Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your reason for accepting evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 111 (432490)
11-06-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
11-06-2007 9:08 AM


Re: Tiktaalik
In your eyes they are lies, in my eyes they make sense.
The two are not exclusive. Of course your lies make sense to you.
I start by presuming a creator, you start by presuming evolution.
You are telling me lies about what I think. This is not going to convince me.
Creation makes sense of all the fossils found in the wrong places according to the geologic time scale.
Which don't exist, which is why you can present no evidence for this ridiculous falsehood.
Not made up in my head - part of history or is the evolutionary memory wiped clean of the coelocanth debacle.It was a missing link like so many others, an index fossil (meaning died out hundreds of millions of years ago and thus used as an age indicator) . As an icon, it failed.It is alive -where has it been for hundreds of millions of years only to be found alive and well in the 20th century?
Claiming that I know nothing or that I sprout creationist lies is only a way of avoiding a decent reply -it doesn't have to be long, it just has to make sense.A proper reply would be nice.
Why should I bother to give a proper reply to a claim without any back-up but your say-so?
Still, if it'll make you happy.
* There is no such thing as "the" coelacanth --- coelacanths are an order, not a species, as you would know if you'd ever bothered to find out what you were talking about.
* The modern coelacanths are quite different from those found in the fossil record (which can, therefore, still be used as index fossils) as you would know if you'd ever bothered to find out what you were talking about.
* Scientists do not claim that tetrapods evolved from coelacanths, but from rhipidistians, which are a completely different order of lobe-finned fish, as you would know if you'd ever bothered to find out what you were talking about.
Not really -go to a natural history museum and look for them.Very few and extremely debatable.
There are lots. As for "debatable", anything can be debated --- alll you need is an ignorant crank with a soapbox. The proposition that the Earth is not flat is also "debatable". It's debated by idiots.
In time those that are supposed links (for the moment) will no doubt go the way of their predecessors -into the garbage.
What an interesting fantasy. Which intermediate forms do you claim have gone "into the garbage"?
Not inadvertent, my starting point actually. I don't believe in religion for the sake of it -if its true, great, if it's not, dump it.Same for evolution.
If you were motivated by a desire for truth, you'd have spent some time trying to find out if any of the nonsense you're reciting was in fact true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 9:08 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Beretta, posted 11-10-2007 9:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 111 (432496)
11-06-2007 10:12 AM


Let's Have Some More Intermediate Forms
Let's have a few more intermediate forms, shall we?
Here we see the evolution of the middle ear bones of mammals from the reptillian jaw.
Nice. Let's have a whale with legs, shall we?
Ah, yes, Ambulocetus.
To quote Stephen Jay Gould:
"If you had given me a blank piece of paper and a blank check, I could not have drawn you a theoretical intermediate any better or more convincing than Ambulocetus. Those dogmatists who by verbal trickery can make white black, and black white, will never be convinced of anything, but Ambulocetus is the very animal that they proclaimed impossible in theory."
How about some assorted hominins?
Primitive fish? I give you Haikouella. Fins, yes; hard parts, no, apart from pharangeal denticles for feeding. Eyes are primitive light-sensitive spots. Known from over 300 specimens.
Dinosaur to modern bird, anyone?
Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5598 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 78 of 111 (432499)
11-06-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
11-06-2007 9:03 AM


