evolution unravled
- Thread starter JesusFreak
- Start date
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Please, don't jump to conclusions. You hit me up with that post right at quitting time and I didn't have a real hope or chance at scraping the surface of your post.
There is nothing mysterious about specific and even non specific specialization, ie Vestigiality. It is possible SP to make much to do about nothing. Naturally changes that occur based on extremely narrow environmental band widths will occur on a genetic level. How could they not?
I can't see the logic in what you are throwing about here. For instance biological analogies. So what? What does imitation and similarities really teach us concerning the absolutes of ToE? It's all more construing of evidence and not an actual dissection of known or proved process.
It's scientifically personified guesswork. This is our nature as abstractly rational intelligent animals. As you eluded to, it's the placing of pieces, the tying together of loose ends, to fill in in this case, the missing pieces within a preconceived puzzle.
Forgive me, but it all seems so vain. Perhaps because of the matter's depth it's mankind's survival instinct based habit to make certain he isn't caught coloring outside the safe lines of his science.
That's the trouble with so many compartmentalizations within the study of natural progressive development. We start seeing things that aren't really there. We forget about the MUCH larger question of the "what" for want of the "how".
For instance, "what" set it all in motion? Can you tell me this?
Such would seem to be the case for homology. We can observe what science defines as homologous characteristics in nature from species to species because we perceive them as such, but is it not clearly mankind the draws and defines the end conclusions from his own perceptions? Not real knowledge. At very least it seems flimsy and vulnerable. We make claims that wings from species to species, families to families, classes to classes, all developed from the common anatomical structures that is the portion of a fish known as the pectoral fins. How do we know this?
Is it not far less of a stretch to conclude that an intelligent race of being simply engineered these facilitative anatomical structures via a very efficient mastery of a finite gene pool?
Why is it that mankind has such a problem dealing with the distinct possibility that he is far from the top of the natural intelligence totem pole here in this universe?
Could it be that science with respect to ToE has been operating via the psychological premise that above all, it must be in control to survive? Or possibly at very least, understanding of a method that excludes sentient control if man is not behind the wheel.
Last edited:
False_Peace
Registered Member
I find it rather ridiculous that many people on these forums think that poking fun at comments and posts made by others is an acceptable way to conduct oneself in a constructive argument? Not everyone agrees with your views….so what? Does this mean you can belittle the author of the post and act like an intellectual bully behind your computer screen…? And since when did the age of an author validate or invalidate an argument?
The truth of the matter is that JesusFreak points to perfectly legitimate arguments against evolution. For all you people out there that are still hanging on to Evolution as your justification to shun creationism and the rules, morality and accountability that go along with it (Christianity as an example), I have news for you:
Evolution as a theory to the origin of man or any life form for that matter falls so entirely and pitifully short, it’s almost comical…
Yes we’ve heard all of the arguments, but let’s bring a few up briefly for the sake of discussion:
1. Missing links? The amount of evidence used to prove that missing links to man and any other species on the entire planet can fit into a box the size of a coffin with room to spare… In reality, missing links should be fossilized everywhere on the planet… sadly none have been found.
2. Mutations? Mutations being the vehicle which evolution transports one species into another have already been proven to be completely negative to the carrier of the mutation time and time again (give me an example of a positive mutation in an animal or human).
3. Radiocarbon Dating? Carbon Dating of fossils, rocks, and any other form of evidence is proven to be erroneous 50% of the time, and it has a limit of measurement to only 100,000 years.
For the sake of time I must bring this post to a close, but for all of you evolutionists out there who are still being spoon fed lies by scientists w/o a shred of evidence…..I feel really sorry for you… Give the theory of evolution 20-30 years and it will be ridiculed as the biggest farce ever committed by science…
The truth of the matter is that JesusFreak points to perfectly legitimate arguments against evolution. For all you people out there that are still hanging on to Evolution as your justification to shun creationism and the rules, morality and accountability that go along with it (Christianity as an example), I have news for you:
Evolution as a theory to the origin of man or any life form for that matter falls so entirely and pitifully short, it’s almost comical…
Yes we’ve heard all of the arguments, but let’s bring a few up briefly for the sake of discussion:
1. Missing links? The amount of evidence used to prove that missing links to man and any other species on the entire planet can fit into a box the size of a coffin with room to spare… In reality, missing links should be fossilized everywhere on the planet… sadly none have been found.
