abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 67
14
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




You missed my point. If as you say "speciation is a population event" will it eventually lead to a new species? If yes, then my understanding is correct, right?


If not then your own understanding of speciation is flawed, because your textbooks and your experts say that speciation will eventually lead to a new "species" - a totally different creature from its source - a fish turning into an amphebian, ect.


No, this is a misunderstanding of speciation. At the split point, the two species are basically identical. The only thing defining them as different species is that they can't interbreed to produce fertile offspring, i.e. there can be no interchange of genes. The differences will gradually increase over time through evolution.



Of course I have evidence, it is called - sterility and genome.

Once the boundary dictated by the gene is reach - sterility sets in and the "species" can no longer reproduce its own kind. Geneticists as well as breeders know this to be a fact.

Sterility is what keeps "species" from crossing the boundary. The DNA - the blueprint also prevents "species" from changing into another form. Encoded in each DNA molecule is a self correcting gene. Any error or mutation is simply repaired, if not rejected. If it can't be repaired then the mutant gene will die off - along with the "species". That's why most of the time living things are "born" normal. But once in a while a mutant will survive, unfortunately not for long due to circumstances beyond its control. Since mutant genes are generally a degradation from the norm, the carrier will be less likely to survive or even live a healthy life. Simple as that.

Thus these two powerful boundaries can't be breach in any way, shape or form. It what keeps "species" separated from the other species - a dog is a dog and will forever remain a dog, a cat is a cat and will forever remain a cat, any improvement will remain within the "species". Any physical traits inherited from the parents will someday be reversed or further improved in the succeeding generations - until again the boundary stops them cold.


Fascinating. Got any links to articles (preferably from non-creationist sites)?




from your own vid:

"As environment transform, so much the species that inhabit them adapting and readapting in the great and complex battle of life"


Of course to you this evolution, but to me it's just the facts of life - the ability to adapt as intended.


Of course it's evolution. Call it adaptation if you like, it doesn't change the process.


Gotta go, will check in tomorrow.




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Ive been following both sides for the argument for a few pages now,, and im curious as to what you think is, not only a viable or probable explanation for the existence and manifestation of life on earth, but in reality, how it actually occurred?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs
The environment drives the adaptation and evolutionary changes, not the genetic code itself. If a creature is a good fit for his environment, he will not change all that much, despite STILL having random genetic mutations. Remember, the genetic changes happen regardless. Long term major morphological changes won't happen unless the environment changes, aside from slight genetic drift.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Don't forget the circumstances at which the species lives on. In the case of the pocket mice, they have predators that are acting as checks and balances.

Remove the checks and balances which one do you think of the two varieties of pocket mice will thrive?

The light colored or the dark colored variety or both?

Will their hair color matter much?



Will evolution still work if natural selection is removed? No?

That's like asking if the human body will still work if the brain is removed.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Of course I have evidence, it is called - sterility and genome.

Once the boundary dictated by the gene is reach - sterility sets in and the "species" can no longer reproduce its own kind. Geneticists as well as breeders know this to be a fact.

Sterility is what keeps "species" from crossing the boundary. The DNA - the blueprint also prevents "species" from changing into another form. Encoded in each DNA molecule is a self correcting gene. Any error or mutation is simply repaired, if not rejected. If it can't be repaired then the mutant gene will die off - along with the "species". That's why most of the time living things are "born" normal. But once in a while a mutant will survive, unfortunately not for long due to circumstances beyond its control. Since mutant genes are generally a degradation from the norm, the carrier will be less likely to survive or even live a healthy life. Simple as that.

Thus these two powerful boundaries can't be breach in any way, shape or form. It what keeps "species" separated from the other species - a dog is a dog and will forever remain a dog, a cat is a cat and will forever remain a cat, any improvement will remain within the "species". Any physical traits inherited from the parents will someday be reversed or further improved in the succeeding generations - until again the boundary stops them cold."




Fascinating. Got any links to articles (preferably from non-creationist sites)?


