to your original statement, evolution is proven and has been supported by many examples such as lucy. Of course evolution tells the origins of life. how d you think we got here in the first place? Get out of the pews and into a classroom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:44 AM newflyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:54 AM godbuster666 has replied
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 12-11-2007 10:39 AM godbuster666 has not replied
 Message 36 by AdminPhat, posted 12-11-2007 5:17 PM godbuster666 has not replied

  
newflyer
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 54 (440034)
12-11-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by godbuster666
12-11-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Ok ,get your facts right
First off, no one is "bobble headed." Obviously you have a personal problem with God, but that doesn't de-legitamize the fact that creationists can explain the origins of life, whereas evolutionists simply have to accept that magically it was created or arose out of natural processes, none of which have ever been observed. Lucy is not a good example, because scientists are not unanimous in there knowledge of her origins. Further, all of her bones were found scattered miles apart, and the argument that somehow they form complete skeletal remains is ridiculous, and would be disregarded as bad science by evolutionists if it supported the creationist viewpoint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by godbuster666, posted 12-11-2007 9:52 AM godbuster666 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by godbuster666, posted 12-11-2007 10:01 AM newflyer has not replied
 Message 26 by JB1740, posted 12-11-2007 10:34 AM newflyer has not replied
 Message 27 by JB1740, posted 12-11-2007 10:37 AM newflyer has not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2007 9:01 PM newflyer has not replied
 Message 43 by sidelined, posted 12-11-2007 9:34 PM newflyer has not replied

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


Message 20 of 54 (440036)
12-11-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:51 AM


On How Things work
But it's an explanation, where none exists on the evolutionist side. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it can't be disproven, and it's more of an explanation than you offer.
No, it explains nothing and is simply a dead end that eliminates the possibility of ever finding out the the truth.
At the present time we do not have an answer (and it is very likely that we will never have "The Answer™") on exactly how life began. We are very close though to understanding mechanisms of "The Ways Life Can Begin™".
The way one moves from ignorance to knowledge is by accepting many things as "Unknown so far". If when we have something where we do not know the steps involved we simply insert "God Did IT" we create deadends, failures, and end up with no explanation. Inserting "God Did It" is exactly the same as saying "Blivits Did It".
It is NULL, worthless, of no value.
The correct answer to how life began is "We don't know YET."

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:51 AM newflyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 10:05 AM jar has replied

  
godbuster666
Junior Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 12-11-2007


Message 21 of 54 (440038)
12-11-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Ok ,get your facts right
The argument can go both ways "newflyer". The only evidence the creation movement can come up with is evidence found by creationists, validated with creationist, and reviewed by creationists. Even if lucy was spread out when they found her, at least it's solid evidence.
The creation scientists that found all the "evidence" supporting creation are biased to creation. Its bad enough not having respect in the scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:54 AM newflyer has not replied

  
newflyer
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 54 (440041)
12-11-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
12-11-2007 10:00 AM


Re: On How Things work
But it's not a dead-end. It's a legitimate answer to a hard question that you yourself admit we'll never have the answer to. We do have an answer, and if you can't accept that, then it's not worth it to argue with you. There are lots of evidences for creationism. The foremost and most recent one is the helium leak rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-11-2007 10:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 12-11-2007 10:15 AM newflyer has not replied
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2007 9:53 PM newflyer has not replied

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


Message 23 of 54 (440043)
12-11-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by newflyer
12-11-2007 10:05 AM


Re: On How Things work
But it's not a dead-end.
How did God create life? When we make that next step, asking how it was done, we move directly to Abiogenesis, the study of how life came from non-life.
Even if, like I believe, God is the the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, to have any understanding we must continue asking the questions. If we simply stop at "God Did It" we only assure that we will remain in ignorance.
There are lots of evidences for creationism. The foremost and most recent one is the helium leak rate.
I'm sorry but you must remember that your sources are lying to you. There is no other way to put it.
BUT, there is an even bigger problem. Disproving Evolution or Abiogenesis does not add any weight or support for Creationism. If Creationism is ever to get beyond being a joke and a congame sucking money out of the pockets of ignorant, gullible Christians, it must present a model that explains what is seen better than the current conventional models. That has simply never been done.
Before you go much further you should probably study How can "Creationism" be supported?.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 10:05 AM newflyer has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 54 (440044)
12-11-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:51 AM


newflyer in Message 17 writes:
But it's an explanation, where none exists on the evolutionist side. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it can't be disproven...
A requirement of scientific theories is that they be disprovable. If you have a proposal that can't be disproven, then it isn't science.
newflyer in Message 19 writes:
...but that doesn't de-legitamize the fact that creationists can explain the origins of life...
And almost all other religions also claim they can explain the origin of life.
newflyer in Message 19 writes:
Lucy is not a good example, because scientists are not unanimous in there knowledge of her origins. Further, all of her bones were found scattered miles apart...
The various fragments of the Lucy fossil were found in relatively close proximity.
newflyer writes:
We do have an answer...
You have a religious answer based upon faith, as do many other religions. Science is seeking a real-world answer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:51 AM newflyer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 54 (440046)
12-11-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:44 AM


