The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

So what drives evolution, then, if not random mutations being selected non-randomly?

Well that is an action packed question.....
would thet mean that these mutations have neurotransmitters?
do simple organisims have neurons?
Example:
A simple multicellular organism that is used as a model by scientists all over the world is the (microscopic worm C. elegans.)
Incredible ey? well there are just 1031 cells in the adult, which makes understanding how the animal develops much easier. Fantastic know we know, It is so simple that we know where every single one of its 302 neurons connects with each other, something that is impossible to do with the estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain.
I am not trying to be sarcastic in anyway but this is true so I thought I might add it .... have fun when you debate it is suppose to be fun we are all in this together learning... something that was not possible to do in past history... at least we arn't being taken to the chopping block

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
LOL, I love Douglas Adams

Me too. One of my favorite authors. If you enjoy his books, I highly encourage you to check out the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.

ETA: Just noticed your sig. I have found a kindred spirit!

I think thats a fair statement, although, a bit further, or closer to the sun, and it wouldnt be conductive to life, atleast to life as we know it, else we might expect a diversity of life like ours on other planets in our system.

The thing is, though, that there are billions upon billions upon billions of planets in the universe. A handful are going to be in the right range to support life.

Mystery remains, why is life so perfectly adaptable?

Reproduction. The chemical reactions involved in reproduction are inherently unstable, and this produces mutations. The life forms whose reproductive processes don't produce mutations stagnate and die out, leaving only those who adapt.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by Golden Boy]

Originally posted by PowerSlave
If evolution was the complete and proven answer, this thread would not exist.

There are topics which are "complete and proven", yet discussion about them continues much as it did years ago. Uri Geller, for example, still has a devoted following. The Holocaust denial movement has been debunked for years, yet it still continues. The "ten percent of the brain" myth. There are many, many more.
There are nuts out there who will believe anything.

reply to post by NorthStargal52


No, it would mean that some mutations are beneficial to the organisms in which they reside, and others are not. The beneficial mutations are selected for by the environment in which the organism finds itself, and so become more common as they are passed from generation to generation, in more and more offspring.

reply to post by PowerSlave

Wow, could you close your mind any tighter? I doubt it.

Creationism has been proven false time and time again. There is no evidence for it, and it has no scientific backing. I will not open my mind to something that has already been proven false. What you are asking of me is equivalent to considering Piltdown man to possibly be a species. It has been proven to be a hoax, thus it has been proven false, and there is no reason to consider it.

The problem with evolutionists is they see only one definition of creationism.

-You are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against science from many different fields; Physics, Genetics, Geology, etc. You are wrong in saying "evolutionists," what you mean to say is something like "scientific community" or "accepted science," something that encompasses science as a whole.

-The only definition of creationism that "evolutionists" (scientific community) sees is the one that is presented to the world as science. It's been refuted for years.

No big deal, you don't think they can co-exist. But since you are not the
allbeingmasteroftimespaceanddimension, it is simply your opinion. Perhaps there are some versions or parts of creationism as a whole that disagree with evolution, I would hardly use the term "attacks" that is a term left for evolutionists like yourself.

-They can't co-exist. Like I said, the creationism that has been presented and passed off as science seeks to replace much of accepted and proven science.

-Evolution only deals with the change of populations over time. It has nothing to do with more than half of what creationism argues.

-Science attacks nothing. It seeks to prove and explain the natural universe, and it does a good job of it. When creationism is disproved but still presented as fact, that creates a massive problem, a problem that takes time and resources to recover from.

And micro evolution can exist without macro evolution. Even as you explain it. Micro = shorter time period. Well by that definition then micro evolution exists is every example at least for a short time.

You're wrong. Micro and macro describe the same process, just in different time periods. Your argument is fallacious.

If evolution was the complete and proven answer, this thread would not exist

Evolution has been proven for years. It is accepted without debate nor question throughout the scientific community because it is so blatantly obvious. The reason this thread exists is because of the ignorance that individuals such as yourself show towards the evidence.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by PieKeeper

Pie

I will ask you the same question I have asked the OP
He hasn't had time to reply as yet.
Define creation. If you wish to.
thanks Donny

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Creation: the act of making, inventing, or producing.

You could have read any dictionary and found out for yourself.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to post by nophun

 

Here is the thing. There is no scientific theory of god or aliens. There is nothing showing there should be. Science does not try to disprove god there just is no theory for it because there is no way to show god is real or not.

Actually I disagree......

There might not be a "scientific" theory of god, however there is a theory for Intelligent Design, and some may link that intelligence to either God, or perhaps Aliens or some yet unknown entity.

Your not disagreeing with me at all
"There might not be a "scientific" theory of god"


"ID theory" has nothing to do with fact or science .. no matter how much some think it does, they have nothing to show it does.

about the current archaeological sites that may be linked to creation myths, can you give me a example ?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by nophun

 

What is your definition of Creation?
Do you have one?

Is this the game where you say a word and I say the first thing that comes to mind ? If so, I will go with ...

