Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 91 of 302 (318805)
06-07-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


Not without the rest of the cell components. DNA is not alive my friend. Even almost whole organisms are not alive.
technically, we are just tools to facilitate the replication of dna.
But again, data is information.
in the same way that static in between the radio stations is data. it is, btw. we can actually tell something about our own sun with it, too.
presence of data does not indicate intelligent origin. otherwise, seti would make headlines every other day when they discover a new pulsar.
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it.
on the contrary, the evidence and testing cannot support anything else. observation confirms it. genetics confirms it. paleontology confirms it. cladistics confirms it. any competing theory has to now explain all of the confirmed predictions, and predict something new that differs from evolution, and confirm that prediction.
an "last thursdayism" doesn't count as an explanation.
Here's a sample of quotes:
when the titles of the sources are "evolution" "the case against creationism" etc, and the authors are some of the biggest voices in evolutionary biology, and paleontology, and they're being quoted as saying things against evolution, you can bet your whiskey jar, hat, and suspenders that they're being quotemined in extreme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2225
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 92 of 302 (318823)
06-07-2006 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Rob
06-07-2006 2:33 AM


DNA isn't the whole story
Rob writes:
[...] in DNA, the plans are so sophisticated technologically, that it regulates organisms such as a humans that are self replicating machines organically, that have up to 100 trillion individual cells. And those cells in turn are each comprised of hundreds of smaller units called proteins. And all of those instructions are on the template DNA. All the sequencing of amino acids is found in the instructions. All the absolutely unique characteristics of the indivdual organism. Just plain everything.
No, not "just plain everything". The only thing DNA encodes is which amino acids make up an organism's proteins, and the order in which they appear in those proteins. That's about the all the information DNA has to offer. Admittedly, it's quite a lot, but not nearly everything.
A great many of the "absolutely unique characteristics of the individual organism" are determined by the external environment in which the organism develops. Another bunch of characteristics just comes about as a result of the biochemical interactions in the body. Some of that biochemistry has direct effects on the DNA itself. And what to think of behavioral characteristics? They aren't encoded in the DNA either.
In fact, none of the characteristics I mentioned are encoded in the DNA. They're just the result of the enormous complexity of everything that happens in and around the individual, most of it on a molecular scale, and some of it on a larger scale. It's the sheer amount of molecular interactions taking place each fraction of a second that makes life seem so infinitely complex as to be nearly incomprehensible.
In short, DNA is not a language in which an individual organism is described in every detail. It's merely a template for all of its proteins. Everything else is not specified at all, it just happens as a matter of cause and effect.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 2:33 AM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1515 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 302 (318921)
06-07-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


