Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by JPhish


You fail at doing riddles then. Try the Kobayashi Maru solution.

And I was pointing out that there was, indeed, more than one possible reason for the vase to be knocked over. (Didn't think I'd have to explain that.)

I'm just going to ignore your Ad Hominem and cut all the fat from our little debate. This is how far we've come so far:

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
If those telomere sequences at the center of human chromosome 2, and that second centromere of the same chromosome are not signs of past evolution, then what are they?

could be signs for several things.

I don’t presume to know.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
How is the explanation given by modern evolutionary synthesis in error?

it’s not sensible, more than likely because it was created by non sensible people.

Are you implying that you know that the answer given by modern evolutionary synthesis is incorrect? Perhaps you'll tell us all how? At the moment we've got a mountain of evidence on its side. On your side there's the fact that people aren't perfect. What else have you got? Oh yeah, it could be something else.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

You fail at doing riddles then. Try the Kobayashi Maru solution.

Obviously not, my riddle accomplished both things it was intended to do.

And I was pointing out that there was, indeed, more than one possible reason for the vase to be knocked over. (Didn't think I'd have to explain that.)

who said you had to explain anything??? That’s one of the many points of the riddle.

You don’t know what happened
Anything could have knocked that vase over
And if you’re a fool, you fail to realize that the inferences are inherently erroneous

[edit on 5/14/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm just going to ignore your Ad Hominem and cut all the fat from our little debate.

Wow, that’s the first time you’ve invoked a logical fallacy and have been right. Kudos to you!

You: -29
Me: -1

Although my riddle didn’t help my argument; it did convince me that your inability/unwillingness to be reasonable has served as an impasse to the debate.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Are you implying that you know that the answer given by modern evolutionary synthesis is incorrect? Perhaps you'll tell us all how?

No, I don’t know that it is incorrect; but I do know that it is not sensible.

At the moment we've got a mountain of evidence on its side.

Not all too dissimilar from the mountain of evidence incriminating the kitten on the table. Those inferences were erroneous mind you.

On your side there's the fact that people aren't perfect. What else have you got? Oh yeah, it could be something else.

Your argument has failed to genuinely acknowledge that there could be something else up until this point. Even now you say it dismissively, when in fact, it is a truth.


[edit on 5/14/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


"And if you’re a fool, you fail to realize that the inferences are inherently erroneous "

If I were a fool, yes I would fail. Ad homs aside, "inferences" are things you can draw either erroneous or correct conclusions from.

You're really struggling here. Time to take a day off, perhaps? Do we need to let you off the hook by giving you the last word in this?

Are the materialist sciences so insecure that they have to misrepresent the facts as they have done here? Why?
Gravity exists. So do cells. Gravitational theory and cell theory have nothing to do with these facts. Rather they are theories concerned with the why and how of their existence.
To suggest that the existence of gravity in any way supports the correctness of gravitational theory or the fact that cells are real in any way proves cell theory correct is an obvious attempt to confuse issues and mislead readers. Why?
I do not want to defend Creationist but if you are going to point out their flaws at least do it honestly or do you feel the 'objective' evidence against their POV is too weak to stand on it's own?
If you want to prove Creationism wrong it's really very simple. Before life evolved on this planet there was nothing but chemicals subjected to different atmospheric pressures, different forms of radiation, etc. There was nothing that nature could create in that world that science cannot duplicate in a lab today.
So create a cell. Don't evolve one from another living organism. Don't put simple living structures together to make a more complex one. Create one single living cell from inanimate materials.
I have heard it said that science claims this is impossible which I find strange since this is exactly what science claims happened without any lab tech's assistance in the primitive world of 4 billion years ago.
What chemicals did Mother Nature have, what type of gamma rays or alpha rays did the sun pour through our unprotected atmosphere upon these randomly mixed chemicals that we cannot duplicate today?
I'm fairly sure some of the best minds in the field have worked on this problem for decades. I'm sure somewhere there must be tanks full of these cells created from non-living materials. Where are they? Let us see them so we can shut these Creationist up.
Or will evolutionist limit their claims to how life evolves and changes and stop arguing about how it began?
Why do the evolutionist never mention the scientist who have problems with the statistical odds of even one single strand of DNA forming randomly?
What did Hoyle say the odds were? The square of the number of protons in the known universe? Oops, sorry. We're not suppose to mention that.
Creationism is a religious dogma. So is evolution. Both could use a bit more objectivity in their thinking. Stuck in their own little boxes neither will even consider the possibility of a third option.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
At the moment we've got a mountain of evidence on its side.

Not all too dissimilar from the mountain of evidence incriminating the kitten on the table. Those inferences were erroneous mind you.

Wait, I'm confused. Was it a riddle or an analogy? Now you use it as an analogy. I already showed you how it was a false one.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
On your side there's the fact that people aren't perfect. What else have you got? Oh yeah, it could be something else.