Myth

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

I can't say I disagree with you.
My problem is with the OP.
He is always yak yaking about Creation but I don't think he knows what it is.

I bet I know more about most creation myths then you do about evolution facts.
Have you discovered what defines a species yet ?

Why do you want me to define creation?
I will go with the "act of creating."

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Creation: the act of making, inventing, or producing.

You could have read any dictionary and found out for yourself.

C'mon piekeeper, play fair, clearly he means the question as it pertains to this particular discussion, aka context. creation /appearance of first life, as opposed to its deveopment thereafter.
Deliberate semantics is a major block to communication on this board I think.
Even accepting the dictionary definition, I think his point is made, in that it does not define an opposing veiw to TOE, where 'creationism' is cited as being opposed it. hence 'creationism' need not nessarily describe any veiw opposed to TOE. A creationist, beleiving GOD created first life, may still beleive in TOE and there is no conflict.

Its a small point that shouldnt need to be made. Fair play.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
C'mon piekeeper, play fair, clearly he means the question as it pertains to this particular discussion, aka context. creation /appearance of first life, as opposed to its deveopment thereafter.

It looks like a trap to me We are talking about evolution and he wants us to say something like ..

Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

Evolution is not "appearance of first life".
The only reason (that I can see) he is asking this is to link the beginning of life to evolution.

nophun, no, I think he's trying to make a point about being 'labeled' 'creationist'. He has already conceded the two are very different subjects.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Ya .. I still saying trap.
He does not seem to understand we all know evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life yet he wants to know what creation means .. what is his argument ?

Why is he asking me what is creation when I am 100% sure he has read at least 4 posts from me saying evolution does not explain the begging on life

What is he trying to get at ?

Well if his reason for asking is not what I thought, then I dont know.
But it occures to me reading, (or wadeing through) this thread, that much of it seems to be, play on semantics/definitions, tit for tat, one explaining to another in seven different ways what he/she means etc etc.
I summise its because its not a structured debate with clear definations
of terms set out and agreed apon, and understood by all parties, combined with an inability to argue effectively and in some cases , even coherantly, without one or the other becoming frustrated, leading to heated fights, insults and an overall degredation of the thread.
I dont know if a forum exist here, so structured, by I suggest it would more useful than this format.
I think everyone involved gets that shoulder slumping, sighing, 'oh god make it stop' feeling in a thread like this.
Too much bias, arrogance, inability to conceed reasonable statements and valid points, inability to accept that people posting are from all walks of life, not all scientist, not all equally able to express themselves eloquently
to equal degree.
Not all have indepth understanding of various issues and the meaning of terms, and not everyone will ever be on the exact same page because we are uniqely different, this is the human condition.
This needs to acknowledged and kept in mind by all parties for any discussion or debate to remain civil.
Attack your opponents statements, claims and ideas, not your opponent,
even best mates can agree to disagree.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Creation: the act of making, inventing, or producing.

You could have read any dictionary and found out for yourself.

Well no. What created life? We are talking about life pie. What created life.
With out it there is no life to evolve. Now ain't that right pie.?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Once again the theory of evolution has nothing to say on the creation of life. It is a theory designed to explain the adaptation of life. Thus, the theory assumes that life exists. If you want science's views on the creation of life there are other theories for that.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


You are welcome to join the club of those unable to define creation. Stick around for a moment.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Creation: the act of making, inventing, or producing.

You could have read any dictionary and found out for yourself.

C'mon piekeeper, play fair, clearly he means the question as it pertains to this particular discussion, aka context. creation /appearance of first life, as opposed to its deveopment thereafter.
Deliberate semantics is a major block to communication on this board I think.
Even accepting the dictionary definition, I think his point is made, in that it does not define an opposing veiw to TOE, where 'creationism' is cited as being opposed it. hence 'creationism' need not nessarily describe any veiw opposed to TOE. A creationist, beleiving GOD created first life, may still beleive in TOE and there is no conflict.

Its a small point that shouldnt need to be made. Fair play.

Thanks way for the support.
It erks me when a person grabs a pointer or a tasseled hat and can't even articulate the definition
of a word as it applies to the lesson he or she is wishfully teaching. What's worse is the worming and squirming of that type to attempt to spin and often lie there way out of their dilemma.
We rednecks say when the tail gate drops the BS stops.
The dog are loose.
This is in no way a petty part of the science at hand.
If I offend you by my directness it is in no way personal or intentional.

reply to post by PieKeeper


Evolution says we evolve from apes or monkeys is that not true ?????
no I think it's that we evolved from the very first plasma or matter in the beginning of organisims and so on the ball kept rolling ...

creation says that we came from adam and eve so did they come from hence the above also ????? also because adam had to have been from this too because God created everything right... isnt that how it went? this theory goes back to the beginning way befor adam and eve so now I am confused??????

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

You are welcome to join the club of those unable to define creation. Stick around for a moment.

Is this is where you say science is not sure .. so ...

God did it.

?

We share a common ancestor. And i don't understand what you are asking about adam and eve. Donny what you are asking about is abiogenesis and not evolution methinks.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Solomons]