{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Britton:
4/30/2015 4:04:32 PM
38
The mechanism of evolution can be and is observable. That mechanism, is how natural selection by the ecosystem the organism lives in, selects for or against the slight genetic differences every organism receives from its parents in its DNA, that is then passed or not passed on. DNA is the mechanism of evolution, and its guided by the environment.
One of my favorite phrases used is how creationists claim there needs to be an increase in complexity. This phrase is misleading, as it implies where we are now is the most complex we can be. Complexity is a very subjective term. Evolution isn't about complexity, its about diversity. Even still, the biggest change in complexity was single cell to multi-cellular life. One small change can enable another small change, and so on until a new function is present that wasn't before. Its a gradual stacking of change. Appearance of new body parts is indeed very rare, because if we look around at animals we see a very common theme as far as major body parts go.
Quick! Name a mammal that has more or less limbs than another mammal and no vestigial bone structures to indicate where it once was. Or better yet, name a vertebrate that doesn't have homologous structures with other vertebrates. There's a reason you can't, its because those structures are indeed quite hard to add or take away, and merely change shape. Our common ancestors characteristics are still present even millions of years after we evolved from them into massively different organisms.
Also, intelligence isn't exclusive to humans. We may have the most advanced intelligence on earth, but studies of other animals strongly suggest there are other intelligent species on our earth, example: dolphins. Intelligence, like any other characteristic, is something that can be naturally selected for.
Evolution does take millions of years, and how fortunate it is that the earth was proven to be over 4.5 billion years old many years ago, and that number has only gotten more accurate over time.
You claim evolution isn't capable of generating new information? Then how do you explain a species of skinks that have always laid eggs, having an separate population of the same species beginning to give live birth?
I suppose the fossil record is too "controversial" for creationists (even though it isn't in the least, but acknowledging it does destroy their entire idea) but it does show, very well, how animals change and become complex from simple life forms, and then diversified from that point.
Darwin's origin of species has been published since 1859. That's 156 years that evolution has been known about. So out of the around 3.8 [b]billion[/b] years we know that life has existed, your argument is that because we've been actively observing evolution for [b][u]LESS[/u][/b] than .0001% of of the time life has been around and evolving, and we haven't observed a massive change in species, evolution is somehow debunked? You cannot be serious. Do we really need to wait till every species as we know it, save a few, have gone extinct and evolved into new ones to say its been observed?
Another important distinction is that creationists love to add abiogenesis to the the theory of evolution to try to discredit it. But they are separate.
Nothing in the bible can be interpreted as fact, [b]observed or tested[/b] especially in a scientific context. So there's no need to even dive into it. Your entire counter argument is invalid. You can't counter scientific evidence with hopes and dreams.
Unfortunately much of your post is rambling, so I wont address all of it. What I have above should be sufficient unless you desire more details.
English
-
[MORE INFORMATION PENDING]...
-
[quote][MORE INFORMATION PENDING]...[/quote] I'll be the judge of that.
-
Duh...
-
[quote]Nothing in the bible can be interpreted as fact, observed or tested...[/quote]Again and again archaeological discoveries have verified the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the Bible. The more they dig, the more it confirms the Bible. “It is important to note that Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas" (E.M. Blaiklock, The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology). The Bible was written by people who witnessed the events it describes; many were persecuted or martyred but never changed their story. Would you die for something you knew was untrue? “It is no moderate approbation of Scripture that it has been sealed by the blood of so many witnesses, especially when we reflect that they died to render testimony to the faith …with a firm and constant, yet sober, zeal toward God” (John Calvin, [i]Institutes of the Christian Religion[/i]). There are plenty of references in non-biblical sources to the events described in the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in 37 AD, “provide(s) indispensable background material for the student of…New Testament history. In them, we meet many figures well known to us from the New Testament. Some of his writings provide direct commentary on New Testament references.” (J.D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary). There are over 300 specific prophecies in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. “The very dimension of the sheer fulfillment of prophecy of the Old Testament Scriptures should be enough to convince anyone that we are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature….God has himself planted within the scriptures an internal consistency that bears witness that this is his Word” (R.C. Sproul, Now That’s a Good Question). [quote]...much of your post is rambling, so I wont address all of it.[/quote]Do you have any comment about Richard Dawkins? [quote]...your argument is that because we've been actively observing evolution for LESS than .0001% of of the time, life has been around and evolving, and we haven't observed a massive change in species.[/quote]The primary flaw in the story of macro-evolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function... The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/1/2015 1:58:15 PMThe process that creates the information is called genetics, reproduction, and heredity through DNA. Richard Dawkins merely acknowledges that fact. As for the bible, the important distinction that I failed to make is that no supernatural claims can be observed or tested. Self fulfilling prophecy isn't prophecy, and neither is prophecy in a book that was still being added to and edited for many years. A historical setting and some historical figures doesn't lend credit to supernatural claims.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/1/2015 8:48:13 PMDNA is DNA. Why would it even need to exist, or even evolve to exist if the organisms beforehand were already in a state of environmental equilibrium? Remember the insect scenario in the OP? Those environmental hazards had to have always been present and have to be today in order to discourage this evolutionary process from reversing. We teach our students with what is called an education, and as humans, we pride ourselves on the ability to retain knowledge (Genesis 1:27). Hypothetically, if you were to keep a child ignorant to the world, even until he became an old and infirm individual, how smart would he be? Would he not retain that knowledge after thousands of years of possessing a barrage of ancestors with an astute knowledge of academic wisdom? No. "The primary flaw in the story of macro-evolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer" (Philip E. Johnson, Christian Apologist).
