Evolution...are there any rules?

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by heineken
so the evidence suggest that yes..hard egg just appeared

Post up the the evidence, then.

Fossilized Eggs

reply to post by luciddream

OP is already adamant religious or rather ID'er when he started the thread, he isn't even reading what others are saying...

I think the OP realizes the tremendous waste of time reading irrelevant answers...He asked a question and in response he received, "I do not know," or other meaningless answers. You see a meaningful answer here concerning his original question?

Originally posted by heineken

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by heineken
so the evidence suggest that yes..hard egg just appeared

Post up the the evidence, then.

Fossilized Eggs

No, post up the evidence for your statement "so the evidence suggest that yes..hard egg just appeared".

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by heineken
so the evidence suggest that yes..hard egg just appeared

Post up the the evidence, then.

If you got evidence of a fossilized soft shelled egg, that would blow his argument out of the water...I have never seen one...YOU fork it over.

reply to post by totallackey


Oh it's you, the tedious troll from the Creationism forum.

But alas, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Originally posted by heineken
and btw...there is only ONE type of fossil eggs....there were no variants...so the evidence suggest that yes..hard egg just appeared

Not saying intelligent design isn't entirely possible, however we have evidence of evolution and genetic drift. We do not have evidence of 'omg suddenly hard eggs'. Intelligent design and evolution are not at odds. Why would you think they are?

If anything I'd find evolution an acceptable mechanic for God or aliens to use unless we're honestly considering that it took them 3.4 billion or even 500 million years to do something productive. That's a long time.

Whatever God's reasons, or perhaps if it was aliens ... Fossilization is not the norm. Investigating the fossil record and being surprised at not finding something is like being surprised at not finding a ship wreck on land or fire in a bottle. It can happen but it's not the norm.

In this instance however, we also have reptiles with hard eggs that lay them in water. Therefore, hard eggs are not only to lay eggs on land. Therefore not neccessarily evidence for intelligent design. Not to mention things like why would a God or an alien make so many unsuccessful species? So many failed experiments? But these are philosophical things that generally science has no particular opinion on.

I'll finish with some words from Kenneth Miller as best as I can remember them ... It goes something like, in either case the study of nature, whether the order comes from the creator or the order is self existing and self explanatory , the study of nature is the same.

I'm half quoting, half paraphrasing. You get the idea. Look up Ken Miller.

If you honestly believe that you have something scientific you can prove, please take up the study of evolution at an academic level and confirm it. Not being sarcastic. If you can prove anything you're saying, it would change my life and many others.

Good luck.

Originally posted by totallackey
Yet they are arrogant enough to tell you to learn about something they cannot explain...

I already explained it. If you don't like the answer, this being the science forum, feel free to provide links to scientific literature that are in favor of "they wanted to colonize the land and then hard shell appeared over night because they wanted it" nonsense.

I don't know how many times natural selection was already explained ITT, but OP goes on to not understanding it and cries for "what was the feedback". Maybe one more time? Natural selection. Incremental changes in allele frequencies in populations over vast times. No colonization of land in one day, week, or a year. Instead, a slow, slow process over many many generations. Do you get it now?

p.s. Birds didn't develop flight capability over one night either..

Originally posted by heineken
reply to post by john_bmth

 

dude...try to put something positive to the argument..

all you is judging me lol

try not to question my ability to learn and listen etc...that leave it up to me pls..try to debate on the points i'm putting forward here...

Making stuff up is not a positive contribution. Not listening to the answers you have been given and then repeating the same questions is not a positive contribution. "Debating" is about putting forth coherent and logically consistent arguments supported by evidence. Your approach so far has been far, far, far from a debate. Your lackey, appropriately titled "totallackey", is a tedious troll who is nothing but ignorant and repetitive noise on the comms channel so I would be wary of finding solace in his "support".

Originally posted by totallackey
If you got evidence of a fossilized soft shelled egg, that would blow his argument out of the water...I have never seen one...YOU fork it over.

I'm not sure what this proves, but here you go, it's nicknamed "Mrs T":

en.wikipedia.org...

