If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[Bells]

Flores

Bells say tomato
I say TomAto
Bells say potato
I say PotAto
Tomato TomAto
Potato PotAto
Let's summarize it for all
She says SHE'S A FIRM BELIVER IN EVOLUTION
I say I don't where I came from. How can I describe the essence of essence itself

She says in evolution she found the truth and answers
I say in not knowing where I came from, I'm more truthfull to myself
She says she sees fear in creation
I said I see humblness in ceation
She says she sees ignorance in creation
I said I'd rather be ignorant than a liar.

You forgot to add the ner ner ner ner on the end.

Can a totally pale person give birth to a black person? Of course not. You can't impart a quality to another person that you don't possess.

"Of course not"? You sound so adamant about that Flores. But again you are wrong. In my family I've seen this happen many times. My great grandmother was white and married to a white man and their son was born with dark skin. How could this have happened? Well a few generations back one of her great great great grandfathers had children with a black woman. Each subsequent child in each subsequent generation after that married and bred with white people, to the point where my great grandmother was whiter than white. Her son was dark but his facial features were identical to his father's, so there was no question of who the father was.

Can a black person give birth to a totally white person with blue eyes and blonde/white hair? Yes, It's called Albino babies. A mutation in the gene and a deformation is possible.

No it's NOT always called albino babies Flores. Again I only have to look at my family on my father's side this time and see for myself that a dark person, married to another dark person, giving birth to a little girl who is white, blonde, blue eyed. And she's not an albino nor is she deformed. We all have olive skin and dark hair and eyes on my fathers side, yet she's the only one who's totally different. And no the mother did not stray, as she too looks like her father and blood tests have shown that he is her father.

I may have been created from one cell, a drop of semen, mud and water, ect....I'd rather not commit myself by theories to something that is so well defined, because that in my view is lying.

Hmmm interesting Flores, very interesting considering how much earlier in the thread you believed in evolution. This is one little quote I took from page 3 of this thread:

How could you make such claims? Have you ever seen an invisible angel? God himself in the Quran tells us all that we know nothing of the truth of creation? So how can you refute evolution? What if god actually created and utilized evolution? Noone is asking you to worship evolution, only to investigate and study something that may yeild merit.

It's a shame you don't take your own advice as that you gave to PM. Now, lets see, when PM said he was leaving for some seminar, you changed to a different tune and started humming the creation tune as can be evidenced from page 13:

I believe that the chance of evolution is zero. The chance of me being here typing this post is 100%. I dare you to argue with me that my chances are 100%. At the least I would expect a model that supposidely being used to describe me to show me that the my chance of occurance is 100%, because damn it, I'm here......How can you call something so inexact science? How dare evolutionists open their mouth and call something so stupid science?

Whether defined according to the principles of classical physics or new physics, matter is obviously changeable and susceptible to external interventions; it cannot be eternal or capable of origination. Also, matter is deaf, blind, lifeless, ignorant, powerless, and unconscious; how can it be the origin of sensible life, knowledge, power and consciousness? It is evident that something cannot impart to others what it does not possess.

And then there was of course this passionate rally cry to PM, also on page 13:

Don't sell out PM. We muslims don't believe in evolution PERIOD. We are 100% sure that we were created by god and we have no knowledge whatsoever on how god created us. The Quran may shed some light on creation, but the true detailed knowledge is with god.

So full of belief in the creation all of a sudden...

Again, you miss the fine distinction here due to either my lack of ability to articulate or preconcieved ideas in your head that is baricading my information. God is a creator, he's not a male, female, a man with a beard striking thunder bolts, ect... I know that I was created, yet I don't know HOW I was created. It could be by some sort of evolution, but I can't commit to such a defined concept, because I simply don't know. I think it's more humble to claim that you don't know than it is to swear that Evolution holds all the answers.

Ahh we've come full circle. From evolution, to creation and now to 'I dunno'. So AGAIN I ask you Flores, why the change?

Both of us don't know what made us....only you are working off assumptions and conjectures, which might very well be not true. It's clear to me that theists holds the primitive basic simple answers to the problem, while you hold on to complexities, inconsistencies, assumptions. I would say that you are the ludicrous soul who insist on shoving your complexities down our throats.

Hey at least he knows what he believes in and doesn't switch sides like a yoyo. And Flores, that last line in that quote, I think applies to you more than it does to him. No offence.

If you had anytime to follow my posts in these forums, you'll find out that I'm the number one enemy of conformed conventional thinkers. If you support me right now, you'll find me to be the first person to oppose you.

