Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
85 online now:
Dredge, nwr (2 members, 83 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 892,996 Year: 4,108/6,534 Month: 322/900 Week: 28/150 Day: 1/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 211 of 493 (492970)
01-04-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:23 PM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
quote:
Oh for fuck's sake, unwad your panties. I never said you "must be lying." I simply said it sounds suspiciously like a lame excuse for not responding to substance. What's more, your sarcastic response does little to disabuse me of my suspicions since you again failed to provide a substantive response to the other

lol.You must have an all seeing eye.Tell me can you tell me the lottery ticket numbers for next week?Ill tell you another thing you got wrong.Im not wearing any panties:).Hmmmmm not a trustworthy all seeing eye.
quote:
And Huntard, RAZD, and nearly every other regular poster here has come across countless cdesign proponentists who've trotted in spouting nonsense followed by assurances that they would provide substantive responses to those who reply to them, only to watch them fade away back into teh interwebs, leaving nothing behind but drivel
Cheerleader alert.I can write you off as someone to avoid here.Thanks for wasting my time which could of been better spent reading.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:23 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by fallacycop, posted 01-05-2009 1:25 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 212 of 493 (492971)
01-04-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 8:24 PM


Hi, Seefirthedom.

SFTK writes:

Somebody writes:

Evolution does not require a single common ancestor.

Strange.I have the ancestors tale sitting right in front of me and the words to describe our initial ancestor is a single celled protozoa.His words in the inside cover talk of a final pilgrimage is taken together by all living things back to the origin of life itself.Thats not a common ancestor or him alluding to a common ancestor?Ok.

This is a good example of what AdminNosy was talking about.

I'm going to try my best to explain this (again). Forgive me if I fail to make it clear (again). But, for the sake of everybody's sanity, please carefully read and digest what I'm about to write, because I'm pretty sure this will be the third time I have written it now, and it apparently still has not sunk in yet.

Science is not a single, universal theory. There are many, many theories, and each individual theory is about something different. The Theory of Evolution, in its basic form, is only the scientific principle of descent with modification (i.e., the principle "offspring are different from their parents"). You can use this theory to trace all life back to a single ancestor, but this is just an add-on: it is not a fundamental part of the theory. If life instead proves to be traceable to six original ancestors, and not to a single ancestor, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) can still be real.

Have you got it yet?

Let me beat this mortally-wounded horse one more time just for the sake of thoroughness:

God could design 100 completely different organisms and put them on a planet, and they could still evolve. Likewise, life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.

The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor. But, we may uncover something that overturns this. In that case, we would not throw up our hands and say, "evolution is false." Rather, we will say, "life on earth evolved from multiple initial organisms."

Do you see how the number of initial "kinds" does not effect whether evolution happens?

-----

SFTK writes:

Maybe i need to read more evolutionary books to be able to visualise this magnificent creature.Maybe only then would it become real to me like it is to you guys.

But, it isn't real to me. Not yet, anyway. Nobody I know has any idea what the organism was, beyond the common-sense notion that it was a simple, single-celled organism. There are a lot of data that lead us to theorize that this organism exists and that there are a number of characteristics that it likely had, but, the question of its exact identity is still up in the air.

We're not perfect, Seefer: please don't expect us to be. Please allow us to be fallible humans, and please treat our decades and decades of hard, meticulous (and incomplete) work with a least a modicum of respect. Please?

-----

SFTK writes:

Offering another point of view.I can handle you calling me arrogant just as long as you can handle me pointing a few things out to you guys.I got the feeling you cant.Im done replying to you, its off topic cupcake.

Um, Seefer, people with "Admin" in their name are the site's moderators (i.e., bosses). Admins do not participate in debates: if you get a message from one, it's because he is telling you what the rules are. That is, he's warning you. It makes sense to allow them to post that kind of stuff. You're not supposed to respond to them, though: there's a thread for discussion problems (right here) that I think is the place they prefer you to respond to their messages and actions.