The specimen preserved along with an egg (nicknamed "Mrs T"), described by Lü and colleagues in 2011, offers insight into the reproductive strategies of Darwinopterus and pterosaurs in general.[7] Like the eggs of later pterosaurs and modern reptiles,[8] the eggs of Darwinopterus had a parchment-like, soft shell. In modern birds, the eggshell is hardened with calcium, completely shielding the embryo from the outside environment. Soft-shelled eggs are permeable, and allow significant amounts of water to be absorbed into the egg during development. Eggs of this type are more vulnerable to the elements and are typically buried in soil. The eggs of Darwinopterus would have weighed about 6 grams (0.21 oz) when they were laid, but due to moisture intake, they may have doubled in weight by the time of hatching.

Originally posted by heineken
try not to question my ability to learn and listen etc...that leave it up to me pls..try to debate on the points i'm putting forward here...

You should do the same.

Did you try to see if your library had or could get the source I mentioned on page 1?

Stewart J. R. (1997): Morphology and evolution of the egg of oviparous amniotes. In: S. Sumida and K. Martin (ed.) Amniote Origins-Completing the Transition to Land (1): 291-326. London: Academic Press.

Why not read what some experts have written about it instead of dismissing what people are telling you without even considering what the experts say? Once you know the expert opinions, THEN if you have some basis for disagreeing with it, I'm all ears.

reply to post by heineken

this is what im currently working on right now..

[ *ppBufOut = NULL;
D3D11_BUFFER_DESC desc;
ZeroMemory( &desc, sizeof(desc) );
desc.BindFlags = D3D11_BIND_UNORDERED_ACCESS | D3D11_BIND_SHADER_RESOURCE; desc.ByteWidth = uElementSize * uCount; desc.MiscFlags = D3D11_RESOURCE_MISC_BUFFER_STRUCTURED;
desc.StructureByteStride = uElementSize;
if ( pInitData ) [ D3D11_SUBRESOURCE_DATA InitData;
InitData.pSysMem = pInitData; return pDevice->CreateBuffer( &desc, &InitData, ppBufOut ); ] else return pDevice->CreateBuffer( &desc, NULL, ppBufOut ); ]

You hope to impress me by quoting a chunk of machine code? The fact that you speak a language that's used to programme dumb machines does not suggest particular intelligence; the world is crawling with computer programmers, and I have met some pretty stupid ones in my time, let me tell you.

If you want to be treated like an intelligent person, act like one. The level of intelligence you are displaying in argument on this thread would disgrace an eight-year-old.

I think the major point the OP is missing is that mutations didn't just suddenly appear when the creatures were migrating to land for whatever reason. There were always mutations of hard eggs, but their ability to survive in aquatic environments wasn't necessarily any better than soft shelled permeable eggs. The ratio of soft shelled eggs and hard shelled mutations was probably steady until these creatures moved to land. As the creatures began living on land, some of them probably laid eggs in shallow pools of water which would dry up etc.. Or they would simply lay their eggs on land without the aid of water. The hard shelled mutation eggs that have always existed would have an advantage on land where they would then start to balance the ratio. As puddles dried up the soft shelled eggs would too, but the calcium enriched hard shell eggs would remain unaffected. The offspring would hatch further inland from their original body of water and be less attached to an aquatic or amphibious lifestyle.

Some soft shelled eggs may have survived further inland, but the ratio would slowly change in favor of the hard shelled eggs until the point of being the majority. This process would continue in conjunction with other mutations that the environments were favorable for. With each successive generation the mutation alleles present would become more dominant which in effect would further the possibility of retaining the favorable mutation while the less favorable alleles (ie. soft shelled egg) would dwindle because less of the offspring would survive.


It's a slow, slow, game of statistics and ratios. This isn't a matter of creation vs evolution.. It's a matter of understanding how evolution works.

Originally posted by heineken
no im here ..

and he didnt answered the thread really..

i still see intelligent design going on here..

He answered all your questions and now you're saying he didn't answer them. Amazing.
Where exactly do you see intelligent design?

a hard shell egg was not a trial and error combination.but rather the right solution for the problem...

No, it wasn't. It's called natural selection.

This is where I get completely lost..So basically our ancestors were able to think a solution to a specific problem and change something inside their DNA. If a living creature is able to change so much from its biological structure how come there is somehow a limit what you can change…why a creature wouldn’t make itself unbeatable? Make it self the stronger? The fastest? ….is it the creature itself to decide what to evolve or there is something else? ….is mother Earth a living Organism that decides what to evolve and how? Are there any rules written somewhere inside the genetics?

Once again, natural selection. Are you familiar with the basics in evolution?
en.wikipedia.org...