there is no fossil record that shows the same form in different places and times
Actually so many show virtually no change over time -like clams for instance -virtually unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years -the same today. Yes you get varieties but so many kinds in the fossil record are just plain extinct, not changed into something that evolved and thus survived better.It fits better with the lack of any proof for increasing genetic information. Nobody exposes themselves to x-rays for fun. Mutations are detrimental and do not increase information. You need loads of increased information for evolution to produce something better or different.There is no proof of that so why believe in evolution? What seemed plausible in Darwin's time makes no sense in the light of modern genetics.
The actual steps are:
1. Observe the evidence, historical, fossil and present day.
2. Make a hypothesis that explains the facts -- all the facts.
3. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis that will test it with further evidence.
4. Look for the further evidence to see if the result validates the hypothesis or shows it to be wrong.
Evolution was quickly accepted as an hypothesis before anything but variation/natural selection was demonstrated. Extrapolation was assumed, without any further evidence, by Darwin himself.Haeckels embryos (the fraudulent ones) increased enthusiasm in the proposition.Darwin himself said "if my theory be true, countless intermediates must exist" -he never found them, neither has anyone else.Lots of fossils, no proven intermediates. There's a vast hoo haa when a transition is proposed but they go out the window with no fanfare -just slip silently into obscurity to be replaced by the next hailed 'intermediate'.
Nobody today observes the evidence without assuming evolution -that is the modern day paradigm -the unquestioned presupposition -and yes lots of stories, fit the facts into the accepted paradigm and then call it scientific.
I agree that the rules of any belief system is to attempt to fit the evidence into the story but evolution by no means escapes that, as much as evolutionists would like to believe they are above the simple things that beset the lower life forms -they are humans and they do the same thing. I like to watch true believers (evolutionists) being questioned on their belief system, they very often froth at the mouth reminding me of Muslims defending Allah - dare you disagree? They accuse you of stupidity and lying and rehashing old junk but they do it themselves.Luckily they have not started to chop our heads off yet but I am pretty sure they would like to get us into re-education (brainwashing) programmes so that all can share the faith. It was all going so well until these creationists/ID proponents came along...Pride keeps them going.
The Galapagos Finches are an example of the first and Tiktaalik rosea is an example of the second.
The galapogos finches shift back and forth -they change within a range -they remain finches and no new genetic information is added -nothing new is added to the finches, just variation and natural selection, the same old stuff that creationists agree with anyway. They must ,there's proof, we see it every day.
As for Tikaaklik -some birds have teeth, some don't; some birds have claws on their wings, some don't. Some very strange creatures exist that seem to come from nowhere as well -creation perhaps. No reason to assume Tikaaklik is an intermediate form unless you first assume evolution.Evolutionists see a new intermediate in so many things. Why would a fish, a competent swimmer develop arms and legs and walk away? So many other body systems have to change to make that vaguely feasible.It should remain ungainly on land for at least a few million years -and natural selection should get rid of it.You can only assume they made it and turned into other land forms if you first assume evolution.What about just some type of weird extinct fish? That's what creation would assume and it would fit.
Because evolution works on living organisms
Variation, natural selection works on living organisms but all within limits according to all we ever see in nature.
don't understand or choose to misrepresent evolution.
I don't think so!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2007 9:03 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 12:40 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 11-06-2007 12:40 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 81 by jar, posted 11-06-2007 12:46 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 84 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 1:01 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2007 10:44 PM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 111 (432507)
11-06-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Beretta
11-06-2007 10:54 AM


Actually so many show virtually no change over time -like clams for instance -virtually unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years -the same today. Yes you get varieties but so many kinds in the fossil record are just plain extinct, not changed into something that evolved and thus survived better.
Hey, look, you said something true again!
It fits better with the lack of any proof for increasing genetic information. Nobody exposes themselves to x-rays for fun. Mutations are detrimental and do not increase information. You need loads of increased information for evolution to produce something better or different.There is no proof of that so why believe in evolution? What seemed plausible in Darwin's time makes no sense in the light of modern genetics.
And now you're back to talking bollocks.
You know who knows about modern genetics?
Modern geneticists.
You know who knows bugger-all about modern genetics?
You.
Modern geneticists have no time for the puerile fantasies of creationists.
This is why you won't find a single geneticist who supports your krazy kreationist krap about mutations and information.
Darwin himself said "if my theory be true, countless intermediates must exist" -he never found them, neither has anyone else.Lots of fossils, no proven intermediates.
More sad little lies.
There's a vast hoo haa when a transition is proposed but they go out the window with no fanfare -just slip silently into obscurity to be replaced by the next hailed 'intermediate'.
Ths is the second time you've repeated this weird little fantasy. What on Earth do you think you're talking about?
I like to watch true believers (evolutionists) being questioned on their belief system, they very often froth at the mouth reminding me of Muslims defending Allah - dare you disagree?
I have never seen an evolutionist froth at the mouth. We obviously move in very different circles.
Perhaps you could show us a photograph of such an incident?
Or perhaps you made this up.
They accuse you of stupidity and lying and rehashing old junk but they do it themselves.
Well, that was easy for you to say. However, it isn't actually true, is it?
Luckily they have not started to chop our heads off yet but I am pretty sure they would like to get us into re-education (brainwashing) programmes so that all can share the faith.
Paranoid lunacy is its own reward, I guess. Wait, I mean punishment, don't I?
Damn, I feel sorry for you people.
As for Tikaaklik -some birds have teeth, some don't; some birds have claws on their wings, some don't. Some very strange creatures exist that seem to come from nowhere as well -creation perhaps. No reason to assume Tikaaklik is an intermediate form unless you first assume evolution.Evolutionists see a new intermediate in so many things. Why would a fish, a competent swimmer develop arms and legs and walk away? So many other body systems have to change to make that vaguely feasible.It should remain ungainly on land for at least a few million years -and natural selection should get rid of it.You can only assume they made it and turned into other land forms if you first assume evolution.What about just some type of weird extinct fish? That's what creation would assume and it would fit.
Why do you keep on reciting this dreary crap about "assumptions"?
The existence and location in the fossil record of Tiktaalik were predicted by the theory of evolution.
The evolutionists were right.
That's science for you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 80 of 111 (432508)
11-06-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Beretta
11-06-2007 10:54 AM


