I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Perhaps you missed my responding post. Do check it out, it still applies regardless of your edits.

if you want to believe what Dawkins believes then you like every generation and civilization before think they are the pinnacle of man and civilization.

No, I don't believe we are the pinnacle. But what do you imagine the pinnacle to be? What does it look like, in your mind's eye?

AfterInfinity
Perhaps we were meant to be a social survivalist species, and empathy and regret are mechanisms developed to curb us in that direction, because that's how our biology and psychology best operates.

You have one thing that is kind of correct... We have reached the state that we are now in control of our own evolution. This doesn't mean that evolution is not still there, but we are now evolving ourselves at a much faster rate than evolution is capable of doing.

Please explain this though.... "Perhaps we were meant...." Are suggesting a predetermined purpose? I also think you really do not understand what a human is. We are the most vicious animal on earth, the Velociraptor of the mammal world. We eat species into extinction, or even for fun. That evil race that finds a new world and pillage and plunders all natural resources including all life there....IS US!!!

There is a reason we are 7 billion strong and it wasn't our empathy that was the secret ingredient.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


science is an extension of theology, plain and simple... it is a branch of the tree.

one thing science can not prove, is that there is no mystery...

and they never will be able to

reply to post by Xtrozero


Evolution is a result of genetic trial and error. If we came out a certain way, it's because that way was one of a limited number of ways that could successfully cope with the given circumstances. It was a turn of phrase intended to reflect this concept.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

science is an extension of theology, plain and simple... it is a branch of the tree.

Science has killed theology again and again, reducing it to creative literature and nothing more. I can list numerous examples. Can you?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Evolution is a result of genetic trial and error.

evolution is "boring" it is akin to Lady Gaga

God does not play dice with the universe -Albert Einstein

Theology is akin to the Origins of Matter

and that is "interesting" if you don't like it **** ***

AliceBleachWhite
Look in the mirror and you'll see what mudskippers evolve into.

Tetrapod (a category the mudskipper belongs to)

The superclass Tetrapoda (Ancient Greek τετραπόδηs tetrapodēs, "four-footed"), or the tetrapods, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates and their descendants, including the living and extinct amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

The change from a body plan for breathing and navigating in water to a body plan enabling the animal to move on land is one of the most profound evolutionary changes known. It is also one of the best understood, largely thanks to a number of significant fossil finds in the late 20th century combined with improved phylogenetic analysis.

In essence, those muskippers given a few hundred million years have the potential to turn into dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, as well as something resembling humans.

Meanwhile, since the tetrapod muskipper is a successful adaptation in and of and by itself, so long as that ecological niche remains, that species will also remain while outlier adaptations take to land, or back to water.

Extant (living) tetrapods:

Following the great faunal turnover at the end of the Mesozoic, only six major groups of tetrapods were left, all of which also include many extinct groups:

Lissamphibia: frogs and toads, newts and salamanders, and caecilians
Testudines: turtles and tortoises
Lepidosauria: tuataras, lizards, amphisbaenians and snakes
Crocodilia: crocodiles, alligators, caimans and gharials
Neornithes: modern birds
Mammalia: mammals

Once again none of this is observable, and testable. It must be taken on some faith. You are making assumptions based on evolution that have never been observed...

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Here you go. Try reading this.

Nice google fingers! Lol Jk. Read that article numerous times not impressed much of it must be taken on faith and for science thats not ok.

Grimpachi
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

You asked a question I provided an answer and that scares you. Did you bother to look at the actual study? Didn't think so.

If you had you wouldn't be railing so hard against the article that merely described the study.

Each day science gathers more evidence for evolution on the other hand the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.

edit on 16-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

You didn't provide me an answer. I did actually look at the study, and it is all speculation. Just as I said.

Son, you don't scare me. So, don't try to argument ad hominem me.
I understand logical fallacies, as well as the application of logic and reason much, MUCH better than you.
It is obvious.