Ahh that explains all of the above then. So does that mean that we shouldn't take any notice of what you say as you will constantly switch sides because you so love to play devil's advocate? So next week you'll switch back to evolution or will you then start saying that we come from aliens or that we're living in a Matrix?

Acutally, forget it....No hope, you are all a bunch of hopeless herded goats.

Baaaaa Baaa Baaaaa ... sorry couldn't resist... lol

Flores, all the questions that you've asked about evolution have been answered, referenced and answered again. Yet you still can't seem to grasp it. Is it because you yourself do not know where you stand so you continuously object to anything that anyone says? Read and study a lot more Flores, hopefully one day you'll find an argument that you can stick to.

Snakelord

Cute puppy.

 

[James R]

okinrus:

My personal belief on this--it changes alot though--is that evolution is side effect of Adam's disobedience.

Evolution means there was no Adam, in the literal sense of the Genesis story.

Not only do we die, but life is created entirely through death. We are in a world where the only physical future is death.

I don't understand why you say "life is created entirely through death".

It suggests to me that the Chimpanzee is more physically related to humans than the worm; it even suggest that the Chimpanzee has more awareness. It does not, however, suggest that the human being does not have a soul or that the human being is created fully from the Ape.

I haven't talked at all about souls. There is no reason why humans cannot have evolved from apes and yet still have souls. However, if humans have souls and apes do not, it appears God has drawn an arbitrary line.

I also don't know what you mean by "created fully from the ape". If humans are created as a special act, then surely they are not created <b>from</b> anything (?). What would it mean for humans to be "partially" created from apes?

 

[okinrus]

Evolution means there was no Adam, in the literal sense of the Genesis story.

I don't see any reason to say there was no Adam even if someone accepts evolution with no divine intervention. Concerning divine supernatural occurences, Adam could be in a completely different world or time. Perhaps this world was a parallel world where evolution occurrer, and Adam was first created in bodily form, through evolution, and set apart from the world. But when he sinned, he became part of the parallel world.

I don't understand why you say "life is created entirely through death".

It is. All lifeforms that we know have been created through another lifeform that has died. Ultimately, the first bacteria would have to be created out a mixture that one could say was "dead" and never lived.

I also don't know what you mean by "created fully from the ape". If humans are created as a special act, then surely they are not created from anything (?). What would it mean for humans to be "partially" created from apes?

I'm differentiating between complete physical creation and the creation of Adam: mind, body, and soul.

 

[Raithere]

Let's look at a simpler problem. Let's discuss how plants may have evolved?. I think we can agree that seeds are produced from trees, yet it's also true that out of a single seed, we can grow a tree. So which one came first, the egg or the chicken? The seed or the tree? The sperm/ova or the human?

The short answer is the seed or egg came first. But we’re talking about several different things here and we should try to be clear. Chicken eggs and plant seeds are both zygotes, that is, they are a combination of the gametes of its parents. Both are already (at least in potential) individual life forms with their own particular genetic code just as is a human zygote developing in the womb. Although the distinction is rather gray, the final mutation that made the proto-chicken into a chicken occurred prior to its embryonic development.

As to the evolution of plants generally, they are believed to have evolved from green-algae, which is in the Kingdom Protista. Green algae share some basic traits with plants such as having both chlorophyll a and b, storing energy as starch, and cellular walls made of cellulose. While algae are single celled life forms they do often live in colonies not all of whose members carry out identical functions. What we observe, as with Eudorina (seaweed) is specialization where various colony members perform different functions that are beneficial to the entire colony. The point is that the closer we look at living organisms the more the conceptual ‘gaps’ are filled in.

What facts are these that may not be explained?

I’d rather not delve too deeply into this because it’s too dependent upon what the individual creationist believes. Suffice to say, any point where the answer is ‘God did it’ may be looked upon as simply ‘I don’t know’. In the past people didn’t know what caused rain and lightning, the answer was ‘God did it’. A few hundred years ago the answer to the actions of the Sun, Moon, and Planets, was ‘God did it’. About a hundred years ago the answer to heritage was ‘God did it’. This pattern is constant throughout history.

What becomes apparent is that peoples’ conceptual beliefs about God are more reflective of themselves than indicative of the nature of God. This is one of the reasons why I find more value in the indefinite principles regarding ‘god’ that can be found in the more gnostically oriented religious philosophies. In some areas I find the Muslim faith has more respect for God than Christian traditions but in other areas it commits the same errors. Attributing conditions and properties to God limits what is supposed to be unlimited.

And are you suggesting that the evolution theory have all the answers?