There's a lot. Here's just a sample:

Repair Genes::


Abstract DNA repair systems are essential for the maintenance of genome integrity. Consequently, the disregulation of repair genes can be expected to be associated with significant, detrimental health effects, which can include an increased prevalence of birth defects, an enhancement of cancer risk, and an accelerated rate of aging. Although original insights into DNA repair and the genes responsible were largely derived from studies in bacteria and yeast, well over 125 genes directly involved in DNA repair have now been identified in humans, and their cDNA sequence established. These genes function in a diverse set of pathways that involve the recognition and removal of DNA lesions, tolerance to DNA damage, and protection from errors of incorporation made during DNA replication or DNA repair. Additional genes indirectly affect DNA repair, by regulating the cell cycle, ostensibly to provide an opportunity for repair or to direct the cell to apoptosis. For about 70 of the DNA repair genes listed in Table I, both the genomic DNA sequence and the cDNA sequence and chromosomal location have been elucidated. In 45 cases single-nucleotide polymorphisms have been identified and, in some cases, genetic variants have been associated with specific disorders. With the accelerating rate of gene discovery, the number of identified DNA repair genes and sequence variants is quickly rising. This report tabulates the current status of what is known about these genes. The report is limited to genes whose function is directly related to DNA repair.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As for sterility - you're already aware of this so I'll leave that to you.

I'll provide more later if needed...

gotta go.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Ive been following both sides for the argument for a few pages now,, and im curious as to what you think is, not only a viable or probable explanation for the existence and manifestation of life on earth, but in reality, how it actually occurred?


Thanks for asking ImaFungi.

I'll answer your question as best as I can using two models:

The Evolution Model and Creation Model.

You can expand the Model list if you want to but up to you to decide which one is supported by the facts.

I'll keep it as simple and short as possible so as not to complicate things. Okay? I'll just mention three.

1) On Life

According to Evolution Model:
From abioGenesis Hypothesis, life arose then evolved from nonliving materials by chance/accidental process of chemical evolution. The genetic code, like life spontaneously appeared by accident / chance, and then found a way to evolve itself. Otherwise the default answer is "We Don't Know".

According to Creation Model:
Simply put - Life comes ONLY from previous life. Life is very complex that Great Intelligence and Great Knowledge is required to put it together.

According to the Real World - The Facts are:
There's no evidence of life arising spontaneously from non-living things by unguided means. The genetic code is very complex that it requires sophisticated instruments and teams and teams of great minds to understand it. The Genome Project attests to the fact of its complexity. Impossible to put together without proper understanding of its complexity.

2) On Appearance of "Species"

According to Evolution Model:
Expect new "species" arising gradually over long periods of time. Thru mutation, natural selection - speciation, new "species" arrived leaving incomplete bones and (vistal) organs at different transitional stages. Links between "species" exist.

According to Creation Model:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or useless organs.

According to the Real World - The Facts are:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or organs. All organs have purpose. No missing links. All so called "links" are understood through interpretation/assumption.

3) On Fossil Records

According to Evolution Model:
From abioGenesis Hypothesis, simple life-form arose from nonliving materials then gradually evolved leaving transitional links from "species" to "species".

According to Creation Model:
Complex life-forms appeared suddenly in great variety. Huge gaps exist between major species. No linking forms (i.e. fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc).

According to the Real World - The Facts are:
Sudden appearance of complex life forms in great variety. Each new "species" is separate from previous species. No clear evidence of linking forms (from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc).

Note:

I'll provide the supporting statements/documents/links later. Not enough time today...gotta go.

"species" refers to the different kinds species,i.e.: fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc.

not within species - i.e. donkey vs horse or long beaked finch vs short-beaked finch.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

This was your claim:


Fact is the mice is still a mice and the birds are still birds and they will never change into something new, that is, to be clear: a mice will not change into a dog or a bird into a cat, etc, etc.

Why? The genetic boundary prevents this from happening.


If we disregard the obvious brain fart that a species could somehow evolve into another already existing species (and one in a completely different part of the evolutionary tree to boot) I guess your assertion is that there's some sort of genetic boundary that precludes speciation, correct?

I asked you to back this up with evidence and you give me an article about DNA repair systems. I'm aware of them, thanks - but nothing in this article supports your claim that there's a genetic boundary against speciation. Can you find an article that actually mentions species boundaries? I'm assuming you're not just making this stuff up?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
How could there be a magical barrier preventing speciation, when it's been observed in a lab and in nature many times? The only "barrier" is time. Of course birds don't suddenly morph into rats. Claiming something like that is ridiculous. Things change very slightly. It's just when you add all the slight changes up over millions of years, you see big change. That's the only FACT of the matter here, regardless of your lies in the last post and the straw mans in regards to speciation. Just because big morphological changes don't happen instantly, doesn't mean they don't happen.
edit on 5-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Thank you for your response,..,,...,


"According to Creation Model:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or useless organs."

so that would mean that every single kind of life that exists right now,, has always existed all at the same time, since life "came" to this earth.,.,.,. besides all of the life that became extinct?