... we need evidence of an increase in genetic information.
Nope. We just need change in genes. The amount of "information" is irrelevant. Evolution is change in species over time.
I bet you can't even define a standard by which the amount of "information" in a gene could be measured such that you could determine whether it increased or decreased.
But the real kicker is that you have a series species that evolve a feature, lose it and later regain it -- can you tell me which one did NOT gain information in the process?
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature? The animal would have to find (even in the case of a hermaphrodite) the ability to find compatible sexual organs and an incubation method.
Just because you have a lack of imagination doesn't mean that nature is somehow restricted by it. Your arguments are the argument from incredulity -- combined with a strawman caricature of evolution -- both logical fallacies.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1515 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 302 (318925)
06-07-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
SWC, msg 40 writes:
And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
Can you demonstrate how "macro"evolution cannot be an accumulation of "micro"evolution changes? Demonstrate how they are two different {mechanisms\things}?
Without such a demonstration this is just a statement, an argument from incredulity. You really need to define the differences better than that or you will just keep saying "oh that's just variation is a kind, and not macroevolution" -- you need to specify what will qualify in YOUR mind as macroevolution:
... one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
That is "micro"evolution. You need to differentiate better than that. How much different do you need? And what kind of time scale will you consider?
SWC msg 51 writes:
If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, ...
Just to repeat some things that have been said on this issue: evolution is change is species over time. Any change in any direction is evolution - even those that cause death.
Sometimes features are discarded when they are no longer useful - because they waste energy and resources to produce that could be better 'spent' on other newer features. Hind legs on whales fits that picture, eyes on animals in caves also fits that picture. That does not prevent some features from developing in new directions to become new kinds of limbs.
I AM CERTAIN EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN! I CAN BET ON IT!
By my definition of macroevolution or yours? Or by putting your fingers in your ears, wearing a blindfold and shouting even louder?
http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic
No answer yet?
Looks like you haven't really defined macroevolution yet in a way that can be used to then define what kind of evidence you will consider.
Exactly what do you expect to see that shows "macro"evolution but not "micro"evolution?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 95 of 302 (318944)
06-07-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but . . .
They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind.
I guess someone's already asked it by now, but what do you mean by kind?
also
Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
Umm, okay. So I don't know what "kind" is by your definition, but I'm guessing what you want is like a mammal becoming a plant, which is an entirely different organism.
Of course, all living organisms are of a single kind, being that they share similar cell structures (yes, even the prokaryotes and archaebacteria, though their's is what we would call primitive). So in that sense, we will never see an organism change into another "kind".
However, if kind is at the kindom level, we have that. The oldest fossils are of bacteria about 3.8 bya. If single-celled organisms that old can be preserved, and we haven't found any multicelled that old, well, its fairly safe to say they were here first. Then all of a sudden, the Protists arrive on the scene, and that is explained by the endosymbiosis theory. Then the protists developed animal like and plant like characteristics (generally both aren't present in the same species (I don't know of any, so . . . )). These are the ancestors of multicelled animals and plants. Fungi are either descendents of animals or split with the animals from the protists, and they are more related to us than they are plants.
At the phylum level, we have plenty of examples, though I don't know all of the top of my head. However, if we look at plants, we can see a progression from simple, seedless, nonvascular plants to vascular and seeded.
I'm less certain of class examples of macroevolution, and it's getting late, so I can't think quite straight, so I'll leave it alone for the moment.
Now then, to shoot down some beginning arguments that you might have . . .
As to the plants, if they show this movement towards complexity, does this not prove an element of design by an cogent being?
The answer is no. If complexity was good and aided in survival, then all the plants (we can be fairly certain) would have moved towards this complexity. As it is, a good chunk of plant life is moss and other less-complex life. Also, most species on the planet are micro in size, and most of those are bacteria, the most simple living organisms. If complexity was so great, why haven't they gone for our level of it? After all, they've had 3.8 billion years. Most life on this planet is relatively simple. It is only within the eukaryotae division that we see increased complexity, and the highest levels of complexity are withing the vertabrate phylum of the animal kingdom.
Okay, so I can only think of one beginning argument you might have. As I said, it's getting late, and I can't think.
p.s. any errors to this stuff biology are date wise or logic wise, feel free to correct me if you know what you're talking about. (to all)

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:23 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2623 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 96 of 302 (318949)
06-07-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Great example
One common feature does not mean they are the same kind
Tell that to Linnaeus, the father of the modern taxonomic system. All living organisms share a few basic features, like cell membranes, DNA, ribosomes, ability to procreate without a host (unless biologists have changed that recently) and a few others. It is the fact that a vertebrate has a backbone that all backbones creates are in the phylum Vertebrate. Well, actually, there are couple of more features invovled that have to deal with the backbone (notochord being one of them), but that's a single feature common to all vertebrates. And voila, one common feature, they are the same kind.
Also, why not?
The creatures above it are not whales, those are walking creatures that couldn't have evolved into whales

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:02 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:27 PM kuresu has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 97 of 302 (318965)
06-08-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
06-07-2006 9:25 AM


I concede that I have no answer to many of these questions percy. I am confident that I am correct, but concede a great deal of faith. All things are ultimately believed on faith. I accepted the evolution indoctrination in my public education. I have a high school education and drive a 05 Peterbuilt. My zeal far outwieghs my education.
I believe that God makes Himself known without respect to education. Wouldn't be much of a God if he didn't. In fact, as a former proffessor and good friend once told me, education and intellect only hinder the possibility for repentance. He provides a way to prove He exists, so it is certainly 'testable' in a nontypical usage of the term, and only after the fact.
I still have to provide some sources for some folks, but for the most part, I'll leave it alone. I have given my opinions, and still hold them. I'm running out of energy to keep up. I don't have the time to get the education that I should have. The problem was, that even in school and not religious, there was no life in the thigns taught. It was so boring. I'll take the spit as a hang on my cross.
Someone in this forum made the comment in their suggestion line, that belief is based on experience. It's definitely a key ingredient to truth verification. Logical consistency, imperical adequacy, and experiencial relavance. I have met God, so I believe. I see evidence for Him, and it is consistent.
The most important ingredient, was that I knew I was guilty of sin, and confessed who I really was to Him. That's what opens the door.
Don't bother me with fruedian psychology to persuade otherwise, I know in whom I have believed.
I appriciate the thumping you just gave me. There's no denying it on worldly terms. But I am not of the world anymore. The wise Bible teachers were right... (you wouldn't understand) and I underestimated the opposition.
I hate to click that middle button... you have no idea! But my honesty is more important to me than my pride. So eat it up...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 06-07-2006 9:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by lfen, posted 06-08-2006 2:23 AM Rob has replied
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 06-08-2006 11:46 AM Rob has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4787 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 98 of 302 (318967)
06-08-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
06-08-2006 1:43 AM