I think that every time someone answers you're question you go around it by asking other questions and then claim you werent answered correctly.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by heineken
reply to post by Pinke

 

you all forget ...the egg was doing fine..

only for the colonization of land to be possible..the hard egg appeared

you dont mutate things going ok

So you've resorted to making thing up as you go along, now? Why bother starting thus thread in the first place if you're not interested in learning?

What is he making up?

The story is the creatures migrated to land and started producing hard shelled eggs. The question is why? The soft shelled eggs were sustaining the biology in a perfectly fine fashion. Why would nature decide to switch things up? Like the OP said, the theory states mutations occur to perfect the organism. Since we still have soft shell eggs, it would seem the mutation to hard shell eggs was unnecessary.

Just answer the question(s).

Evolution is total and complete fraud. Even scientists are running from it in droves. Too many flaws.

Originally posted by r2d246
Evolution is total and complete fraud. Even scientists are running from it in droves. Too many flaws.

On the contrary, the arguments that have been used against it are falling apart. Even some previously missing links have been discovered and are no longer missing:

Whale 'missing link' discovered

Originally posted by r2d246
Evolution is total and complete fraud. Even scientists are running from it in droves. Too many flaws.

Please explain. Provide Sources.

When I read that all I saw was..

"I fear death and try to comfort myself with my beliefs. I fear science because it weakens the foundations from which my beliefs are based."

Originally posted by r2d246
Evolution is total and complete fraud. Even scientists are running from it in droves. Too many flaws.

There are no flaws. Unanswered questions? Yes. No flaws though. If you were to provide some evidence of the flaws I could rebuttal, but your ignorance is overwhelming your ability to post something intelligent.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo

Originally posted by r2d246
Evolution is total and complete fraud. Even scientists are running from it in droves. Too many flaws.

Please explain. Provide Sources.

When I read that all I saw was..

"I fear death and try to comfort myself with my beliefs. I fear science because it weakens the foundations from which my beliefs are based."

And everyone else....



1) There are no transitional species. As my good friend Kirk showed us. There is no such thing as a crocoduck!

2) Man is master over all creatures of the earth. Evolution does not explain why we are the only creation with advanced skills and intelligence. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

3) Evolution does not hold all the cards. It does not have all the answers... that makes it wrong in my book! Evolution is full of holes that cannot be explained while it's followers blindly ignore this simple truth and continue to support it.

4) Evolution would require vast amounts of time that just do not fit into reality. We know the world is only 6000 years young. There is time for small changes from dog to dog and cat to cat but the time needed for cat to dog is just illogically immense! I mean... for little changes to add up to BIG changes the world would have to be a lot older than 6000 years and that is just silly!

5) If evolution were true then what does God look like? A monkey! I think not! (see 2)

6) Mutation does not support evolution. Changing one sequence by complete accident cannot add information and produce a more complex animal. According to evolution the first creature ever created by lightning hitting mud would have had to have all the genes necessary to mutate into intelligent human life. There can be no other explanation!

7) Statistically evolution just could not happen! Do the math yourself. 1 + 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = it ain't gonna happen!

8) Rules or morality. Evolution cannot explain good behavior. Survival of the fittest and morality just do not mix! All athiests are evil!

9) Sexual reproduction. Evolutionists would have you believe that not just one life was created completely by chance but TWO! Both male and female. No evolutionist can explain how such a mutation like the different sexes could possibly just happen by chance! Again, there can be no other explanation!

further proof

reply to post by r2d246

4) Evolution would require vast amounts of time that just do not fit into reality. We know the world is only 6000 years young. There is time for small changes from dog to dog and cat to cat but the time needed for cat to dog is just illogically immense! I mean... for little changes to add up to BIG changes the world would have to be a lot older than 6000 years and that is just silly!

This can only damage a true unconstrained independent debate[not bound by ideologies that reject Lamarck/epigenetics]... don't bring up young earth age...

That said, the website is a good find with stacks of compiled information, not all agreed but some gems there are valid and can be brought as secondary issues.

Originally posted by r2d246
4) Evolution would require vast amounts of time that just do not fit into reality. We know the world is only 6000 years young.

Not according to the Bible, or science:

How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science?

But yes if the world was only 6000 years old that wouldn't be enough time for much evolution.

Recheck your bible. Here are more sources related to the bible:

Critiques of Young Earth Creationism Theology