-
[quote]DNA is DNA. Why would it even need to exist, or even evolve to exist if the organisms beforehand were already in a state of environmental equilibrium? Remember the insect scenario in the OP? Those environmental hazards had to have always been present and have to be day in order to discourage this evolutionary process from reversing.[/quote] This is simply incorrect. Environmental hazards that caused the change can dissapear, and until that change is replaced or selected against, it will remain. Things don't "devolve" they just keep changing. I can't be any more clear. If you insist what is in quotes is true, give an example of what you describe happening. As for the rest, the fact that you are a genetically unique individual proves that DNA is the mechanism. That you claim hasn't been found. If you think the mechanism hasn't been found then explain how genetic differences selected for or against by natural selection doesn't do what evolution claims they do.
-
If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?
-
[quote]If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" [b]Species- In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Its a standard definition. [/b] Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? [b]no minuet change will classify as what creationists call macroevolution (that's not a science term by the way, but I'll use it for illustration.) Many many minuet changes across many many generations are required before what you would call micro evolution becomes macro. Its simply a scale of time. [/b] In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. [b]which is incorrect. Evolution doesn't reverse, it only goes forward. [/b] Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. [b]that is because as I pointed out once already, we've only been observing for the last 156 years of recorded history. It will take much longer observation before we are able to physically see and document the kind of change you're talking about. Which is why we use the fossil record. [/b] However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. [b]They skip it because its a separate field of science called abiogenesis. If you're interested in that subject we can discuss it, as chemists are making some amazing discoveries and are working toward a scientific theory for abiogenesis, but currently there isn't one, and like I said, its not part of evolution. [/b] Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. [b]This is misleading, it doesn't go from an amoeba to having limbs. It would evolve a basic locomotion ability, not limbs.[/b] Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. [b]its reasonable that if the conditions to create life from none life exist, it would occur over at least a small area, which would create many many basic organisms, which are needed to start a population. [/b] This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? [b]no, because the basis for your question is incorrect. [/b] Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? [b]no, part of natural selection is competition between organisms, including organisms of the same species. The strong or more equipped to survive ones live, the less equipped do not. Mutations plays a background role. Sometimes they're good and help. Sometimes they're bad and hinder. Sometimes they're even benign. [/b] Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. [b]natural selection isnt dogma, its an observation of how life behaves and interacts in nature. Everything in nature is constantly in competition with each other and as well as just trying to survive in the environment itself. Those equipped to survive have the best chance to survive, and as the overall environment changes so does what that means. That natural selection is what drives change. Also, you're incorrectly putting a negative context on mutation.[/b] Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? [b]One of the aspects of natural selection is sexual selection. Basically, if you can't attract a mate, you don't pass on your genes. Its just another competitive aspect of natural selection.[/b] We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place? [b]you're blending two fields of study again.[/b][/quote]
-
Example: The insect scenario in the OP.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/1/2015 9:09:26 PMThat doesn't document anything. Unless you have a study you can cite, that documents the genome of a species of insect losing that resistance, it is easily explained. Ever heard of dominant and recessive traits, or punnet squares? After DDT stopped being sprayed, offspring of insects that had genes that did not receive the DDT resistance from their parents were able to survive once again. Making the resistance much more random once again, like it was before. Its standard genetic variation generation to generation. Example: two parents can have shared traits, like blue eyes, and there children can still born with different color eyes.
-
Will those children have blue eyes ever again in their gene pool for their next generation since the necessity of having blue eyes is just an example of a variation in genetics instead of a physical attribute that was brought on by...[what?].
-
Brought on by a mutation in the eye color gene. The rest of what you have there is worded terribly, is English your second language?
-
Bump, nice work :)
-
Keep bumping.
-
-
Keep making this thread grow!
-
Agreed. People need to see why you're wrong.
-
People need to see for themselves.
-
To satisfy your delusion?
-
Sure, feel free to "feed the troll" if you feel like that is all you can do.
-
Basically the reply I don't have time to write +1
-
Thank you.
-
This man^ is much smarter than the OP.
-
[quote]This man^ is much smarter than the OP.[/quote]