Your faith is not being questioned here, nor do I think Percy was attempting to humiliate you. You have relied on some web sites that offer inaccurate information.
Biology is a very diverse study, much of it full of beauty and wonder as well as the hard math of experiment and data. To learn about the complex activities of a single cell is a thing of incredible beauty and wonder.
If you don't feel comfortable with evolution you can set it aside and enjoy other aspects of biology, ecology, and the environment of the planet.
Science is a process that involves correction as more data becomes available and more hypothesises are tested. There are all kinds of errors yet to be discovered and rectified.
I do hope you find some sources of good biology that you can enjoy and that deepen your obvious enthusiasm for learning and understanding.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 1:43 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 10:46 AM lfen has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 99 of 302 (319045)
06-08-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by lfen
06-08-2006 2:23 AM


Well thank you Ifen. I don't feel humiliated, just foolish for starting something I don't have the energy to finish. Some of these questions would take a lot of time for me to research and think about. If I could argue them after the research (and I believe I could) It wouldn't matter to many. They would believe that I am imaginative and playing a good game (transferrence).
For those of you (and I don't pretend to know who is who) who are really undecided, and earnestly seeking understanding, good traveling to you. May you find the truth...
I think I am better off sticking to philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I have a lot to learn there too. But in that vein, I mentioned in one of the threads and still maintain that the more complicated science becomes, the less likely chance is able to explain it. Some folks, and some of you who have read their arguments, have much bigger imaginations than I. It is my opinion (philosophically) by way of simple reason, that in many cases, they travel well beyond obfuscation of the obvious.
Isa 65: 2
All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations.

Any biters in the stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by lfen, posted 06-08-2006 2:23 AM lfen has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5958 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 100 of 302 (319050)
06-08-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 9:14 AM