"According to Creation Model:
Simply put - Life comes ONLY from previous life. Life is very complex that Great Intelligence and Great Knowledge is required to put it together."

and this would mean that at no time in the histories of time and infinite past of anything and/or everything,, intelligence did not exist,.,.., before the first thing ever happened there was intelligence,,,, and infinite infinitnies before that there was intelligence,.,, so that the first ( not that there can be a first since there always was) intelligence does not and cannot know how it came about ( because it never came about,, it always was)... but wouldnt that mean it would know infinitely into the past,.., this is the paradoxical infinite regress chicken and the egg type stuff that happens when thinking of these things.,,..,.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




1) On Life

According to Evolution Model:
From abioGenesis Hypothesis, life arose then evolved from nonliving materials by chance/accidental process of chemical evolution.


False. Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis but if a plausible chemical pathway from simple organic molecules (that we know will form in all kinds of environments and have even been detected in interstellar space) to a replicator can be demonstrated, it will not be the result of chance/accident but of the laws of chemistry and physics. If chemical reactions were purely random events there would be no science of chemistry. I know this is probably never going to sink in since you keep repeating this misrepresentation like a broken record - I'm writing it mostly for the benefit of any potential innocent bystander. Someone might actually be reading this stuff.


The genetic code, like life spontaneously appeared by accident / chance, and then found a way to evolve itself. Otherwise the default answer is "We Don't Know".


This is actually even more egregious. The hypothesis is that the genetic code evolved through mutation and natural selection which is of course even less of an accidental/chance process. It would help your credibility enormously if you took the time to study what the propositions you criticize actually are.


According to Creation Model:
Simply put - Life comes ONLY from previous life. Life is very complex that Great Intelligence and Great Knowledge is required to put it together.


Do I even have to say it? Blatant argument from ignorance. It's exactly as valid as the old classic "all the swans I've seen were white, therefore all swans must be white". Bad logic won't justify your position - you need to actually demonstrate it with evidence.


According to the Real World - The Facts are:
There's no evidence of life arising spontaneously from non-living things by unguided means. The genetic code is very complex that it requires sophisticated instruments and teams and teams of great minds to understand it. The Genome Project attests to the fact of its complexity. Impossible to put together without proper understanding of its complexity.


"It looks created so it must be created" - you're really piling up the arguments from ignorance now. Clearly, adding more logical fallacies won't add up to a valid argument.



2) On Appearance of "Species"

According to Evolution Model:
Expect new "species" arising gradually over long periods of time. Thru mutation, natural selection - speciation, new "species" arrived leaving incomplete bones and (vistal) organs at different transitional stages. Links between "species" exist.


They occasionally leave complete bones, too. I'm assuming you mean vestigial organs?


According to Creation Model:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or useless organs.


Completely discredited by the fossil evidence, the physiogical evidence, the biochemical evidence and the DNA evidence. You need to be in absolute denial of reality to believe this.


According to the Real World - The Facts are:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or organs. All organs have purpose. No missing links. All so called "links" are understood through interpretation/assumption.


Utterly and brazenly false. All the available evidence completely destroy this nonsense.



3) On Fossil Records

According to Evolution Model:
From abioGenesis Hypothesis, simple life-form arose from nonliving materials then gradually evolved leaving transitional links from "species" to "species".


Hint: all species are transitional as evolution is a continuous process.


According to Creation Model:
Complex life-forms appeared suddenly in great variety. Huge gaps exist between major species. No linking forms (i.e. fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc).


Demonstrably false. Fish to amphibian? Google Tiktaalik. As a side note, using the theory of evolution, scientists could actually predict where a fossil of such a species could be found and sure enough they found it. Amphibian to reptile? Try Westlothiana. Reptile to mammal? Check out Haptodus.


According to the Real World - The Facts are:
Sudden appearance of complex life forms in great variety. Each new "species" is separate from previous species. No clear evidence of linking forms (from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, etc).