Beretta writes:
Variation, natural selection works on living organisms but all within limits according to all we ever see in nature.
But those "limits" are fiction. No such barriers have ever been observed. No creationist has ever proposed a mechanism for how such a barrier could work.
As I said in an earlier post, the nature of the DNA molecule makes imperfect reproduction inevitable. You need to show some evidence that DNA changes can only go so far and no farther.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

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


Message 81 of 111 (432511)
11-06-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Beretta
11-06-2007 10:54 AM


Why I accept Evolution
The topic is "Your reason for accepting evolution".
In Message 49 among others that has been presented.
Deal with it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 111 (432513)
11-06-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2007 10:12 AM


Re: Let's Have Some More Intermediate Forms
Let's have some foraminifera, shall we?
And now some ceratopians, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 10:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 111 (432514)
11-06-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Beretta
11-06-2007 8:00 AM


Beretta writes:
There is one actually -creation fits the bill perfectly -a supernatural creator created everything and that's why billions of intermediate (should be there) fossils are missing. Only fully formed creatures with fully formed organs, no half-half anything on its way from leg to wing, reptile lung to bird lung, scales to feathers nothing. Why???
What about half a heart as evidence? Fish have a 2 chambered heart. Mammals and birds have 4 chambered hearts. Reptiles have 3, and there are some amazing transitional aspects to the reptile hearts...
from Wiki writes:
There are some interesting exceptions among reptiles. For instance, crocodilians have an anatomically four-chambered heart that is capable of becoming a functionally three-chamber heart during dives (Mazzotti, 1989 pg 47). Also, it has been discovered that some snake and lizard species (e.g., monitor lizards and pythons) have three-chamber hearts that become functional four-chamber hearts during contraction. This is made possible by a muscular ridge that subdivides the ventricle during ventricular diastole and completely divides it during ventricular systole. Because of this ridge, some of these squamates are capable of producing ventricular pressure differentials that are equivalent to those seen in mammalian and avian hearts (Wang et al, 2003).
As has been stated to you more than once, these things have been predicted by science, but seem to go against the idea of creation since they show transitional forms. Earliest fish = 2, then reptiles = 3 except when they have 4, then birds and mammals = 4. You see the pattern yet?
But you will continue to ignore or outright dismiss these things...
-x

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 8:00 AM Beretta has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 84 of 111 (432515)
11-06-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Beretta
11-06-2007 10:54 AM


Beretta
You need loads of increased information for evolution to produce something better or different.
You know,I hear this gem over and over. Can you explain to us just what change in information is required to effect an evolutionary process? Do you know what is required to ,say, change the length of a limb? And if that change can be easily implemented by a tiny tweak in the DNA then could you explain what would prevent that from happening?
Now if the change can occur and a limb can be shown to lengthen easily,do you think such a change could incur a significant advantage or disadvantage? Why or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 111 (432520)
11-06-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