Sorry for being a smart ass. This isn't the source directly. The documentary in which I have my source is still at a friends house and he is out of town. I would have loved to have given you the names of the scientists specifically. But it did originate from AIG. Here are some links to articles and brief descriptions. There were 174 hits. So these are only a sample of them.
So glad your eager to consider their arguments in the search for truth.
[PDF] Answers Study Guide 5
... i. Mutations are copying mistakes as genetic information is passed from parent to
child. ii. This also involves a loss or corruption of the original genetic ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...udy_guides/answersSG5.pdf
Genetic Mutations Q&A - Creation / Evolution
... ever beneficial? Can any genetic information be gained from mutations? Ancon sheep:
just another loss mutation; Argument: Some mutations are beneficial (from ...
Mutations | Answers in Genesis - 38k
Argument: Some mutations are beneficial
... out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through
loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations). ...
Mutations | Answers in Genesis - 48k
Genetic Mutations Q&A - Creation / Evolution
... ever beneficial? Can any genetic information be gained from mutations? Ancon sheep:
just another loss mutation; Argument: Some mutations are beneficial (from ...
Mutations | Answers in Genesis - 38k
Genetic Variance of Influenza Type A Avian Virus and its ...
... Keep in mind, such mutations do not impose any ... it is due to loss of protein specificity
(eg ... or intraspecies switching of similar genetic materials which contain ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 17k
Ancon sheep: just another loss mutation
... Achondroplasia is a type of genetic dwarfism characterized by slow limb growth ... is
true with most other mutations, is a loss mutation. This type of mutation ...
Ancon Sheep: Just Another Loss Mutation | Answers in Genesis - 41k
Has evolution really been observed? (Summary article)
... The rare ”beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling all ... which the net
result is a loss of information in the ... or by way of reduced genetic variety. ...
Has Evolution Really Been Observed? | Answers in Genesis - 42k
Refuting Evolution (Series 2) - Lesson 2: Chapter 2 - ...
... role of ”natural selection’ and ”mutations’ within this model. Include
in ... processes result in a net loss of genetic information within a population ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 33k
The mutant 'feather-duster' budgie
... a role in this genetic problem. 3 As their ... good’ original state. Many mutations
lead to innocuous neutral ... is always due to a loss of information resulting in ...
Answers in Genesis - 42k
Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution
... also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in ... Both amount to decline
in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its ... POSITIVE MUTATIONS? ...
Professor of Genetics Says 'No!' to Evolution | Answers in Genesis - 41k
New plant colours”is this new information?
... However, until the biochemical/genetic basis of the difference ... due to new information.
Loss of information in some ... do not say that mutations are always harmful ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 38k
Ligers and wholphins? What next?
... claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic
information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). ...
Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My! | Answers in Genesis ... - 50k
Swift swallow selection
... s toolbox) had introduced new genetic information coding for longer feathers. But
mutations are virtually always downhill, ie, a loss of information, including ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 36k
Mutations”part of evolution’s engine?
... out in this chapter, some mutations can cause an organism to lose genetic information
and yet gain ... the mutation caused a loss of information but was ...
Are Mutations Part of the Engine of Evolution? | Answers in Genesis - 35k
What! . no potatoes?
... other things. So the loss of the genetic information ... that about 75% of genetic diversity
in agricultural ... of evolution (random mutations and natural selection ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 46k
Evolution revolution
... Mutations are rare genetic mistakes that may occur when cells divide ... Whiting, MF,
Bradler, S. and Maxwell, T., Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 35k
Genetics: no friend of evolution
... we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually ... to
be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be ...
Genetics: No Friend of Evolution | Answers in Genesis - 43k
AiG’s response to PBS-TV series Evolution-Episode 4: The ...
... due to increased genetic information. The above ... explained how a loss of information
could ... of information-increasing mutations conferring antibiotic resistance ...
Natural Selection Topic | Answers in Genesis - 49k
AiG’s response to PBS-TV series Evolution-Episode 4: The ...
... due to increased genetic information. The above ... explained how a loss of information
could ... of information-increasing mutations conferring antibiotic resistance ...
Natural Selection Topic | Answers in Genesis - 49k
Evolution revolution
... Mutations are rare genetic mistakes that may occur when cells divide ... Whiting, MF,
Bradler, S. and Maxwell, T., Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 37k
Book review: Climbing Mount Improbable
... of his technical book, Genetic Takeover, 18 is one of ... new information, but observed
mutations have never been shown ... do so. Sometimes a loss of information can ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 72k
One rule for evolutionists, and another for creationists!
... created by mutations (for example, hairless, pushed in face, stumpy legs, etc.) is
due to loss of information, not the addition of new genetic information.’. ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis ... - 49k
A faithful man takes on faith-based teaching
... it is natural selection (change within the created kinds) through mutations (a
loss of genetic information) that causes change over time and in a downward ...
A Faithful Man Takes on Faith-Based Teaching | Answers in Genesis - 35k
The bamboozling panda
... mutations are genetic copying mistakes which cause defects, even defects may on
rare occasions be helpful, although they still involve corruption or loss of ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 58k
Worm evolution in pollution?
... only act upon existing (genetic) information. ... surrounding environment. The apparent
loss/corruption of the gene(s ... that of all observed mutations which have some ...
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis - 41k

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 9:14 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Wounded King, posted 06-08-2006 11:19 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 103 by Percy, posted 06-08-2006 11:50 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 104 by AdminModulous, posted 06-08-2006 11:56 AM Rob has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 101 of 302 (319059)
06-08-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:02 AM


OK, so your 'evidence' is that people are saying this on AIG. As evidence goes that is pretty much non-existent.
AIG making claims is no more convincing than you making claims.
You could have saved yourself typing all that in by just by saying 'no'.
If you think there are specific references in these links which provide actual evidence, say a study from the primary literature, then please provide those.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:02 AM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 102 of 302 (319068)
06-08-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rob
06-08-2006 1:43 AM