See above. Let's just say we're not impressed.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
While edmc^2 is preparing his next opus (I see massive cut & paste jobs in our near future) I'd just like to add that Haptodus probably wasn't the best example for the reptile/mammal transition. It's certainly on the way towards mammal but one of the cynodonts, like Thrinaxodon, is probably more in line with what would be considered a "transitional form" (which is a dubious term anyway as all living organisms are transitional).



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Ive been following both sides for the argument for a few pages now,, and im curious as to what you think is, not only a viable or probable explanation for the existence and manifestation of life on earth, but in reality, how it actually occurred?

I posted a video about this a few pages back. For more detailed information, check the references mentioned at the end of the video.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by radix
While edmc^2 is preparing his next opus (I see massive cut & paste jobs in our near future) I'd just like to add that Haptodus probably wasn't the best example for the reptile/mammal transition. It's certainly on the way towards mammal but one of the cynodonts, like Thrinaxodon, is probably more in line with what would be considered a "transitional form" (which is a dubious term anyway as all living organisms are transitional).





Hint: all species are transitional as evolution is a continuous process.


What? All species are transitional???

Bold claim there. Then again, might not be if based on pure speculation and assumption.

Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.

There is though VARIETIES within "Species" - that is within the Dog "kind", within the Bird "kind", within the Fish "kind", within Human "kind". That is a fact!

But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous.

The genetic barrier and sterility will not allow this happen.

And based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available.

Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.

Try as you may to prove it, you will be be assuming it.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.


Well, first you have no idea what species means, and second, yes there are. Look at the fossil record instead of just making things up and you'd see it. There are a bunch of transitional fossils.


But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous.

The genetic barrier and sterility will not allow this happen.

And based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available.


Another lie. What compels you to just make stuff up for the heck of it? You obviously aren't a scientist and have not studied any of this. No I'm not dumb enough to believe your lies, Mr preacher. Find somewhere to spread your religious poison.



Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.


en.wikipedia.org...

Let me guess. This article is lying.

Stop with the philosophical nonsense. You haven't proven anything at all, you are just making up "facts" and running with it. What I really what to know, is what is your motivation to post this and a new other thread when you cannot offer any clear cut evidence for god. Any so called "gods" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not clear cut evidence.
And besides you are talking about evolution again, not abiogenesis. Not like you know anything whatsoever about either. What's your motivation? I wanna know WHY you feel the need to lie to everyone to promote your religion. I don't think that's what your jehova god wants.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Thank you for your response,..,,...,


"According to Creation Model:
No new "species" gradually appearing. Each "species" appeared fully formed. No missing bones or useless organs."


so that would mean that every single kind of life that exists right now,, has always existed all at the same time, since life "came" to this earth.,.,.,. besides all of the life that became extinct?


"so that would mean that every single kind of life that exists right now,, has always existed all at the same time"

No. The Creation Model states that animals appeared in stages over a period of thousands of years but not in the millions of years as predicted by Evolution model.

Here's summary of the creation model stages:

(1) A beginning.
(2) A primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
(3) Light.
(4) An expanse or atmosphere.
(5) Large areas of dry land.
(6) Land plants.
(7) Sun, moon and stars visible in the atmosphere and seasons beginning.
(8) Sea and flying creatures.
(9) Wild and tame beasts, mammals.
(10) Man.

Interestingly, science agree with the above sequence.



"According to Creation Model:
Simply put - Life comes ONLY from previous life. Life is very complex that Great Intelligence and Great Knowledge is required to put it together."


and this would mean that at no time in the histories of time and infinite past of anything and/or everything,, intelligence did not exist,.,.., before the first thing ever happened there was intelligence,,,, and infinite infinitnies before that there was intelligence,.,, so that the first ( not that there can be a first since there always was) intelligence does not and cannot know how it came about ( because it never came about,, it always was)... but wouldnt that mean it would know infinitely into the past,.., this is the paradoxical infinite regress chicken and the egg type stuff that happens when thinking of these things.,,..,.



Fact that the Universe is not chaotic but orderly, it follows that it is governed by specific laws.

And evidence shows that order requires Intelligence, thus Intelligence must exist first for order to exist, otherwise chance is the ultimate cause of all the order in the universe.

As for "the paradoxical infinite regress chicken and the egg type stuff that happens when thinking of these things"

The only answer to this is - there must be an ALWAYS existing Intelligence for all (material) things to exist.