Science can continue to gather information plagued by confirmation bias to support Darwinian Evolution, but it will never gather FACTS that support it. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

And as far as God goes, I think that I have made it abundantly clear that the whole God concept is absurd.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You arguments are weak and not worth my time. I have refuted them to the point where anyone that actually buys into them had already made up their minds to believe your position before even beginning to read.

Get game son. Until then, I will no longer waste my time on you.

I put the link in my signature specifically to help people like you.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I don't need to prove anything. You just admitted you don't have a better theory, yet you're challenging evolution anyway.

Now you are simply engaging in the logical fallacy of the argument from repetition, also known as argument ad-naseum.

Then you straw man an accusation that I, and I quote-

I am not promoting any idea.

True. I am not promoting an idea.
Promoting any idea through the absence of evidence is not promoting an idea.
That is called being skeptical.
And yet ANOTHER logical fallacy.

In case you didn't check out the link, then here is what true skepticism is-

Marked by or given to doubt; questioning.

Then you say that-

You are promoting the idea that evolution is false

Wrong. I am promoting the idea that NOT ONE shred of evidence backs it up and until I see it then I won't believe it, like any good skeptic.

Put up or shut up.

Ohhh.... The hallmark of a weak argument. I beat you and you know it. So then just try to get me to shut up.
You are so desperate now. I know you, You know it.
And so does every single person reading with the ability to think critically

Ciao. Checkmate.

AfterInfinity
Give it up. Creationism cannot beat evolution at this point in time, if not ever. Your every objection has been met fully and soundly with all the science you could ever need.

Its just a matter of the truth making you feel good about your miserable existence. That's not what science is for.

4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Evolution adheres to the rules of science. In order to be considered scientific fact it must have observable and testable evidence behind it. Macro-evolution does not have any evidence of this kind, but rather is all circumstantial and he said she said truth of the matter is they don't know if they are looking at transitional forms or various types of animals. Micro-evolution concludes that animals in a similar environment would have similar genetic adaptations to that environment, but it does not conclude that animals transition between kinds.

No my one objection to evolution has still not been met in over four hours of conversation...everything I have been giving requires me to take certain claims based solely on faith and not scientific observation and experimentation.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


it requires more faith than religion requires.

AliceBleachWhite

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur ...

Show us a god.

No?

Hmmmm.

I would argue the Creator can be seen in the creation.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I'm not the best person to explain this. But I do know someone who can do it quite well. I asked them to drop in for a word, so we'll see how it goes. But your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is dead wrong. It sounds to me as though you believe that millions of people have lied to us about decades worth of discoveries and research. And yet, for such evidently blatant deception, you don't have a better story to give us?

Somehow, that doesn't quite make sense. But since I don't have the educational background to sufficiently argue the case, I'll wait and see if this other person comes along to explain things. Maybe you'll understand then.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

evolution is "boring" it is akin to Lady Gaga

Then you have no business participating in this thread. Unless, of course, you're here to actually learn what evolution is all about. In which case, carry on.

Can i just ask what the creation/religion stand is on the replenishing of species? If it is accepted that species can become extinct then what maintains speciation?

Surely it's logical to demand empirical evidence of this to counter evolution? Does a giant hand reach down (or up) and gently place a new species of frog (for example) on a palm frond (cunningly placed there previously by said deity). Would we perhaps hear "shoo!!, go forth and multiply (with your counterpart of the opposite sex cunningly placed in the adjacent palm tree, and dont worry about a genetic bottleneck) but don't become extinct! You're a nightmare to replace, the colour schemes alone are a nightmare!".

To summarise, what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

helldiver
Can i just ask what the creation/religion stand is on the replenishing of species? If it is accepted that species can become extinct then what maintains speciation?