Rob writes:
I concede that I have no answer to many of these questions percy. I am confident that I am correct, but concede a great deal of faith. All things are ultimately believed on faith.
And you could be in a discussion with a flat-earther who could say the same thing, that all things are ultimately believed on faith. In fact, the argument could be used for anything: "All things are ultimately believed on faith, so I just don't accept [fill in the blank]."
We do not accept on faith that an amp of electrical current through your body will kill you. I choose this example because there's nothing more dramatic than death. That an amp of current can kill you is something that has been established as a reality. It is not an article of faith like a religious belief. Whether you believe salvation is based upon belief or deeds is a very different proposition from whether you think you can be electrocuted. If you ignore the possibility of electrocution while playing with electricity (for example, by ignoring the step in the instructions that says to shut off your electrical panel before rewiring your house), then you might find yourself in a position to get an answer to the "belief versus deeds" issue much sooner than expected.
The possibility of electrocution is an established part of reality. Articles of faith are not. Science attempts to understand the universe by basing it upon the facts of reality. What science believes it knows may be right or wrong, but established scientific understanding usually has an extremely firm foundation in the facts of reality. Ignore them at your peril, and let's have no more of this silly "all things are ultimately believed on faith" nonsense.
I have a high school education and drive a 05 Peterbuilt.
You mean Peterbilt? So you park one of these in front of the church on Sunday? I wish my car was as new as your truck!
My zeal far outwieghs my education.
Yes, so you must be careful. There are many websites out there offering arguments designed to appeal to those who are both devout and who possess insufficient education to perceive the fallacies, and who also might possess a healthy skepticism about science due to unfamiliarity. What the creationist movement has very successfully done is create an army of the misled, some of whom march into websites like this one and get chewed up.
I have given my opinions, and still hold them.
We're very familiar with this attitude among creationists. This just makes it even more clear that you're not really doing science.
I have met God, so I believe. I see evidence for Him, and it is consistent.
In this thread no one is saying that there is no God. When you met God, did he tell you that "information is a massless quantity" or that information "is not reducible to matter or energy but in fact manipulates it"? I don't think so. You read that at creationist websites. The message from here is not to reject God, because many here, including myself, believe in God, and many here are also Christians. We're telling you to reject the nonsense at the creationist websites, not God. There's nothing holy at creationist websites, unless you count the holes in their arguments.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 1:43 AM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22687
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 103 of 302 (319070)
06-08-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:02 AM


That's a rather large hash, and it doesn't contain a coherent argument. It would probably work best if this thread tried to keep a narrow focus on the topic.
AIG is a creationist website. While it is one of the more reasonable ones, it still contains a great deal of misinformation. If you feel there is information at AIG that bears specifically on the discussion in this thread then I encourage you to describe it in your own words and provide a link to the source.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:02 AM Rob has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 104 of 302 (319071)
06-08-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
06-08-2006 11:02 AM


Rules warning
Greetings!
Thank you for taking the time to provide sources for your claims. However, copy/pasting a google search of AIG for 'genetic information mutations loss' (or whatever it was) is not really what we mean by 'provide sources'.
Forum Rules writes:
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference.
A handful of sources with reasons why they support your claim (perhaps with a quote or two) is the normal format for such things.
Naturally, this can take time and involves a lot of reading. If you don't have the time to do this its probably better to just say rather than copy/pasting google search results.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 06-08-2006 11:02 AM Rob has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5861 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 105 of 302 (319259)
06-08-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by arachnophilia
06-07-2006 1:16 AM


Re: Great example
Oh, I just want to tell you guys, I wrote a whole essay on the topic of evolution. So if you could read it, I won't have to repeat many of those things here. Here is where you will find it: Page Not Found - Webs
read more closely. mesonychus was the proposed ancestor to whales (differing very obviously in the teeth). pakicetus was the was find that overturned that hypothesis.
have a look at the skulls again. pakicetus's skull is almost passable for a modern whale's skull, except for the location of the nostrils and eyes.
Are you referring to the Pakicetus skull FRAGMENTS? Or do you have the whole skull? Because Gingerich constructed a picture of the skull and Pakicetus with just 2 skull fragments! How would you know what the rest of Pakicetus looked like if you only found 2 skull fragments? You could guess and make assumptions, but 2 pieces of a skull are not very convincing...
and you won't in amphibians, either. (because those are PECTORAL fins -- forelimbs. not hind legs)
So you said it, those are pectoral fins. Nothing else?! Not a transition? Not a leg? So is Tiktaliik invalid as a transitional form? Have you reached that conclusion?
yes. it's oddly between the two, isn't it?
No, it's only one. Not between anything. I don't see anything of a fin there.
fish don't have flippers. they have fins. this one has exceptionally long lobed fins. that end in well definied digits.
did you catch that? it has hands and fingers.
Of course fish don't have flippers! That's what I'm saying, it's probably not a fish or transition at all! Probably some kind of seal like creature with flippers.
Hand? Fingers? Could you show me? I didn't see that.
no, they are not homologous to flippers. they are extended lobed fins.
But how can you be so sure? They look more like flippers to me than some super sized fin-legs.
yes, it is. the distance between the "fin" and the body is two great to call it anything but a limb. it has a jointed apendage protruding from its torso, that ends in fingers. what would you call it?
I didn't catch the fingers. But I would probably call it some kind of flipper like thing.
maybe you don't know anything about biology?
No, actually, I know a little more about biology than other science topics.
i made no claims about the rear end.
But the rear end holds much needed information to tell us what Tiktaliik really is!

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 06-07-2006 1:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:56 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 154 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 12:00 AM Someone who cares has not replied
 Message 162 by kuresu, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2006 10:55 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 211 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:38 PM Someone who cares has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024