Proof of evolution!!!

If we could step aside from the unseemly point scoring for a moment, there is an interesting point to be made here.Do artefacts designed by humans demonstrate the same kind of developmental patterns as living things? The answer is no, they don't. There was a Scientific American article on this some time back in which they used the parsimonous techniques used to produce phylogenic trees for living things and applied them to the varying forms of trumpet and related musical instruments. The resulting trees look nothing like those that you find in nature. Whereas those in living creatures show predomitantly biurificating trees, those from artefacts show flat plateaus from which several "descendants" emerge.What's more, if you look at human designed artefacts you see a lot of horizontal transfer - features from one family will suddenly appear in another - something that simply doesn't happen in higher animals.So, simply by looking at the data, we could easily establish a difference between things we know to be designed and natural living things.

Reproduction with variation is one of the observations referred to in my point 3.

i'm not so sure about the first point (you're probably right) but this is definitally the key: while we do see convergent evolution, we don't see full-scale horizontal transfer. animals don't really rip each other off. a mammal, a dinosaur, a reptile, and an insect may all grow wings but they all do it in different ways. you don't see the dinosaur saying "gee, that insect's really got a feature the market desires. i think i'm reverse engineer that."

---

אָרַח

Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.It seems you don't know what DNA or RNA is.I will ingnore the rest of your post since it need not be debated, it is known to be false just as evolution IS false.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-29-2005 06:13 PM

I haven't lost because I did not set up the argument yet.

Are you sure, because they seem to have just popped up in your reply even though Crashfrog didn't say anything about organelles in the post you were replying to.TTFN,WK

I believe it was proteins we were talking about.Try to stay on-topic, ok?

Ignoring someone, Guido? What? A bright young lad as you has no reason to ignore anything. You started this topic and even gave it the title Proof of evolution for crying out loud! You know me, Guido...I think that its great that you believe in God...but if you wanna be a creationist,(helping spread the Truth) you have to understand that bashing evolutionists does not help Gods publicity any.There are many smart people on this forum, Guido. Some of them may not believe exactly the same things as you or I do, but they deserve to be taken seriously. One of my favorites is Modulous---and he gives you a good answer in his post that you have ignored, thus far..He even calls you Mr. Alien! A true sign of respect! Perhaps you had better not ignore him since you yourself said to nwr: You can't very well defend something by ignoring everyone who challenges it, now can you?? This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 05:36 PM

Be careful, crashfrog may know a lot more than you on DNA and RNA. You ought to say what is known to be false, and you ought to provide a reference.If you don't make reasonable efforts to support your claims, that might well be taken into consideration when your next "Proposed New Topic" is being examined.

---

MuahahahahahahahahaNevermind the fact that froggie wasn't talking about organelles and you some how made it pop up out of nowhere, you still managed to get it wrong.

Lam, I want to ask you to do me a favor. Pretend that you are a High School teacher and that Guido is in your class.He turns in the opening post as a writing assignment. Tell him what he needs to work on to develop his talents.Is he a science fiction writer? Is he serious? Has he compiled his facts and his source material? Help me out on this one as I am just a Faith/Belief type of encourager! This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 06:35 PM

If Lam wants to teach, or Crash for that matter, then they'll need to learn not to act like students firstly, wouldn't you say?If a student gets something wrong, the teacher doesn't partake in derision and curse at the student.IMHO, C and L's comments are unnecessary in this thread and are turning it into a fun-fest.The claimant still mentioned some valid factors that are at play. Such as hinderance of the capacity of being able to infer an intelligent agency. Perhaps a flaw in our own rules. Maybe it could be discussed instead of chastising the claimant.

If you don't see the ridiculousness of a situation where one could not infer the presence of intelligent artifact design on a planet full of intelligent designers, then I don't understand what there is to discuss.The reason we reject intelligent design for the origin of life is because there are no known designers except for humans (and some other modern organisms), and none of them were around 4 billion years ago. It's pretty simple, really.

BUT, in general, rather than the specific analogy, there is an automatic hinderance of an intelligence via the God of the Gaps. The point remains even if the analogy isn't the best of analogies. It seems simple ofcourse.There are no known instances of evolution except for on earth, but do you reject life on other worlds?Surely you don't apply this logic pertaining to other universes? I'm sure you see them as possible. Is it fair to see a mind as possible rather than rejecting him?In each case we have one case. One example of a designer. One example of a universe. One example of evolution.See the problem if you look at this from a Columbo-perspective? Do you apply a double standard when it comes to the mind.(P.S. I'n not entirely in disagreement with you, I just thought ppl were ganging up on Guidobaba).This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-29-2005 09:38 PM