2. Mutations? Mutations being the vehicle which evolution transports one species into another have already been proven to be completely negative to the carrier of the mutation time and time again (give me an example of a positive mutation in an animal or human).
3. Radiocarbon Dating? Carbon Dating of fossils, rocks, and any other form of evidence is proven to be erroneous 50% of the time, and it has a limit of measurement to only 100,000 years.
For the sake of time I must bring this post to a close, but for all of you evolutionists out there who are still being spoon fed lies by scientists w/o a shred of evidence…..I feel really sorry for you… Give the theory of evolution 20-30 years and it will be ridiculed as the biggest farce ever committed by science…
where have i said anything about "predictable"
i said "mutations aren't random, they are dictated by the environment".
i will cede the fact that genes sometimes mutate "for the hell of it" and therefor are truly random but the environment plays a dominate role in "the big picture".
it's no more ludicrous than saying someone can acclimate to extreme heights.
i'll agree, 100%
wasn't you just saying it was ludicrous for the environment exercise any form of control? now you are saying "it MAY have"?
i know this much, i've never seen evolution in action but by what i understand of what drives it i would bet every dollar i had that it's a fact, at least on a micro scale.
educate me.
ah, i see. i never used the word "predictable" now did i?
that was a strawman electrafixtion threw in there.
wrong - they are old arguments which have been found to be seriously wanting time and time again.- - they are arguments based upon ignorance of the subject matter.
wrong again (get used to this btw)
Just in the evolutionary lineage between chimpanzees and H. sapiens we have 17 intermediates - of which we have many fossil examples of each.
Next we have your claim that missing links (better described as intermediate species) should be fossilised everywhere - you clearly don't understand fossilisation and how rare it is.
Here's 6 to be getting on with
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria
Bacteria that eat nylon
Sickle cell resistance to malaria
Lactose tolerance
Resistance to atherosclerosis
Immunity to HIV
Clearly you don't know much about carbon dating - certainly not enough to have an opinion worth taking seriously- for example its upper limit of accuracy is only 50,000 years - you were out by 100% .
Rocks and fossils generally be can't carbon dated at all as they are both older than this, and don't contain any carbon.
Carbon dating does have limitations, however like any tool if it is used correctly is stungly accurate, furthermore it is corroborated by other independent dating techniques.
For the sake of time I will bring this post to a close with the most important point you failed to mention - even if the current theory of how evolution took place is disproved, it will not by default prove biblical creation correct - that needs proof of its own - and currently there is the sum total of zero.
sorry leo - although it is kind of inferred by your post so I hope I'm forgiven for misconstruing your post
Basically mutation is a propery of DNA - or more accurately it is a bi-product of the process of DNA replication as the process isn't 100% accurate 100% of the time - so it takes place at much the same rate regardless of environment - therefore it is not dictated by the environment to any meaningful degree.
does that make sense?
this doesn't make sense to me - what do you mean?
its a prediction of ToE that bears fruit - that similar environments will produce organisms with similar adaptations even if they are from markedly differeing taxa - whales and fish - flying lizards and flying squirrels for example - its a prediction that is not made by intelligent design which predicts the opposite
maybe a hundred years ago you might have ahd a point - but with the wealth of experimental data that confirms the process beyond any reasonable doubt that we have now its entirely invalid and as contemporary conclusion
Nope - but it is a question that lies outside of the realm of biological evolution - you may as well ask a car mechanic about quantum physics
we know this from studying anatomy - its really straightforward - so the fact that a bats wings are made of its front leg digits webbed with skin isn't some woolly matter of perception - its because they are anatomically identical to the front leg digits of other mammals.
No because the kind of predictions that can be made from that don't reflect what we seen in the real world - and the real world observations we see of evolution in action take place without any requirement for an external agent.
Life has a degree of plasticity built into it with some relatively straightforward biochemistry - we see it adapting and reacting to changing environmental conditions all on its own due to the fundamental properties of DNA.
I don't have a problem with that - but I have no idea whether its true or not - there's no evidence at the present time that suggests we might not be, but for now I'll keep an open mind
No -its come to that conclusion because that's what we actually see - even when we attempt to control environments life adapts in ways that without ToE as a basis for understanding it would be unfathomable
Last edited:
I think I see what you mean - you're saying that the environment selects which mutations are favourable for a particular species in a particular environment - correct?