-----

And, finally, a personal request: would it be possible for you to push the long, skinny key at the bottom of your keyboard after you type a period? Your posts are not easy to read.

Also, you're responding to yourself in a lot of these. There's a "reply" button at the bottom of every message: push the one at the bottom of the message you're responding to.

Edited by Mantis, : Clarifications

Edited by Mantis, : No reason given.


I'm Bluejay.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 8:24 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Blue Jay has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 213 of 493 (492972)
01-04-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Blue Jay
01-04-2009 9:32 PM


thank you for the on topic post mantis
quote:
The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor.

Permit me to utterly annilihate the horse im riding on.I feel bad once again emphasing that evolutionary supporters make assertions like this.You cant show me this in the fossil record.You cant show me this in the natural world.Nothing is even remotely like this animal.You cant even replicate it using the smartest biologists and the greatest minds.The only place it exists is in evolutionary textbooks. I understand the human fallibilty element that you are claiming and im trying to show respect despite not being shown much because of my beliefs .However evolutionary science by its very definition totally removes any chance of an intelligent designer.Unlike you guys im actually quite relaxed about the possibilty that yall could be right and that darwin and dawkins will be names lauded to time indefinate.However i dont honestly think you guys like the idea that people like me could be right.Occams razor you say.Yeah you bet.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spelling because being told to get off comp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Blue Jay, posted 01-04-2009 9:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by kjsimons, posted 01-04-2009 9:47 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 215 by Blue Jay, posted 01-04-2009 9:52 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 216 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2009 10:03 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 217 by AdminNosy, posted 01-04-2009 10:08 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 218 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2009 11:44 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 231 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2009 7:43 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 10:21 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 11:20 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 758
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 214 of 493 (492973)
01-04-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


WTF! By your reasoning, if you can't 'replicate' your great great great ... grandfather (or mother), then they never existed. You need to go educate yourself first about the theory of evolution prior to posting here unless you want to keep making an absolute fool of yourself here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 4:54 AM kjsimons has taken no action

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1925 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 215 of 493 (492974)
01-04-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


Hi, Seefer.

Mantis, message #212, writes:

I'm going to try my best to explain this (again). Forgive me if I fail to make it clear (again).

Apparently, I failed.

Please reread Message 212 carefully.

Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?

If not, will you at least explain why you will not acknowledge this?

Edited by Mantis, : I wrote "Bluejay," which isn't my screen name anymore (I didn't even spell it write, anyway).


I'm Bluejay.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:02 AM Blue Jay has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 216 of 493 (492975)
01-04-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


Occams razor...
Occams razor you say.Yeah you bet.

Occams razor cuts both ways.

You come here full of "gotcha" questions. Let me ask a couple of questions of my own so we can get some idea of where you are coming from.

  • What is the age of the earth?

  • Would any scientific evidence convince you that your belief in creationism is incorrect?
Once I get an answer to these questions, I will know how to proceed.

Thanks.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:29 AM Coyote has taken no action

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 217 of 493 (492977)
01-04-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


Take a break SFtK
It seems this level of conversation is moving a bit too fast for you.

Please do NOT post to this thread until next weekend. Take the time to read over the replies you have been given very carefully and then spend some time thinking about them before you respond again.

If you have trouble with this you may ask questions in Suggestions and Questions.

If you ignore this request I'll have to suspend you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3417 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 218 of 493 (492979)
01-04-2009 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


However evolutionary science by its very definition totally removes any chance of an intelligent designer.Unlike you guys im actually quite relaxed about the possibilty that yall could be right and that darwin and dawkins will be names lauded to time indefinate.However i dont honestly think you guys like the idea that people like me could be right.Occams razor you say.Yeah you bet.

If you or any one could show that there was an intelligent designer or a creator with positive evidence then I would be happy to jump on such a "band-wagon," but as of now no one has offered any.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4748 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 219 of 493 (492981)
01-05-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
Two tangencial points

1. That message was a reply to yourself. That makes it hard to figure who the message was actually intended to.

2. You are still using the expression "could of been" instead of the proper "could have been". That's very distracting for the readers.