Your argument has failed to genuinely acknowledge that there could be something else up until this point. Even now you say it dismissively, when in fact, it is a truth.

Mountain of evidence vs.

1. The fact that people aren't perfect.
   
2. The fact that it could be something else (whatever that might be, you don't know).
   
3. Accusation of failed genuine acknowledgement (from me) that it could be something else (not really relevant to the topic).
   
4. Bare assertion that it's not sensible (probably because of #1, how it's not sensible remains a mystery).
   
5. Acknowledgement that maybe it's correct (hooray).
   

[edit on 14-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
Why do the evolutionist never mention the scientist who have problems with the statistical odds of even one single strand of DNA forming randomly?

It's RNA, not DNA that we except to get. We're definitely getting closer. The problem is that we don't know the exact circumstances. Did life start on Earth or perhaps on some asteroid or another planet? How exactly was the environment? The article I'm linking to points to one way it could have happened (needed reactions). Is that enough? I'm thinking when we finally nail a possible chain of events creationists will cry for proof that this was the way that it really happened.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Religion is ignorance.
It is supported mostly as a learned behavior. Carried down through generations of a person's family, passed on from earlier descendants from more primitive and dark times...

A practice that is just a common acknowledgment from most people. With clearly no representation or manifestation that there is anything supporting this belief...

As we've seen time and time again, there is nothing that will intervene in the natural and physical course of actions and reactions.

Example: A crazed depressed Gunman holds a group of people hostage, and starts to kill them. The only thing that will intervene is a either a highly trained marksman or the Gunman's change of heart...

Nothing is going to come down and stop those MFing bullets.

No divine intervention...

reply to post by rhinoceros


Of course, rhino...if I may, you forgot to mention to Robin Goodfellow that the RNA/DNA discussion is really more of an 'abiogenesis' subject.

THAT isn't part of the thread intent, I don't think.

[edit on 5/14/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Robin Goodfellow


"If you want to prove Creationism wrong it's really very simple. Before life evolved on this planet there was nothing but chemicals subjected to different atmospheric pressures, different forms of radiation, etc. There was nothing that nature could create in that world that science cannot duplicate in a lab today."

I know more that one scientist who would be amused by this. They would eventually stop laughing and ask you to tell them exactly what conditions were extant at the time life formed, so they could then attempt your little experiment.

What next, the Peanut Butter Fallacy?

I am sure it is a tired and old argument but that does not make it less true: If you own a dog you believe in Evolution. A dog does not resemble a wolf any more because Humans have taken the role of nature and show that selection is a major factor in shaping and forming a being. Humans took advantage of natural occurring mutations in genes and exploited it to get a new breed or a better looking breed. It shows that in relative short time it is possible to get a whole new breed or a significantly altered breed.

Case in point:

The Bull Terrier in the 18th Century looked like this:










Now they look like this:





With natural selection it is not much different. It just takes longer. Now, when people say, one creature cannot evolve in another they are not looking at the bigger picture.

You should just compare evolution like you would the building of a tall building. The foundation is just a block of cement, and one story is just a lot of bricks but when you keep putting blocks together you get... A building. Or if you are down stairs and want to be upstairs, you need to take one step at a time. Creatures evolve in other creatures all the time. Lions and Tigers are related. They even look alike but they are different species. However, they can mate and have tiger-lion cubs because the mutation from one in another happened not too many mutations away.

Mules and Horses are different species but are related. When they mate they get Mules. It is untrue therefore to say that evolution has not explained one species evolving into another. It has happened but to compare a worm to a horse and to think that could never have happened is over simplifying the power of Mutation and underestimating the power of Time. Again it is looking at the bigger picture: look at the worm as the foundation and the horse as the entire building. It has many blocks in between to create that creature. Of course there are many buildings in Evolution but the supplier of the bricks and mortar and cement is the same.

And now for a bit of fun:

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by rhinoceros
At the moment we've got a mountain of evidence on its side.

Not all too dissimilar from the mountain of evidence incriminating the kitten on the table. Those inferences were erroneous mind you.

Wait, I'm confused. Was it a riddle or an analogy? Now you use it as an analogy. I already showed you how it was a false one.

It couldn’t have been a false analogy when you claimed it was because it was not presented as an analogy. It was initially a riddle but it may be used as an analogy.

In the scenario the evidence is inherently erroneous. (Something you failed to realize)
In your theory the evidence is inherently erroneous. (Something you fail to realize)
Sounds like the analogy works fine.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Mountain of evidence vs.

Mountain of evidence that is inherently erroneous because it is being interpreted by flawed logic.

1 The fact that people aren't perfect.

agreed

2 The fact that it could be something else (whatever that might be, you don't know).

oh I have a pretty good idea, but I would never claim to know.

3 Accusation of failed genuine acknowledgement (from me) that it could be something else (not really relevant to the topic).

Well if you were being sincere, excellent.