That is, using your chicken and egg analogy:

The "chicken (Intelligence)" must exist first for the egg (matter) to exist...

because NOT all things in the chicken are in the egg since the ultimate source of the egg IS the chicken.

In other words there things in the chicken that are not in the egg but all things in the egg are in the chicken. Thus the chicken came first - not the other way around.

So intelligence existed first before order and matter.

Question is - is the intelligence present in the Universe an Entity?


To me, all evidence shows yes.

What's the alternative to believe otherwise?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.


Well, first you have no idea what species means, and second, yes there are. Look at the fossil record instead of just making things up and you'd see it. There are a bunch of transitional fossils.


But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous.

The genetic barrier and sterility will not allow this happen.

And based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available.


Another lie. What compels you to just make stuff up for the heck of it? You obviously aren't a scientist and have not studied any of this. No I'm not dumb enough to believe your lies, Mr preacher. Find somewhere to spread your religious poison.



Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.


en.wikipedia.org...

Let me guess. This article is lying.

Stop with the philosophical nonsense. You haven't proven anything at all, you are just making up "facts" and running with it. What I really what to know, is what is your motivation to post this and a new other thread when you cannot offer any clear cut evidence for god. Any so called "gods" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not clear cut evidence.
And besides you are talking about evolution again, not abiogenesis. Not like you know anything whatsoever about either. What's your motivation? I wanna know WHY you feel the need to lie to everyone to promote your religion. I don't think that's what your jehova god wants.




Let me guess. This article is lying.


Did I say LYING? Or are you the one who said it?

Oh yeah, it must be you because here's what I said (I'll bold it OK?):

purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.

Let me repeat in case you missed it okay?

"Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence."

In other words like I said in an earlier post - if you assume, speculate and interpret that the evidence supports evolution then it supports it.

So where in the above statements did I say LIE or LYING?

Kindly please point it to me before I proceed.

I'll be waiting.

""" - mine
edit on 7-9-2012 by edmc^2 because: quote



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 






Any so called "gods" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not clear cut evidence.


You mean a Creator (singular).

If so, then all the fundamental laws in nature and the Universe are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not clear cut evidence.

Would it not?

But the facts is - the fundamental laws of nature/universe do exist!





“It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better. - P. A. M. Dirac
Scientific American of May 1963”


So the obvious question to ask is where did they came from?

Intelligence/Creator?

or is it your chance event?


edit on 7-9-2012 by edmc^2 because: P. A. M. Dirac



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


What? All species are transitional???

Bold claim there. Then again, might not be if based on pure speculation and assumption.


Nah, I leave the bold claims to you. I stick to the boring stuff - like observable facts. Species change over time - we can watch it happening. It's called evolution. Denying reality isn't going to make it go away.


Fact is there are NO TRANSITIONAL forms from "Species" to "Species" - that is to be clear: from a Fish to Amphibian, from Amphibian to Reptile, from Reptile to Birds, to Mammals - to "Apes" to Man.


I just presented evidence of such transitional forms. If you're going to reject them I want to know on what grounds and what credentials you have in paleontology.


There is though VARIETIES within "Species" - that is within the Dog "kind", within the Bird "kind", within the Fish "kind", within Human "kind". That is a fact!


The term "kind" is completely meaningless and will remain so until it's been given a biologically relevant definition.


But to say and state that there are transitional forms between "species" or kinds - that is from Fish to a Lizard is preposterous.

The genetic barrier and sterility will not allow this happen.


True to form you deliver bold claims without a shred of evidence to back them up. I asked you for a reference to an article that specifically mentions this genetic barrier, did you find one?


And based on fossil records NO SUCH transitional forms are available.


Already debunked, do try to keep up.


Any so called "transitional forms" are purely based on assumption, speculation and interpretation. In other words not a clear cut evidence.


Again, what are your credentials in evaluating fossil evidence? Call me crazy but I think I'd go with the interpretation of someone who's spent decades studying this material and doing peer-reviewed science over the interpretation of someone who's presented no credentials in the field and who's clearly demonstrated that he has an axe to grind with anyone and anything who challenges his supernatural beliefs.



Try as you may to prove it, you will be be assuming it.


Drivel. Even if we disregard the fossil evidence (and you've given me no reason why we should), the DNA evidence for common descent (and therefore speciation) is conclusive. No assumptions needed.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Nah, I leave the bold claims to you. I stick to the boring stuff - like observable facts. Species change over time - we can watch it happening. It's called evolution. Denying reality isn't going to make it go away.


