Evolution - True Or False

It's


  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
To avoid a bible debate in this thread, let me just say that you need to re-read Genisis. The order you just wrote is not what's in the Bible.

Biologically (scientifically/evolutionarily), it is not thought that producers(plants) came before consumers(animals), anyway.

Quite obvioiusly I have.
What you don't know is that others have made this ruling not myself. Scrutiny was required on my part was understanding and linguistic feat of domain of the grammar of Genesis that is often completely misunderstood.

For instance....Adam and Eve were not created twice as some have inappropriately pointed out, much as you have...however to entertain the possiblity that I'm wrong I'll post a new tread later for the sake of the Creation account.

To continue: Another such example is the water cycle.

The earth has a limited amount of water. That water keeps going around and around and around and around and (well, you get the idea) in what we call the "Water Cycle".
This cycle is made up of a few main parts:

evaporation (and transpiration)
condensation
precipitation
collection

The bible illistrates this cycle in a type of detail that shows a certain comprehension.
 
must.....not......respond....
For instance....Adam and Eve were not created twice as some have inappropriately pointed out, much as you have
I didn't claim that. I don't think they were created twice, I think that chapters one and two are two versions of the same story, despite the descrepencies between them.

However, back to the claim at hand of the Bible giving the order you described: chapter 1, has the order as light(1.4), heaven/earth(1.7), plants(1.11), the stars/sun/moon(1.14), water animals(1.20), birds(1.20), land animals(1.24), and the people(1.27).
If you are going to cite a source, at least be accurate to that source.

You go on to discuss the 'common ancestor' concept, which is often seen as basic to evolutionary theory. However, consider the work of Carl Woese who argues in a 2002 paper (Woese, Carl R. On the Evolution of Cells PNAS 2002):
While this does not require, it certainly implicitly admits, life arising on multiple occassions with a similar underlying biochemistry and then blending characteristics. This is definitely non-Darwinian, in that their would be common ancestors, not a common ancestor. However natural selection would still be at work on the whole assemblage.

Very cool stuff. I'll have to read that whole paper, I like the concept.
 
Restrain yourself...

I'm sure I've errored in some way since I didn't quote verbatim. It wouldn't be the first time. However you can look up synopsis of the Genesis account day by day and the order is sound...which is really all that I'm stating...I'll not hold myself to accuracy unless I give a direct quote which isn't going to happen on this thread.

However this thread is not about the Genesis account.
Rather it is meant to highlight the serious and frequently overlooked inconsistencies of the Evolutionary Theory.
One subject I've recongnized as problematic as of recently is just what evolution is. I've learned that this for scientist is a expansive circle that apparently encompasses almost...everything genetic. Which I find disturbing and confusing and undoubly is the cause of rifts in comprehension in contentionous debates such as this.

Several online sources list "breeding" as man playing with evolution.
I was aghast at such a statement. This was a wiki source of which I don't intend to repeat over and over again is a source of inconsistancy itself. However there were refrences to substaniate this claim.

How is it that Evolution is to be a long term description of biological development and is being maniuplated by breeding when scientific endeavors to alter the species through radiation bondardment and breeding have undeniably failed?

This is a major inconsistancy of Evolution...nearly sitting on the top...I'm sure to find disagreement on this which will further illistrate a common failure to define what evolution is.

While at the top it is not alone.

A hundred Years of Scientific Development have been unable to link Mutation with Evolution.
Research of the Fossil Record and statements of Evolutionary Scientist can not claim that the fossil record show any signs of gradalism in contradictory refrences to the record as being snap shots of geologic history....More contradictions
Survival of the Fitest is the most problematic failure to account for any other variable but the animal's fittness...which is why it's the Fittest but what about the unluckiest?
Adaptation also hasn't been linked to Evolution...(details are available)

These links are necessary for the function of this theory and the Three major steps for Evolution to take aparently are in no way connected to same "stair case" to the levels of different species.
 
Last edited:
Rather it is meant to highlight the serious and frequently overlooked inconsistencies of the Evolutionary Theory.

Please be more specific. What 'inconsistencies'?

One subject I've recongnized as problematic as of recently is just what evolution is. I've learned that this for scientist is a expansive circle that apparently encompasses almost...everything genetic. Which I find disturbing and confusing and undoubly is the cause of rifts in comprehension in contentionous debates such as this.

I found what you wrote silly as I could not understand what the heck you are saying. We speak "english" here, not "engrish"

Several online sources list "breeding" as man playing with evolution.