Of course not. However (and this is important) the methods of science avail us seek the answers. Theistic replies typically do not. The typically western theistic admonition is, “This is the answer, seek no further.” This kind of a response always sets off my bullshit detector. How can following our nature to be inquisitive and seek the truth be an offense to God?

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Wonderful post James, I’d like to chime with a quick addendum on this one though because it’s a wonderful example of how Evolution works.

You are correct about sickle cell anemia. If a person has sickle cell anemia, it is always bad, wherever you live. But to have sickle cell anemia, you need two copies of the sickle cell gene (one from each of your parents). If you have only one copy of the gene, then you gain resistance to malaria without being anemic. Clearly, having one copy of the sickle cell gene is great if you live in a region where malaria is prevalent. It is of no use at all if you live in an area without malaria.

Evolutionary theory predicts that, in areas where malaria is common, the sickle cell gene will be found more often in people than in areas where malaria is rare. When we examine people from different areas, this is exactly what we find, so this is evidence for natural selection.

We can take this a step further. What we know is that in areas where malaria is common the population that carries the gene has such a great survival advantage over the rest of the population that doesn’t that it becomes widespread despite its drawbacks. The consideration to keep in mind is the lethality of malaria; there are about 300 million acute cases a year killing about 1 million people (and we’re afraid of SARS!) Worse (for us humans) evolution is at work both in mosquitoes and the malaria parasites; they are becoming resistant to insecticides and drugs (respectively).

In contrast, in areas where malaria is not common the population carrying the gene only suffers the ill effects and gains little or no advantage and the gene is all but absent from the population.

There are many such instances where trade-offs like this occur. The gene that causes cystic fibrosis operates similarly. While a ‘double-dose’ of the gene causes death a single copy affords protection against cholera, E-coli, and salmonella (1.5 million children die each year from E-coli alone).

This is also a good reminder that when considering Evolution one must always think in terms of the survival of a population and not necessarily the survival of an individual.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

This is easily answered. Let's take the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first? Well, to have a chicken, you need a chicken egg, so clearly the chicken egg came before the first chicken. So, where did that egg come from? The answer is that it was laid by a chicken-like animal, almost but not quite identical to a chicken. In the process of fertilisation of the egg, a new genome came about, whether by mutation or crossing over of genes, meaning that the animal in the egg was no longer a chicken-like animal, but actually a chicken.

A chicken egg is a chicken. A tree seed is a tree. There is no difference between them. They are just different developmental stages of the same animal. Egg-embryo-juvenile-adult-post reproductive adult: it is all the same animal. Hence the question is rather an invalid one

These different developmental stages came about when colonies started to subdivided tasks amongst different populations of cells in combination with sexual reproduction. I could spell it out more, but I won't.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Vomit disciplinary information that you learned in school.

Development (2003) 130, 1049-1057.

Wrote that vomit myself. But you won't understand that vomit. It is too specialized.

So maybe there is a reason why the discussion is kept on this school level. All scientists are specialist concentrating on relatively small subjects. The result is that it is impossible for bystanders to follow the specialist vomit.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Missing link in human evolution found!

 

[Flores]

Flores:

I don't blame you for thinking as you do. At this stage, you're working from a position of almost complete ignorance regarding evolution. I will attempt to answer some of them below. For the moment, I don't want to get into the issue of whether God exists, because that is a discussion which can be had (and has been had) in other threads. I'd like to try to bring you up to speed a little on the basics of evolution.

Well, thanks James, I promise to listen, but it's not going to be smooth sailing.

This post may be a little disordered, because I will respond to your comments and questions in the order they appear in the thread. However, the first quote I will extract is out of order, because it is fundamental to beginning to understand evolution.

My mom always told me to follow the liar until the door of his house, that's the best way to show him what's wrong with him/her....Thus I'll follow you whereever you take me.

This is the most common mistake that Creationists make about evolution. They assume that evolution is random. In fact, there are two parts to evolution:

1. The production of variation (through mutation etc.), which is random.
2. Natural selection, which is totally non-random.

I totally disagree with your definitions above. You can't characterise one as random and one as non-random, because the problem is too complicated to assign order or lack of order to it. See my answers below.

Creationist always concentrate on (1) and fail to even understand (2).

The principle of natural selection states that in a population of organisms competing from common resources and breeding rights, those which are better adapted to their environments will be, on average, more likely to survive and ber offspring. This is non-random, because it is determined by the environment. Which animal is better adapted is not a roll of the dice.