4 Bare assertion that it's not sensible (probably because of #1, how it's not sensible remains a mystery).

Would you not agree that is unreasonable for something based solely on a feeling to claim to be logical???

5 Acknowledgement that maybe it's correct (hooray).

If it is correct it is only correct by chance and necessity.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by JPhish

 

"And if you’re a fool, you fail to realize that the inferences are inherently erroneous "

If I were a fool, yes I would fail. Ad homs aside, "inferences" are things you can draw either erroneous or correct conclusions from.

You're really struggling here. Time to take a day off, perhaps? Do we need to let you off the hook by giving you the last word in this?

struggling? excuse me, but it's just a little nauseating when you regurgitate the understated points i've made as if they were a novel idea.


[edit on 5/15/2009 by JPhish]

We didn't evolve from apes, if we did there would be more evidence to support this. Evolution is science fiction thought up by someone considered to be a genius by the sheeple (Darwin) when he is not. Our DNA may be very closely matched to that of primates but that doesn't automatically prove that we evolved from them. There's a little thing called the missing link which suggests that we originated from somewhere other than apes. As much as some people hate this question and find it a cliche it is relevant, if we evolved from apes then why do apes exist today. Evolution is bs. There was Neanderthal Man, Cro Magnon Man and there's Homosapiens, where do apes fit into this? It amazes me how so many people buy into this evolving from apes crap!

reply to post by Lebowski achiever


So you're saying early man mated with another species to get Homosapiens? We're a result of cross-breeding? I find that hard to believe.

Originally posted by JPhish
It couldn’t have been a false analogy when you claimed it was because it was not presented as an analogy. It was initially a riddle but it may be used as an analogy.

Fact remains: if it's used an an analogy, then it's a false one.

Originally posted by JPhish
Mountain of evidence that is inherently erroneous because it is being interpreted by flawed logic.

So basically you're saying that imperfect people can't get anything right? Or is it only that imperfect people can't get the explanation to life right? So on one side you've got a mountain of evidence from so many fields gathered and interpreted by imperfect people and on the other side the fact that it could be something else (thou nothing points to this). It's like cows could fly, thou nothing points to this being the case. Your argument is very weak.

Originally posted by JPhish
oh I have a pretty good idea, but I would never claim to know.

Care to share?

Originally posted by JPhish
Would you not agree that is unreasonable for something based solely on a feeling to claim to be logical???

Yes. Of course modern evolutionary synthesis isn't based solely on feeling, but on evidence gathered from many different fields of science. You failed to address how it's not sensible. You tried to answer "why".

[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by StevesResearch
We didn't evolve from apes,

1. We are apes
2. We didn't evolve from any current apes

if we did there would be more evidence to support this.

There is no lack in evidence suggesting that us and chimps share a close ancestor.

There's a little thing called the missing link which suggests that we originated from somewhere other than apes.

We originate from LUCA. From current species on the planet apes share the closest ancestor with us. We didn't "originate" from them. As for this missing link hullabaloo, cite some sources please.

As much as some people hate this question and find it a cliche it is relevant, if we evolved from apes then why do apes exist today.

By now it should be clear to you that we didn't evolve from chimps or gorillas or orangutans or any other current species on the planet. This is like very, very basic stuff. You clearly aren't well read concerning the theory. But that's how it's. Only people who don't understand modern evolutionary synthesis refute it.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Brainiac
Religion is ignorance.
It is supported mostly as a learned behavior. Carried down through generations of a person's family, passed on from earlier descendants from more primitive and dark times...

A practice that is just a common acknowledgment from most people. With clearly no representation or manifestation that there is anything supporting this belief...

As we've seen time and time again, there is nothing that will intervene in the natural and physical course of actions and reactions.

Example: A crazed depressed Gunman holds a group of people hostage, and starts to kill them. The only thing that will intervene is a either a highly trained marksman or the Gunman's change of heart...

Nothing is going to come down and stop those MFing bullets.

No divine intervention...

Not all religions are concerned with a divine being. It's not all ignorance either, Christianity(god forbid) has helped a great number of people, it's also a large reason for a great deal of prejudice.

A more accurate thing to say would be 'Religion is a double edged sword'
Because when it comes down to it, how many of us have died and seen the other side if it is there? There could be some crazy stuff there.

I'm not saying I'm a Christian, I'm far from it, but when you take a step back and look at both sides, you can see that there's some good arguments on both sides.

I don't know where life originated, but I know that we don't have all the picture(s). Evolution might be a product of a divine being who then decided not to intervene anymore. 'God' might simply be a force, like the energy that flows through everything. There may be no God, we may not be products of evolution.

Personally, I'm leaning towards us being a product of evolution.

Originally posted by StevesResearchit amazes me how so many people buy into this evolving from apes crap!

The common ancestor of apes and men appeared about 20,000,000 years ago, and humans branched off about 15,000,000 years ago. If one wishes to actually learn the material it is there for the taking.