OK - since you're the expert here take me to one of your "observable facts" - as evidence of evolution and let's see if it's really evolution.

BTW - just to remind you varieties do occur within "species" of species.

In layman's term and common sensically speaking, there are varieties of the bird kind, varieties of the dog kind, varieties of the human kind.

FYI - why I tend to put "" on the word "species":


Species problem From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search “

... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties ” — Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (p. 48)[1]

The species problem is a mixture of difficult, related questions that often come up when biologists define the word "species". Definitions are usually based on how individual organisms reproduce, but biological reality means that a definition that works well for some organisms (e.g., birds) will be useless for others (e.g., bacteria). This current meaning of the phrase "species problem" is quite different from what was meant by "species problem" during the 19th and early 20th centuries, as used by Darwin and others.[2] For Darwin the species problem was the question of how new species arose. One common but sometimes difficult question is how best to decide just which particular species an organism belongs to.[dubious – discuss] Another challenge is deciding when to recognize a new species, for example when new data indicate that one previously described species actually may include two or more separately evolving groups, each of which could possibly be recognized as a separate species. Many of the debates on species touch on philosophical issues, such as nominalism and realism, as well as on issues of language and cognition.



Also, I looked at your fossil evidence - like I said, they are only convincing if you like to assume and speculate that they are - so a "observable evolution" would be a good example of your claim.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Fact that the Universe is not chaotic but orderly, it follows that it is governed by specific laws.

And evidence shows that order requires Intelligence, thus Intelligence must exist first for order to exist, otherwise chance is the ultimate cause of all the order in the universe.


You haven't provided any such evidence, what you have given us are unsubstantiated claims. You need to either provide positive evidence of this intelligence or prove conclusively that the universe could not have come into existence without it. You havent' even come close to doing either.


As for "the paradoxical infinite regress chicken and the egg type stuff that happens when thinking of these things"

The only answer to this is - there must be an ALWAYS existing Intelligence for all (material) things to exist.

That is, using your chicken and egg analogy:

The "chicken (Intelligence)" must exist first for the egg (matter) to exist...

because NOT all things in the chicken are in the egg since the ultimate source of the egg IS the chicken.

In other words there things in the chicken that are not in the egg but all things in the egg are in the chicken. Thus the chicken came first - not the other way around.

So intelligence existed first before order and matter.

Question is - is the intelligence present in the Universe an Entity?


To me, all evidence shows yes.


You're still confusing your claims with evidence which obviously won't get you anywhere.


What's the alternative to believe otherwise?


The alternative is to not make stuff up and instead follow where the evidence leads us. This means continuously re-drawing the map as we collect new information about the world, which will invariably lead us closer to the truth than desperately trying to force the world to fit with a preconceived and totally discredited map.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


OK - since you're the expert here take me to one of your "observable facts" - as evidence of evolution and let's see if it's really evolution.


OK, let's look at the DNA evidence for common descent. There are at least 4 lines of DNA evidence: DNA homology, DNA synteny, pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses (ERV:s).

DNA homology means comparing the DNA sequences between different species, DNA synteny means comparing the order in which the genes are placed in the chromosomes. Pseudogenes are genes that have lost their function due to mutation but still remain in the genome and ERV:s are retroviruses that can infect a host organism and insert a DNA copy of their own genome into the host's genome. Like the pseudogenes, these viral DNA sequences have lost their function as viruses through mutation and have become a permanent part of the host's genome.

Each of these different lines of DNA evidence can independently be used to make phylogenetic diagrams which describe how closely related different organisms are to each other. Now that we have the complete genomes not only of simple organisms like bacteria and viruses but also of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans we can make accurate phylogenetic trees of ourselves and our closest relatives. It turns out that these 4 different lines of evidence produce the exact same phylogenetic tree structure and also confirm the phylogenetic trees made from physiological and biochemical data.

To go into detail on one of these lines of DNA evidence, the pseuodgenes, I'd like to introduce you to Dr Dennis Venema. He's an associate professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He also happens to be an Evangelical Christian. He has written some great articles about the evidence for evolution at biologos.org that I can heartily recommend. Here's the 2-part article on pseudogenes as evidence for common descent:

LINK

Evidence for common descent is obviously also evidence for speciation as you can't have one without the other.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join