It's not a roll of a dice, yet it's also not a linear determinante function. You are making the ultimate mistake of assuming a common denominator when talking about life. You lump chimpanze, dolphins, humans, and plants in the same category and start preaching about natural selection. Do you see any problems with your line of thought? Can a chimpanze build an air conditioning unit to adapt to the hotter environment? Can a lion apply sun block lotions to avoid cancer? Can humans grow duck oils to coat our hair so it won't get wet when we swim? Can humans grow a feature where everytime you cut one of our limbs another one grow in it's place?

Out of all the people here, you're the right person that I can try to yank you back to the reality of our discussion. We are discussing evolution as it relates to religion, humans are key to our discussions, and last but not least, this is not a biology forum. If you, Snake, and company would rather compare my survival skill to mice inorder to make your points about evolution, then you're better off speaking to the mice of this world and convincing them that evolution creates and control them. The discussion of evolution if not strictly spoken in the biological sense of discipline classification is a subintelligence discussion that is not befitting of intelligent beings like humans.

If you're looking for something which "guides" evolution, you need not look for God. You need look no further than the environment.

The Environment doesn't guide evolution. The environment guides the adaptation methods which may not at all be genetics related. For example, and since you guys like to talk about anything but humans, two same bred dogs from the same parents where separated at birth. One lived in a small apartment, his food was handed to him twice a day, his water the same, he slept in bed with his master, ect. His brother grew up in a dairy farm where he chased cayotes all night and herded cows all day. He hunted for food, fought with other dogs for the right to exist, ect.... If you put one in the other's environment, they would probably die the first week. Now, tell me, do you still think that the different environments that these two dogs have lived in had any say about their genetic code, or did it merely affect their adaptation skills??

There is many other holes in your assumption in regards to the environment dictating the genetic evolution. You are assuming that organisms lack intelligence and adaptation mechanisms. Adaptation is not always a genetic adaptation. For example, if you compare native Alaskan men and middle eastern men, you'll see minimum genetic differences, yet, you'll find one wrapped up in animal fur and the other cooling down under a cotton turbin..

James, all of you are totally underestimating the points I'm trying to make. I'm not going to blame you, because I'm having a hard time articulating myself. Of course, I'm aware of the various life on our planets and how each of them is genetically suited for their environment. It's not fair of you to ask me those obvious questions in regards to the fact that there are billion of species all around our earth perfectly suited and adapted to their envrionmnet. It's not fair of you to try to then jump to the conclusion that since all genes are adapted to their environements that they must have evolved for a single gene and underwent a natural selection process....You don't know that....You know that they exist the way they are in perfect harmony and balance, and that's all you know. Period...why can't you guys be truthfull to yourself and look at things the way they are and glorify the excellent creation? Why do you have to philosophize, extrapolate, and try to make it sound like you have the intelligence to put the entire puzzle together?

Yes, obviously. Take a very simple example of two mammals living in a cold climate. Suppose one is much hairier than the other, due to having a gene for hairiness. Which is more likely to survive? Obviously, the hairier one, since it has more chance of keeping warm. Which is more likely to reproduce?

Are you then concluding from this example that hairier men have a better chance of survival than less hairier men? What kind of stupid humans or animals that sticks it out in a cold and wait to die by the elements? Even the dumbest of goose migrate south in the winter and north in the summer. Are you completely throwing out instinct and behavioral adaptation and assuming that we are all a bunch of computers waiting to be moved to survive the fire???

Now, ask yourself: what kinds of mammals do we tend to find in cold climates, and what kinds are found in hot climates. Answer: animals in cold climates tend to be hairier, on everage. Just as the theory of evolution predicts.

If you keep this conversation a bit longer, you won't find any animals anywhere, because as we speak, Bush is bombing the Saharas of this world and digging the Alaskan oil resources. So how about it for your stupid theory that ONLY the environmental elements governs the genetic survival?

Can you see how evolution <b>explains</b> what we see, in a way that the primitive explanation "Because God made them that way" doesn't?

The only primitive mind I see here is yours.....Please step up to human status and start explaining to me how your evolution theory predicts the future of humans who although it's not in their genetic codes, are capable of making weapons of mass destruction??. Did you have your coffee this morning?? You always ask me this question, I thought you needed it today.

James, you might be a little mule now, but you will only grow to be a donkey until you start seeing the wisdom and perfection in the phrase "God made them that way...glory be to god".
.

 

[Flores]

Of course not. However (and this is important) the methods of science avail us seek the answers. Theistic replies typically do not. The typically western theistic admonition is, “This is the answer, seek no further.” This kind of a response always sets off my bullshit detector. How can following our nature to be inquisitive and seek the truth be an offense to God?

~Raithere

Raith, I'm glad you are asking this question, perhaps my answer to Bell will clear up her head in regards to why I'm cautious in my commitments whether it's to science or religion.