ABE: one more tangencial point.

could you please use the space bar after periods? It's hard to read your posts when you don't do that.

Edited by fallacycop, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:26 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:04 AM fallacycop has taken no action

Peg
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 220 of 493 (492984)
01-05-2009 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Blue Jay
01-04-2009 9:32 PM


Mantis writes:

Science is not a single, universal theory. There are many, many theories, and each individual theory is about something different. The Theory of Evolution, in its basic form, is only the scientific principle of descent with modification (i.e., the principle "offspring are different from their parents"). You can use this theory to trace all life back to a single ancestor, but this is just an add-on: it is not a fundamental part of the theory. If life instead proves to be traceable to six original ancestors, and not to a single ancestor, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) can still be real.

life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.

firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?

2ndly, the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Blue Jay, posted 01-04-2009 9:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 2:06 AM Peg has replied
 Message 236 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 2:42 PM Peg has taken no action
 Message 237 by bluescat48, posted 01-05-2009 3:29 PM Peg has taken no action

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 221 of 493 (492985)
01-05-2009 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Peg
01-05-2009 2:00 AM


Peg writes:

firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?


If you are referring to evolution, it's both. You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you?

2ndly, the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?

It began with the Urey-Miller experiment. There have been other experiments after that. Though I only know the basics for these.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 3:24 AM Huntard has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 222 of 493 (492990)
01-05-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Huntard
01-05-2009 2:06 AM


Huntard writes:

If you are referring to evolution, it's both. You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you?

It began with the Urey-Miller experiment. There have been other experiments after that. Though I only know the basics for these.

you might need to explain it to me

If evolution is founded upon events (primordial soup) that no humans witnessed...can it really be called a 'fact'?

Have scientists observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms?

Have they witnessed the spontaneous generation of life?

Has anyone produced protein and DNA in the laboratory?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 2:06 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 4:01 AM Peg has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 223 of 493 (492994)
01-05-2009 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Peg
01-05-2009 3:24 AM


Peg writes:

you might need to explain it to me


Ok.

If evolution is founded upon events (primordial soup) that no humans witnessed...can it really be called a 'fact'?

It isn't based upon that "fact". It's based upon the fact the alelle frequency in a population changes with time.

Have scientists observed mutations—even beneficial ones—that produce new life-forms?

They have observed mutations. but not ones that produve new life-forms, unless you want to call every new born life-form a new one, since it has mutations in it that the parents don't have.

Have they witnessed the spontaneous generation of life?

They have witnessed the spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life. This is still an ongoing study.

Has anyone produced protein and DNA in the laboratory?

Not to my knowledge. Though this doesn't change the fact of evolution.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 3:24 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 5:31 AM Huntard has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 224 of 493 (492998)
01-05-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by kjsimons
01-04-2009 9:47 PM


quote:
WTF! By your reasoning, if you can't 'replicate' your great great great ... grandfather (or mother), then they never existed.
This example has been used before.Please dont compare your human great great grandfather with single celled organisms.That comparison is hard to fathom.I guess your superior education has also given you a much larger imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by kjsimons, posted 01-04-2009 9:47 PM kjsimons has taken no action

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 225 of 493 (493000)
01-05-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Blue Jay
01-04-2009 9:52 PM


quote:
Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?

If not, will you at least explain why you will not acknowledge this?



I acknowledge it.In fact you might have noticed i firmly believe its impossible:).This has been re-emphasised by the various replies given varying from "you're an idiot" to "lets talk about habilis instead".I understand that life could of arisen from differing organisms.Thats another topic and when you think about it requires some even more science suspending events to have happened.Thank you once again for staying on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Blue Jay, posted 01-04-2009 9:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Blue Jay, posted 01-05-2009 4:31 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022