How does this information fit your creationist view?
Chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. [2] The evidence for this includes:
* The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. [3][4]
* The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 we see remnants of a second. [5]
* The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 we see additional telomere sequences in the middle. [6]
Chromosome 2 is thus strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo:
We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.
Read and learn...
Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
The evidence is incontrovertibly in support of evolution. Any argument about how a designer would reuse successful designs are bunk because your designer is infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable etc. why would he design these things to look evolved unless he is an asshole, bent on fucking with our heads?
-x
Edited by EighteenDelta, : fixed links

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 111 (432551)
11-06-2007 4:50 PM


Topic Drift Alert
Here is the text of my earlier Message 52 stating my concern about topic drift:
Admin in Message 52 writes:
When I promoted this thread I viewed it as an opportunity for a creationist to gather evolutionist responses about why they accepted evolution. I never intended that this thread take up debate about the validity of the reasons provided. Anyone wishing to debate the validity or lack thereof of any the reasons for accepting evolution should propose a new thread.
I'm going to close this thread for a few hours to make sure people have an opportunity to see this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 87 of 111 (432793)
11-08-2007 7:56 AM


Topic is Reopened
Please stay on topic. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 111 (432776)
11-08-2007 6:57 AM


Summary:
I accept evolution because I know about biology.
People reject evolution because they know damn-all about biology, and so are suceptible to being brainwashed with stupid lying bullshit by pathetic stupid ignorant halfwitted creationist liars.
I trust that this answers the question in the OP.

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 89 of 111 (432881)
11-08-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
Uh, no. They come to different conclusions because science started with the evidence and has used the evidence to arrive at their conclusions (which are attempts at explaining the evidence), whereas creationists/IDists started with their conclusions and then ignored most of the evidence and lied about the rest while making up some of their own fake evidence.
And please, just what is an "evolutionist" supposed to be?
Which one does the evidence better support?
Why, the one that had based its conclusions on the evidence, of course. Which is to say, science. And the evidence does support evolution, which is the best explanation we have to explain the evidence.
Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
Huh? What makes you think that such a question is valid? Looks like you're making some wild and baseless assumptions there.
First, what do you mean by "special creation"? Of course, you refer to a supernatural entity called "the Creator", whom, I assume, you identify as being YHWH. But why modify it with "special"? Are you specifying that this Creator could not have used natural processes to perform this creative act? But why are you overspecifying creation like that?
Now, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution having happened. And even more overwhelmingly in support of the universe having had a long and eventful history.
There is no evidence whatsoever of an supernatural Creator, nor should we expect there to be. Because a fundamental part of the nature of the supernatural is that we cannot observe it, we cannot measure it, we cannot perceive it, we cannot even determine whether it exists or not. That is why science does not deal with the supernatural: because science cannot deal with the supernatural. And thus supernaturalistic explanations cannot be used in science because there is no way to test them.
So, if this Creator had only used supernatural means and completely bypassed natural means, then no evidence exists for creation. But if this Creator was Sovereign over Nature and had made use of natural processes as well, then there would be evidence. And indeed, the evidence does show that natural processes were used to create the planets and to shape the planets' surfaces. And natural processes were used to develop life on this planet.