To answer your question, following our nature to be inquisitive and seek the truth is not an offense to god, on the contrary it's a requirement by god. Raith, the answers you get from the theists is usually the equivalent of someone putting the brakes because they heard that there is another car 100 miles ahead. It's not proper from the theists to stop us from questing knowledge from nature, but It's my duties to stop you from making conclusion or resting your case just because you found it convineant to stop where you would like to stop. Atheists have a habit of stopping their quests for knowledge out of convineance. They want to find a missing link so bad that they think the quest ends and answers are achieved upon revealing this little block stone. Theists want to brake the Atheists bandwagon, because they know the intent of Atheists. Atheists only want to go far enough to discredit theists, and little do Atheists know that the irnoy of this whole thing is that their mission upon completion will only lead to god.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The Environment doesn't guide evolution. The environment guides the adaptation methods which may not at all be genetics related. For example, and since you guys like to talk about anything but humans, two same bred dogs from the same parents where separated at birth. One lived in a small apartment, his food was handed to him twice a day, his water the same, he slept in bed with his master, ect. His brother grew up in a dairy farm where he chased cayotes all night and herded cows all day. He hunted for food, fought with other dogs for the right to exist, ect.... If you put one in the other's environment, they would probably die the first week. Now, tell me, do you still think that the different environments that these two dogs have lived in had any say about their genetic code, or did it merely affect their adaptation skills??

Why is the polar bear not black then?

 

[Flores]

So maybe there is a reason why the discussion is kept on this school level. All scientists are specialist concentrating on relatively small subjects. The result is that it is impossible for bystanders to follow the specialist vomit.

And you call yourself Professor Monkey? My PhD grandma, please note that 1930's PhD were way better than anything you do right now, used to tell me that :

"A person that can't describe their point of view regardless of how complicated it is - doesn't understand it himself"

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And you call yourself Professor Monkey? My PhD grandma, please note that 1930's PhD were way better than anything you do right now, used to tell me that :

"A person that can't describe their point of view regardless of how complicated it is - doesn't understand it himself"

Yes, and if you explain difficult things the easy way then you get the simple version you get here.

but that doesn't satisfy you.

 

[Flores]

Why is the polar bear not black then?

And why can't people regrow limbs like lizards???

I think I have clearly exposed the fact that you are all fishing in murkey waters in the name of research....wild goose chase, that's all you guys are doing?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And why can't people regrow limbs like lizards???

Why should they?

 

[Flores]

Why should they?

So we don't have to spend millions of dollars constructing artificial limbs for all those soldiers that loose their limbs in Iraq.

 

[Flores]

Why is the polar bear not black then?

Two scenarios.

Either the black bears said the hell with this cold region and migrated south.

Or the white bears said the hell with this heat and moved north.

I think I like these scenarios much better than the evolution theory that would tell me that the north pole had every single kind of life and evolved itself genetically to only polar bears and penguins because nothing else could survive the weather??

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Two scenarios.

Either the black bears said the hell with this cold region and migrated south.

Or the white bears said the hell with this heat and moved north.

I think I like these scenarios much better than the evolution theory that would tell me that the north pole had every single kind of life and evolved itself genetically to only polar bears and penguins because nothing else could survive the weather??

But you are aware that there haven't always been polar bears? Or black bears for that matter.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

So we don't have to spend millions of dollars constructing artificial limbs for all those soldiers that loose their limbs in Iraq.

na ja, haha...

I bid this discussion goodbye.

 

[Flores]

Flores

Hmmm interesting Flores, very interesting considering how much earlier in the thread you believed in evolution. This is one little quote I took from page 3 of this thread:

I never said I believe in evolution. All I said was there is nothing wrong with looking at evolution in the context of study, but when you try to shove your information down my throat as the sole reason why I'm here and typing my post, I'll shove it back up your ass.

It's a shame you don't take your own advice as that you gave to PM. Now, lets see, when PM said he was leaving for some seminar, you changed to a different tune and started humming the creation tune as can be evidenced from page 13:

You seem to forget that I'm the one that offered the advice, you're merely copy catting me, like you are copy catting everything else you say.

Flores, all the questions that you've asked about evolution have been answered, referenced and answered again. Yet you still can't seem to grasp it. Is it because you yourself do not know where you stand so you continuously object to anything that anyone says? Read and study a lot more Flores, hopefully one day you'll find an argument that you can stick to.

Unlike you, I never stick to shit. But thanks for the advice to read and learn. Now I advice you to lay and die by natural selection and wait for evolution to grow you a real brain.