If so you are right
I don't belittle the author, because I don't know anything about the author. I will happily belittle the arguments made, because they're poor arguments that demonstrate a feeble understanding of the subject matter. I wish I could say this in a nice way, but I don't know how: it's stupid to argue against something like evolution when you don't even know what exactly it is you're arguing against. It's doubly stupid that there are adults around the world, especially in the United States, making these kinds of arguments based on an equally poor understanding of science. I can forgive anyone for not having the background knowledge and choosing to stay clear of the matter. However, these adults who teach Intelligent Design not only make ludicrous arguments against evolution, but they advertise themselves as knowledgeable people. What a shame, really. The reason these people feel insulted when their arguments are shot down by scientists is because they're justifiably embarrassed by what they've done. Just like when a driver stops paying attention to the road and rear ends somebody.
We're not trying to shun moral accountability. You're the one trying to shun moral accountability, by invoking an unseen divine presence to justify your actions, thereby eliminating the need for rational discussion.
That coffin would probably have to be bigger than Noah's Ark. Besides, very few animals die in the right conditions in order for their fossils to be preserved for millions of years. You would have known that if you had done the reading.
Sickle cell anemia is a genetic mutation which is normally not beneficial to a human's health, but in parts of the world where malaria is prevalent, it provides a natural defense mechanism and is actually a very beneficial mutation to have.
And your source for the 50% error figure is?... Besides, you obviously haven't read much into the arguments above that you claim to have read, because I mentioned that carbon dating is but one of a multitude of techniques that are used. Many forms of radioactive dating can date things going back billions of years.
Students are spoon fed scientific truth until such time as they choose to put in the effort to seek scientific truth more directly. The only ones lying here are the creationists who pretend to understand evolution and then put forward these pitiful arguments against it.
Sadly, you are wrong on all counts. Let's just discount the idea that people support evolution because they don't want to be accountable for their actions, that's just stupid. JesusFreak has not made a legitimate argument yet.
1. Missing links is a somewhat erroneous term, since all individual fossils are a link in an unbroken chain. Anyway, missing links have been found, many of them, between a hippo-like creature and whales, between primates and mankind, between a small hoofed creature and horses, between a wolf-like creature and sea lions... I could go on and on.
2. Most mutations are harmful or neutral. But that doesn't matter, because they happen all the time, and evolution happens rather slowly from our perspective. When a beneficial one occurs, it is retained. Over millions of years, this leads to new traits.
3. Radiocarbon dating is far more reliable than that. Besides, it is not the only way to date things. There are other methods.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
This was your statement:
This statement is false.
next you state:
This statement is false because it's not true in the manner I am using guided in this discussion. It's also completely false from a "general reality" context as understood and generally accepted by science.
This is an over statement of the obvious but has nothing to do with the context I was using it within.
The term "predictable" was used because you stated emphatically that mutation was not random. In this sense, "predictable" is just an antonym for random. You could also substitute the terms
"systematic", "ordered", "typical", etc.
Either way, I think we understand each other. Environment is not SOLELY (as you claimed it to be in an absolutist sense) responsible for "guiding" evolution.
Nah - environmental factors are 100% responsible - all data so far points to that conclusion - remember that when discussing the environment that includes both abiotic and biotic factors.
Give us an example of evolution being shaped by something other than environment - or factors other than evnvironment playing even a small role
Good stuff
now you can see how the 4 colors of mankind divided; the knowledge.
and then within that see how the religions divide (and continue too)
but reality only works ONE way, everything else is simply an opinion!
that chain is what i enjoyed doing with 'beliefs'
too many gaps, too many inconsistancies, and then to find that mankind created all words, then the 'light' clicked on to realize, that not a ONE of the global opinions is correct, all because NOT a ONE of them can define LIFE!
philosophies, religions or science
know the truth when all three combine!
seems that to start with 'atoms and energy' over adam and eve and recognize that 'light' (energy itself) is the life upon mass, then evolution becomes natural mathematically, theologically and philosophically....
try it!
think 'light is life'
and see if anywhere else in the globes knowledge if that 'idea' has been used a time or 2.....