Surely it's logical to demand empirical evidence of this to counter evolution? Does a giant hand reach down (or up) and gently place a new species of frog (for example) on a palm frond (cunningly placed there previously by said deity). Would we perhaps hear "shoo!!, go forth and multiply (with your counterpart of the opposite sex cunningly placed in the adjacent palm tree, and dont worry about a genetic bottleneck) but don't become extinct! You're a nightmare to replace, the colour schemes alone are a nightmare!".

To summarise, what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

When discussing whether evolution is fact or fiction it is important to define evolution. The only type of evolution not backed up by a shred of evidence is Macro-evolution. So my answer would be frogs can give rise to new species of frogs, but there are certain genetic barriers animals can never cross. A truly vertical mutation has never been observed. SO Frogs make frogs(of different species), dogs make dogs, but lizards dont make birds and fish dont make mammals.

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver
Can i just ask what the creation/religion stand is on the replenishing of species? If it is accepted that species can become extinct then what maintains speciation?

Surely it's logical to demand empirical evidence of this to counter evolution? Does a giant hand reach down (or up) and gently place a new species of frog (for example) on a palm frond (cunningly placed there previously by said deity). Would we perhaps hear "shoo!!, go forth and multiply (with your counterpart of the opposite sex cunningly placed in the adjacent palm tree, and dont worry about a genetic bottleneck) but don't become extinct! You're a nightmare to replace, the colour schemes alone are a nightmare!".

To summarise, what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

When discussing whether evolution is fact or fiction it is important to define evolution. The only type of evolution not backed up by a shred of evidence is Macro-evolution. So my answer would be frogs can give rise to new species of frogs, but there are certain genetic barriers animals can never cross. A truly vertical mutation has never been observed. SO Frogs make frogs(of different species), dogs make dogs, but lizards dont make birds and fish dont make mammals.

So what creates new "macro formed" species then?

I'd argue that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and that evidence of both have already been provided in this thread.

So what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver
Can i just ask what the creation/religion stand is on the replenishing of species? If it is accepted that species can become extinct then what maintains speciation?

Surely it's logical to demand empirical evidence of this to counter evolution? Does a giant hand reach down (or up) and gently place a new species of frog (for example) on a palm frond (cunningly placed there previously by said deity). Would we perhaps hear "shoo!!, go forth and multiply (with your counterpart of the opposite sex cunningly placed in the adjacent palm tree, and dont worry about a genetic bottleneck) but don't become extinct! You're a nightmare to replace, the colour schemes alone are a nightmare!".

To summarise, what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

When discussing whether evolution is fact or fiction it is important to define evolution. The only type of evolution not backed up by a shred of evidence is Macro-evolution. So my answer would be frogs can give rise to new species of frogs, but there are certain genetic barriers animals can never cross. A truly vertical mutation has never been observed. SO Frogs make frogs(of different species), dogs make dogs, but lizards dont make birds and fish dont make mammals.

So what creates new "macro formed" species then?

I'd argue that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and that evidence of both have already been provided in this thread.

So what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

edit on 16-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

Show me a change of kinds and I will believe there are macro-formed species. For example show me a dog give rise to an entirely new type of animal that has the ability to reproduce. I just told you what keeps the biosphere so species-rich. Frogs can give rise to different species of frogs, and dogs give rise to different species of dogs and ect...that would account for various types of species of the same kind

reply to post by kyviecaldges


You know usually when someone tries to call me son online it means that poster is a kid. I have no idea how old you are but you are pretty childish. Get game….please give it a rest.lol

I never assumed you were scared of me I think you are scared of the facts. BTW you didn’t refute a single thing as far as the scientific premise went you only attacked the article and how it admitted peer review hadn’t been performed YET.

You asked for an explanation on the human brain I provided you with the most recent article on the matter. It seems you weren’t really looking for information on the subject at all. Next time maybe you shouldn’t ask for information when you are not ready to absorb it.

So if you want to play games which seem to be what you are doing please do a better job of it. You complain of ad hominem when that’s all you have presented yourself. Hypocrite much?

Pot meet kettle.

Before pointing to your sig line please take the time to learn and adhere to it yourself.