This is a proven point:

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation,[4] and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[5] Domestic cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.[citation needed]

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.[6]

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[7] Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.[8]


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I was aghast at such a statement.

Shame.

How is it that Evolution is to be a long term description of biological development and is being maniuplated by breeding when scientific endeavors to alter the species through radiation bondardment and breeding have undeniably failed?

You think? Then howcome these pigs glow in the dark? :D http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4605202.stm hehe, okay not through radiation, by through genetic engineering.


This is a major inconsistancy of Evolution...nearly sitting on the top...I'm sure to find disagreement on this which will further illistrate a common failure to define what evolution is.

I am still not sure what the actual "disagreement" here is.

A hundred Years of Scientific Development have been unable to link Mutation with Evolution.

Rubbish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mutation

Research of the Fossil Record and statements of Evolutionary Scientist can not claim that the fossil record show any signs of gradalism in contradictory refrences to the record as being snap shots of geologic history....More contradictions

wtf? Please try find someone around you who can communicate in english to assist you asking this question in a way that is understandable.

Survival of the Fitest is the most problematic failure to account for any other variable but the animal's fittness...which is why it's the Fittest but what about the unluckiest?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Where are you from? I want to know what country produces an education system that developed you. I dont imagine that the Theory of Survival of the unluckiest lasted very long in the annals of academia. It was rather unlucky :)


Adaptation also hasn't been linked to Evolution...(details are available)

Another lie. Of course it has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Selection_and_adaptation

These links are necessary for the function of this theory and the Three major steps for Evolution to take aparently are in no way connected to same "stair case" to the levels of different species.

Your whole argument is wrong.
 
Eventually evolution will be accepted as truth. Maybe 50-100 years or more, but it will happen as we continue to find more and more evidence supporting it.

Then we will not have pointless arguments like these just because it contradicts someones religious beliefs.
 
Eventually evolution will be accepted as truth. Maybe 50-100 years or more, but it will happen as we continue to find more and more evidence supporting it.

Then we will not have pointless arguments like these just because it contradicts someones religious beliefs.

how many years has it been allready? the fact of the matter is that there is no proof of human evolution...merely conjecture. Using the human brain as an example you can come close to disproving evolution entirely/ IMHO
 
Well it must have been God then! :rolleyes:

You said it not me.:)

I make no aspiration either way and have no need to be placated. You do realise, as has been pointed out, that not all atheist adhere to Darwin Evolution theory.

EDIT: if the Darwin Evoltion smoking gun is found it really woud not matter to me much, if you know what the smoking gun is then present it here.
 
saquist said:
"You have overlooked, for some reason, several more or less logical or impersonal responses or objections to your assertions (from me, and others) and concentrated instead on matters of personality and tangential opinion. ”

If you say so.
Yes, I do say so. And this appears to be central to your approach to the issue. The attitude or role of wisdom trumps both the facts of the matter and the logic of anyarguments presented.

Now, why is it that you say, for example, that observation is key to both scientific and Biblical approaches to the origins of the Creation? Observation is central to fingerpainting, too - that has no bearing on any claims of accurate comprehension of the history of Creation through fingerpainting.
John99 said:
EDIT: if the Darwin Evoltion smoking gun is found it really woud not matter to me much, if you know what the smoking gun is then present it here.
Your DNA translation code is the same as a mushroom's.
 
Very cool stuff. I'll have to read that whole paper, I like the concept.

Carl Woese (see 2004 article), and others, such as Mitchell L. Sogin of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institue. the most recent view is that there never was a common ancestor because of the enormous amount of horizontal gene transfer that went on in early unicellular prokaryotes. This still occurs today in unicellular organisms and viruses.

16srnatreeoflifern5.jpg

http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=54
 
I don't completely agree with the wikipedia entry, or the OP. I think it is presuptuous to assume that *all* life decended from a single common ancestor. The differences in the basic function of viruses and prions, and thier inherent dependance on other, fundimentally different, life forms for survival suggests to me that they formed from non-life chemical systems after our ancestors had already taken hold.

I think that life has most likely started dozens, if not hundreds of times, and 95% of those times, it ended with the death of the first individual. But some had or developed the ability to reproduce, and lasted longer. That both cellular life and viruses use RNA may be due to a common ancestor, but it could also be as likely due to the effectivness of RNA as a hereditary molecule, and the requirement of viruses to have a hereditary system compatible with cellular life for it's reproductive cycle. All life forms that used a different method have died out due to thier own failings, been out-competed, or exist in such small numbers that we haven't found any yet. there is alot we still don't have a good grasp on.