So, it is false and foolhardy to ask whether the evidence supports creation or evolution. It does certainly support evolution, and it can also support creation if you don't forbid your god to use Nature. Are you dictating to God what He may or may not do?
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
No, it is not. Science cannot make such a statement nor does it promote such a position. Evolution is the most plausible option because it explains the evidence so well, regardless of whether any "transcendent creator" might exist or not. Same as gravity. So this statement of yours is also wild and baseless.
Not only does science not try to disprove the existence of any supernatural entities, but it could not even if it were to try. Science cannot deal with the supernatural.
Rather, it is creationism which provides disproof of the existence of any supernatural entities. That's right, creationism proves that God does not exist. Because it is creationism that makes several contrary-to-fact claims (all of them lies, BTW) and furthermore teaches that if those contrary-to-fact claims were found to be contrary-to-fact (which they most certainly are!), then the Bible is false and God does not exist. Or at the very least God is a liar whom you should turn your back on and refuse to worship. If you disagree with that, then please tell me what you believe the consequences would be if you were to realize that evolution is true. And please be truthful in your answer.
Yes, I know, those creationist teachings are false and lies, but their followers don't realize it and they believe what they are told. So when they are faced with the real world evidence and are no longer able to deceive themselves about it, they lose their faith. And the members of the general public who don't know any better also see those creationist claims and they take them at face value and they see that those claims are so ludicrously false that they accept the creationists' "proof" that God does not exist.
Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.
There is a lot of experimental data that supports evolution. As well as paleotological evidence. The only way to say that there is no evidence is through standard creationist lies.
Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.
As already established, since science uses the evidence to better understand the evidence, it is very well supported by the evidence. And since creationism abuses and ignores the evidence, it is very poorly supported by the evidence.
One of them must be true -they can't both be.
False, in both ways.
First, when given two choices that are not mutually exclusive, it is not true that one of them must be true. What about the third, fourth, n-th choices? You've constructed a false dichotomy and the only purpose that a false dichotomy can serve is to deceive.
Second, it is false to state that they can't both be true. As I pointed out above, evolution is a natural process, the natural consequences of life doing what life does. And a Creator who is Sovereign over Nature would not have been restricted from using Nature. There is no inherent conflict between Nature and Creation; there is only conflict with certain narrow and contrary-to-fact beliefs.
Title: Your reason for accepting evolution
It does an excellent job of explaining the evidence and how life works. And it makes so much sense.
Now, since you seem so bent on your false dichotomies, I should point out a couple things:
1. I am not a Christian. I started out as one, but at around the age of 11 I started reading the Bible and found it to be so unbelievable that, since I could not believe it, I realized that I had to leave. The same nave literalist mistakes evident in your OP. Right decision for me, albeit for the wrong reasons.
2. I could never become a Christian. Because those who would try to convert me have amply demonstrated through their use of "creation science" their zeal for blatantly lying about everything that they possibly could lie about. And if they lie about those things that we can test, why should I ever believe that they're not lying about those those things that we cannot test? Like all their claims, many of them quite detailed, about the supernatural. No, it's quite obvious that they're lying about that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 111 (432897)
11-08-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Beretta
11-06-2007 10:54 AM