Hi, newflyer.
There are plenty of problems with it. One of the first is that evolutionists cannot explain the origins of life....
How is this a problem for the theory of evolution? Newton's law of gravity doesn't explain the origins of life, either, but no one claims that this is a problem.
-
Creationists at least have the argument that God came into time and space and created life.
Well, unless the hypothesis can be tested then it isn't a scientific theory -- unless you can do experiments or make observations that indicate that God created life, then this is just making something up to get an answer.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:44 AM newflyer has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 26 of 54 (440047)
12-11-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Ok ,get your facts right
Further, all of her bones were found scattered miles apart, and the argument that somehow they form complete skeletal remains is ridiculous, and would be disregarded as bad science by evolutionists if it supported the creationist viewpoint.
This statement is bullshit and suggests complete ignorance as to the taphonomy of the Lucy specimen. Care to cite a paper supporting this assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:54 AM newflyer has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 27 of 54 (440048)
12-11-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Ok ,get your facts right
whereas evolutionists simply have to accept that magically it was created or arose out of natural processes, none of which have ever been observed.
Exactly how much of the Genesis story has been observed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:54 AM newflyer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 54 (440051)
12-11-2007 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by godbuster666
12-11-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Ok ,get your facts right
Welcome to EvC, godbuster. But I have to say that your response here isn't really very helpful. If newflyer is wrong, then a summary of the facts and logically sound argument will suffice to show this. This kind of inflammatory response is uncalled for and is just going to be counter-productive.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by godbuster666, posted 12-11-2007 9:52 AM godbuster666 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 54 (440060)
12-11-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by newflyer
12-11-2007 9:44 AM


newflyer writes:
... once life is generated, it can evolve into more complex forms.
It isn't a matter of "can evolve" so much as inevitably will evolve.
Mutations are a fact - acknowledged by even the most devout creationists. DNA will mutate and organisms will reproduce imperfectly as a result.
So it doesn't really matter where life came from. By the very nature of life - even if it came straight from God's magic wand - it will evolve. And nobody has ever discovered a barrier to how far it can evolve - or even proposed a model of how such a barrier might work.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by newflyer, posted 12-11-2007 9:44 AM newflyer has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 30 of 54 (440074)
12-11-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EighteenDelta
08-14-2007 12:06 PM


"The Larval-Transfer Hypothersis"
18D writes:
Does the Theory of evolution dissolve if one were to attack the current views on the history or time lines of species? Does radical restructuring of the current tree of evolution mean that the tenets of evolution are proved false? This relates to remarks such as made by Gould where he states that to discover a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian era would prove evolution false(granted this example is extreme). Is the currently accepted time line of Evolution of life on earth equivalent to The Theory of Evolution? Or should we distinguish them from each other?
One thing to bear in the mind is that some linear aspects of evolutionary trees might be misinterpreted. An interesting article about this appears in the latest issue of American Scientist”"The origin of Larvae," by Donald Williamson & Sonya Vickers (Sorry that I can't access the full article for you, but I'll try to give you a fair reduction of it.) These authors posit a "larval-transfer hypothesis," asserting that:
quote:
...larvae were later additiions to life histories, the earliest animals cannot have had larvae. When a successful hybridization occurred, the resulting chimera had the benefits that each animal had acquired through years of natural selection, along with the new benefits of an early feeding stage coupled with a later reproductive stage.
These two diagrams show their hypothesis faily well:
"Figure 2...(b) Wiiliamson's larval-transfer theory introduces another wrinkle: the notion that one animal can become the larvae of another...(c)..."
As a result, those laterally transferring larvae may have jumped the boundaries of even phyla to remotely "fuse genomes."
"Figure 3. ...(2) Further hybridization with rotifers gave trochophore larvae to the ancestors of today's clam-like and snail-like mollusks. Their close relatives, the octopuses and squid, lack larvae. In conventional thinking, larval forms arose over time as young and adult forms within a species became more and more different. The similarities among larvae in distantly related species are thus conventionally explained by convergent evolution."
And thus their hypothesis offers a plausible alternative to "convergent evolution," which always seemed a little hooky to me anyway. I think that Williamson & Vickers' hypothesis is more interesting than bunnies before the Cambrian Explosion.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EighteenDelta, posted 08-14-2007 12:06 PM EighteenDelta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 12-11-2007 1:33 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 10:34 PM Fosdick 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