Whick Wikipedia article are you referring to that you do not agree with? I agree with what you state above and will change it if it is not in accord. Any journal articles or sources of scientific study would help prevent descent.
 
how many years has it been allready? the fact of the matter is that there is no proof of human evolution...merely conjecture.
Here is the thing John: many scientists couldn't give a rat's arse, or an aardvark's anus, about human evolution. They are perfectly happy to study the evolution of voles, or molluscs, or brachiopods, or echinoderms, or even dicotyledons.
And in all of these fields the fact of evolution is established far beyond any reasonable doubt. Indeed the broad mechanisms of evolution are also apparent when these various groups are studied with due diligence and an open mind.
It is true, because of the paucity of fossil evidence, that the details of human evolution are less well defined, but really, what does that have to do with the price of bread? You could only consider this important if you were taking an anthropocentric, arrogant, king of the castle approach to humanity's place in the scheme of things. Is that really the proper attitude for one of the meek who plans to inherit the Earth?
 
Last edited:
It is true, because of the paucity of fossil evidence, that the details of human evolution are less well defined, but really, what does that have to do with the price of bread? You could only consider this important if you were taking an anthropocentric, arrogant, king of the castle approach to humanity's place in the scheme of things. Is that really the proper attitude for one of the meek who plans to inherit the Earth?

Because we as a people are both arrogant and anthropocentric, the science of the evolution of the human species is much better developed than for any other species. We have found a vast amount of fossil evidence of humans and their immediate predecessors. Multiple armies of specialists are dedicated to the development of the evolutionary history of one species, homo sapiens. Is this the case for any other species, past or present?
 
I found what you wrote silly as I could not understand what the heck you are saying. We speak "english" here, not "engrish"

Then it would seem we have a communications problem.

This is a proven point:

Really...

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation,[4] and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[5] Domestic cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.[citation needed]

The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.[6]

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[7] Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.[8]

I was unaware of the inability of these species to interbreed.
But breeding ability doesn't necessarily define species.

Objectivity is never shameful.

You think? Then howcome these pigs glow in the dark? :D http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4605202.stm hehe, okay not through radiation, by through genetic engineering.

I have seen many example of willful and purposefull splicing, retro, and therapy. Yes, and the rest of your examples are sufficient to highlight that for a species to change it requires engineering.

I had hoped that you would lend your assistance to proving my point and you have graciously accomodated.

Edit:
At this point I'm considering your discussion methods. If...I've understood you correctly. You think my questions on evolution are rubbish and and the contradictions I observe as lies. You've...set the tone for future discussions...You've established your superiority and I belive I can make a reasonable extrapolation to where this "discussion's" bearing will be. I thank you for responding to my post but I can not see a prgressive exchange of ideas or knowledge with your current perspective of my contributions.

I hope you can understand that...I did the best I could.
 
Last edited:
We have found a vast amount of fossil evidence of humans and their immediate predecessors.
Don't talk crap. The volume of human and proto-human fossils is disappointingly and frustratingly small. The constant revisions to proposed lineages and interrelationships of hominid species and genera, and to their supposed behviour patterns, are a direct result of the limited material available. If you are suggesting otherwise you are either ignorant of the facts, or working to an agenda.
 
Yes, I do say so. And this appears to be central to your approach to the issue. The attitude or role of wisdom trumps both the facts of the matter and the logic of anyarguments presented.

If you say so...

Now, why is it that you say, for example, that observation is key to both scientific and Biblical approaches to the origins of the Creation? Observation is central to fingerpainting, too - that has no bearing on any claims of accurate comprehension of the history of Creation through fingerpainting.
Your DNA translation code is the same as a mushroom's.

I didn't say that at all. You said that.
Let's try this in simpler language.

The bible makes observations about our enviroment.
Science uses observations about our enviorment. Science answers questions about our enviroment. Science has the same foundation as the Bible, the difference being that rather than asking scientific questions it answers scientific questions...of course though, not in a scientific matter.

Observation is the foundation for both.
How fingerpainting relates to all of this- I suspect is your attempt to belittle the bible as though assigning it to the imagery of childlike behavior. Have I errored? Or is this what you were attempting to convy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top