Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun

---

Dawkins likes his mount improbable eh? and a good point you make, but technically there is no such thing as down, up or anyway in a random world, only further randomness you know!!!

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Zenithar

---

The fact of the matter is that most spontaneous mutations cause an animal to die before it is ever born, or if it is born it will usually not make it to an age where it can procreate. An organism is dependent on certain proteins being produced at specific times in order for it to develop properly. A change at a single loci can throw this off completely. Occasionally though a mutation will create an organism that is slightly better at surviving and providing. This then makes them a better candidate for mates. In almost every case though these changes are so slight that they are almost imperceptible. However, as this organism's genes get passed on to other generations and other mutations occur and eventually a completely new species is produced. Its a slow, lengthy, almost imperceptible process that in most cases produces failures, who don't even have the chance to mate.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by nophun

---

the intelligent design theory.

It doesn't take much brain power

make you explain what you are asking ... genius

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun

---

I understand that the natural selection process is not random, but is IS blind, It doesn't make a choice its just a term used to describe the survival of the fittest mechanism..

maybe i was not clear enough, but i know that natural selection is not random and that the mutations are.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun

---

Genius is that like name calling or just name calling.
please ask me to explain the question you didn't answer and can't.

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — Richard Dawkins

Originally posted by nophun

‘

Evolution is just a theory not fact.

Carbon dating is wrong.

There is no evidence of Evolution.

The gaps, the gaps!

Cambrian explosion.

Crocoduck has STILL not been found.

Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints)

fossils do not show ancestry.

The second law of thermodynamics.


Unfortunately we have no proof of anything. Creationism or Evolutionism could both have arguments in their favor.

Evolution is just a theory not fact. Well give me empirical evidence that we evolved along time line. Prove Forbidden Archeology wrong and mainstream Archeology right.

Carbon Dating is wrong. Prove that it is right. Carbon dating burning and Nuclear are based on assumptions with Algorithms programed in using specifications based on said assumptions.

There is no evidence of Evolution. No there isn't in fact as far back as modern human has been unburied as far back as 300,000 or many as millions of years. www.forbiddenarcheology.com... evolutionary changes have been remarkably lacking. A fringe group that is growing in the Archeological field seem to think that bi pedal apes and humans co existed, maybe as far back as the Cretaceous or further back.

The Gaps, The Gaps. This could be explained by once again primitive bi pedal apes having thicker bones hanging out in more mineral rich areas making them preserve better. We may not have buried our dead as we learned to do all the time leaving our bones to be eaten or dissolve to dust.

The Cambrian Explosion. We don't have any hard evidence, but with complex cycles one should prescribe to Chaos for order in non linear equations.

Proof of Dinos and Humans walking side by side. Is it really hard to believe. Once again the lack of physical proof in bones could be caused by our small bones and the highly acidic world of say the Cretaceous. Ancient Cultures have drawings of what we currently know as dinosaurs. www.genesispark.org... since we can't assume ancient cultures working to make sure they didn't want to starve would find time for excavation of old bones.

Fossils do not show Ancestry. Maybe, maybe not. We just mapped the Genome and it's kinda arrogant to think we would know what millions of years of evolution would do to genetic code.

The Second law of Thermodynamics. yeah, yeah...

This isn't for or against, but rather just my musings on your thoughts, and an attempt to open a mind or two to possibilities other than those given.

If the Theologians are right, then infinity is wrong, if the Astronomers are right then we know more about positive numbers than negative numbers.

With infinity +

There is also infinity -

If that is the case the earth could be infinitely small to an infinitely large body. If we are infinitely small in an infinitely large body then our math, and science could be wrong as far forces acting on us.

Just because we can "critically think" doesn't make us right.

Unfortunately we have no proof of anything. Creationism or Evolutionism could both have arguments in their favor.

Evolution is just a theory not fact.

Carbon Dating is wrong. Prove that it is right. Carbon dating burning and Nuclear are based on assumptions with Algorithms programed in using specifications based on said assumptions.

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by wayaboveitall

---

But doesn't saying that "no need for adaptation" imply that there is an inherent design?

I dont know freind, you tell me, it's simply fact.

For example you mentioned reptiles not losing limbs. In a godless/creator-less environment ( such as proposed by atheistic/ natural evolution) where all physical change is dictated purely by genetic mutation then all species should still be evolving or mutating regardless of how well adapted they are to their particular environment.

Some are still evolving freind. This last part makes no sense. Again, evolution is driven by adaption, Not random inexplicable and spontaneous mutations. Make of that what you will.

You can't say that they evolved something out of "need" or didn't evolve something out of "lack of need" without implying that the evolution or lack there of was deliberately activated or unactivated.

Freind, I Imply nothing, I cannot say anymore than you exactly how the adaptive mutation required is triggered, only that it is and that there is evidence enough of it. Take the loss of limbs in some lizards for example,
one assumes the habitat began to change, giving rise to plant life that was difficult to navigate with limbs, or that other food sources were evolving which fled down holes in the ground where the luckless lizards were hampered to follow with limbs. The connection between the need to adapt and the genetic mutation/s required to bring about this physical adaption over time, remains the great mystery even to science. I dont pretend to know. You seem to imply that evolutionary adaption is an ongoing juggernaut, entirely random and unnessary accidents, without purpous, yet this is clearly not the case. How would it benefit a species to randomly mutate to such degree that it can no longer successfully compete, feed, survive in its enviroment? What benefit to a girraff to randomly mutate again and revert to a shortnecked species, purely by chance, where it needs to survive in a habitat where its primary food source is the leaves of tall acacia trees? Clearly then evolution DOES have purpous and therefor is NOT purely random, would you not agree?

It's like when whales evolved from land mammals to oceanic mammals. What was the likelihood that the right amount of whales would develop the right set of genetic mutations over a given period of time that somehow ends up making them more adept at hunting in the water? In order for it to work two whales would have to have an identical genetic mutation in order for them to pass the trait on to their offspring, and then their offspring would either run into the same problem or they would face the rigors and issues of inbreeding. How does the genetic mutation that forms the basis for an overall complex evolution get passed without being stonewalled by either chance or nature?

How can science have 90% of everything RIGHT until it comes to disagree with a old book ?