My reason for accepting evolution, is that there is NO evidence yet found that invalidates it.
Actually so many show virtually no change over time -like clams for instance -virtually unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years -the same today.
Key word "virtually" -- for this is my point, that even in species that appear to be the same over extensive periods of time there is still change from generation to generation. This is evidence for evolution, whether the pace is slow and plodding or fast and furious, for the degree of change from generation to generation is nowhere specified nor is any great change required.
The effect of evolution on different populations depends on the mutations (the different hereditary traits available) in the population at the various times, the selection processes operating on those mutations, and the opportunities for different ecologies to cause different selection results. Clams for instance being very well suited to life on a shallow sea floor, having abundant amounts of shallow sea floor available, have no pressing need to change: there is plenty of opportunity to survive and breed more clams.
Yes you get varieties but so many kinds in the fossil record are just plain extinct, not changed into something that evolved and thus survived better.
But this too is evidence for evolution. The great preponderance of fossil evidence showing the vast majority of life forms to be extinct shows that natural selection plays no favorites. If conditions change and a species does not have the necessary traits to survive then selection eliminates it individual by individual until the species is extinct. That most species did not have traits to survive a meteor blast 65 million years ago is no great surprise.
It fits better with the lack of any proof for increasing genetic information. Nobody exposes themselves to x-rays for fun. Mutations are detrimental and do not increase information. You need loads of increased information for evolution to produce something better or different.
Yet every generation in every species is different. Mutations produce differences, those differences result in individuals with different abilities to survive and reproduce, and that results in changes in the hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
The concept of "information" is irrelevant OR there is "increasing" information.
There is no proof of that so why believe in evolution? What seemed plausible in Darwin's time makes no sense in the light of modern genetics.
Because your denial does not make the evidence go away. Every species known to man alive today, in the historical record and in the fossil record shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Evolution was quickly accepted as an hypothesis before anything but variation/natural selection was demonstrated. Extrapolation was assumed, without any further evidence, by Darwin himself.Haeckels embryos (the fraudulent ones) increased enthusiasm in the proposition.Darwin himself said "if my theory be true, countless intermediates must exist" -he never found them, neither has anyone else.Lots of fossils, no proven intermediates. There's a vast hoo haa when a transition is proposed but they go out the window with no fanfare -just slip silently into obscurity to be replaced by the next hailed 'intermediate'.
Evolution was quickly accepted because the basic explanation fit the facts, the evidence that was available at the time. Since then the addition of new evidence has not changed that basic explanation, every intermediate found just makes it that much more sure, and in a very real sense every single fossil found is an intermediate: that makes millions of them. When genetics was discovered there was a chance to test evolution most thoroughly by seeing how well genetic data matched that from what was known from fossil evidence and comparative anatomy. The result was astonishing agreement.
Nobody today observes the evidence without assuming evolution -that is the modern day paradigm -the unquestioned presupposition -and yes lots of stories, fit the facts into the accepted paradigm and then call it scientific.
False. Now you can either show I am wrong by providing evidence of your assertion, or you can admit that it was just a groundless assertion.
I agree that the rules of any belief system is to attempt to fit the evidence into the story but evolution by no means escapes that, as much as evolutionists would like to believe they are above the simple things that beset the lower life forms -they are humans and they do the same thing. I like to watch true believers (evolutionists) being questioned on their belief system, they very often froth at the mouth reminding me of Muslims defending Allah - dare you disagree? They accuse you of stupidity and lying and rehashing old junk but they do it themselves.Luckily they have not started to chop our heads off yet but I am pretty sure they would like to get us into re-education (brainwashing) programmes so that all can share the faith. It was all going so well until these creationists/ID proponents came along...Pride keeps them going.
This is really a rather pathetic rant, virtually begging for persecution, nor does it address the issues at all. Repeating your falsehoods does not make them any more true than they were before. Let me do this again:
False. Now you can either show I am wrong by providing evidence of your assertion, or you can admit that it was just a groundless assertion.
The galapogos finches shift back and forth -they change within a range -they remain finches and no new genetic information is added -nothing new is added to the finches, just variation and natural selection, the same old stuff that creationists agree with anyway. They must ,there's proof, we see it every day.
And yet it is evidence of evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. We do see it every day, for it is universal to all life forms known.
That creationists agree with it is inconsequential, as they can agree that the earth orbits the sun and that 1+1=2. The real issue is that this is what the evidence shows -- evolution.
As for Tikaaklik -some birds have teeth, some don't; some birds have claws on their wings, some don't.
Which does not refute the intermediate form of Tiktaalik rosea nor of the common ancestor of birds with dinosaurs having teeth.
No reason to assume Tikaaklik is an intermediate form unless you first assume evolution.
You forget: the existence, the form, the place and the prehistoric environment were predicted by evolution, then the prediction was tested by investigation, investigation which validated the prediction. The prediction was based on assuming evolution to be valid then deducing what the result would be. The very real problem for you is: if evolution is NOT true, then why did the prediction materialize?
Why would a fish, a competent swimmer develop arms and legs and walk away?
Increased food supply and decreased predators would be a real inducement to augment any little ability to take advantage of it.
It should remain ungainly on land for at least a few million years -and natural selection should get rid of it.
Absolutely false conclusion. Natural selection would not get rid of something that -- no matter how ungainly it is on land -- is good enough at getting around on land that it can survive and breed.
You can only assume they made it and turned into other land forms if you first assume evolution.
Nope. You can actually look at the evidence.
Variation, natural selection works on living organisms but all within limits according to all we ever see in nature.
What limits are those and where are they imposed? Be specific. Note that there is no part of the basic structure of DNA as found in humans, for example, that is different from the basic structure of DNA found in bacteria. They are made from the same amino acids, with the same helical structure.
I don't think so!
What you think is totally irrelevant. Nature is neither impressed nor restricted by what you think.
And yet the facts show that you indeed either "don't understand or choose to misrepresent evolution" -- the evidence of your posts clearly shows that your arguments are not based on valid representations of evolution.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Beretta, posted 11-06-2007 10:54 AM Beretta 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