Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,216 Year: 5,473/9,624 Month: 498/323 Week: 138/204 Day: 8/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 24 of 302 (317658)
06-04-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-04-2006 5:31 AM


Re: Need, want or curiosity
Why evolution occurs is a whole other animal subject to interpretation.
I don't see why it is open to interpretation. Things don't have to have a reason. Besides, we know why evolution happens. Those "mechanical and chemical aspects that shape the process we call evolution" are the reasons for evolution occuring (if I remeber the post that you were replying to correctly).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-04-2006 5:31 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-05-2006 6:38 AM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 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 2627 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

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 162 of 302 (319409)
06-09-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 7:52 PM


Someone Who Cares . . .about getting things right
I'm replying to this post for one reason--this quote:
maybe you don't know anything about biology?
No, actually, I know a little more about biology than other science topics.
Which, by your paper on evolution, means you don't know that much. Let me begin. I read your paper. I dug out quite a few quotes, which I will explain to you why what you said was wrong.
A:
evolutionists believe that the dolphins’ ancestors were pigs, cattle, or buffalo
wrong. Whales are thought to have come from a more hippo like species, if I remember correctly.
B:
Aside from animals, we have insects as well.
This is from where you are explaining the fossil inconsistencies. Since when were insects not animals? I do believe their classification is Animalia, Arthropoda, Uniramia (the original Insecta). That's Kingdom, Phylum, Class. We are Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primata, Hominidae, Homo, sapiens.
C:
Neanderthal man was found to be pure human, whose brain was deformed by arthritis.
[6] Neanderthal had arthritis and was crippled, that is why he would have walked stooped,
but not because his whole civilization was like that,
and not because he came from a monkey, he was a human.
I was unaware the Neanderthalensis had a civilization. I knew they had a culture, but not civilization. An entire race of cripples? I don't think it was arthritis that did this. In fact, they did not stoop, but walked properly.
D:
but it is now known that this size of a brain is the size of an average European person’s brain
Wow, okay. This is in reference to Homo erectus, everyone. Their brain volume varied within this range--750 - 1250 cc
. That's 3/4 of a liter to 1 and 1/4 liters. The modern human's brain volume is--a good chunk more, with less than one percent of the total human population reaching just under a liter in volume. Most of us have a brain capacity of almost 1.5 liters. Are you saying that the average European is stupid? Because if you are, I take offense to that (hey, I am half swede, so . . .).
E:
So Homo Erectus is not hominid, he is just human
And your point is? Humans are hominids. Hominid = The common name for humans and their ancestors, members of the family Hominidae. It consists of the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo. Since the species in question is a Homo, then he is a hominid. Or perhaps you meant hominiod, of which we and erectus also belong. BY the way, homo is latin for "man" (I'm pulling this from the translation of Homo sapiens being "wise man" or "knowing man", and because their are different species in Homo)
F:
Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, and older Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, all lived at the same time, they all lived together
An accepted timeline for the Homo genus and when each species was alive is this: Hominid Species (if an admin can link this, I don't know how, please do).
As you can clearly see (if you look at the picture) Homo erectus was gone by the time we were on the scene. Neanderthalnesis was just about gone, and questions are being raised as to whether or not they were still around in Europe by the time we were there.
G:
Cro Magnon Man is not in any way non human. It was only thought to be a hominid, because of cave drawings that were found and were thought to be something primitive
That double negative is throwing me for a loop. This is continuing in your vein of humans not being hominids. Which is showed just above to be wrong.
H:
A Homo Erectus, called Rhodesia Man, had tooth decay, this is something that primitive man would not have
Can you tell me why a primitive man, with no form of toothbrushes, toothpaste, or flossing would not have tooth decay?
I:
The monkey, the donkey, the chicken, the garter snake, or the butter bean? Hmmm? How about non of those?
This is in a new paragraph in your paper, and it comes from Henry Morris saying who we are related to. And the quote is your answer. Actually, we are related to all of them, though some quite distantly (the butter bean being the most distantly related).
J:
a characteristic no monkey or any other animal has. We also have intelligence, a complex spoken language,
and ethical values. [20] So how is this? When humans evolved, morality evolved as well
If you want to argue this point, I recommend taking it to my thread, titled about morality and charity and how they fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Point is, they do. Also, we are not the only animal with intelligence, language, or altruism.
K:
Because evolution is unguided, how would evolution make a creature know to evolve a stomach and teeth for the specific foods,
and the right size of a mouth for the sizes of fruits and vegetables?
Or hands the perfect size and shape to grasp fruits, vegetables, branches, etc?
Or legs, with the right bones, muscles, ligaments, to allow us to walk on flat ground, rocky plains, or to climb a mountain, or a tree?
Or lungs to utilize the oxygen in our environment? Or anything else
This one might be long. The first part of that quote makes me think of this show called "Way of the Master", which was quite ridiculus with trying to disprove evolution by using this argument. Actually, this answer will be short. Reason being, in order to explain why it is wrong, I need to explain all of evolution and how it works--something which you seem to not understand by this and many other statements you made (or make for the moment). You are right in that evolution can't tell a creature to evolve the right stuff for the right things, but this is not proof against evolution. They get the right stuff for the right things through natural selection, which isn't all that unguided. We can discuss this at a later point.
L:
For example, the eye of a human is very similar to the eye of an octopus
Well blow me down and shiver me timbers, I never knew this! or wait, are you possibly wrong again? Me thinks it's the latter choice. They are similar in that they are eyes, and the interpret light stimulation, however, as far as the mechanisms they operate off of, the octupus eye is much different (like how each type of eye focuses). It's equivalent to saying a bird and bat wing are similar. Oh yeah, for those who couldn't tell, this part of the paper is trying to explain why things have similar things without using common ancestry, and in this case, it's God using the same design over and over.
M:
Yet no one is claiming that they had a common ancestor! Why not?!?
The continuation of the last quote. Actually, we do claim that we have a common ancestor with octupi. In fact, we claim that all living organisms today have a common ancestor (or at the very most a few common ancestors).
Natural selection is the mechanism by which one kind of animal or plant is supposed to evolve into another one.
Not that great a definition of natural selection, so I might want to introduce it now, as it makes sense here.
First of, NS (natural selection) applies to all living organsisms, not just animals and plants.
Secondly, this is how NS operates.
Let's take a population of deer. The habitat can support 1000 deer.
Now then, more offspring are created than the habitat can support. Lets says, for simplicity's sake, that the parents are all gone.
And let's say they made 3000 fawns. We now have 3000 fawns competing for those 1000 spots. The 1000 that make it to sexual maturity are the ones who get to reproduce, and they pass their genes off to their offspring. The reason they are in the top 1000 is becuase they were the most "fit"--best adapted to their environment.
The other 2000 of the second generation (parents are first generation, then the offspring, offsprings offspring not included) die before they can pass off their genes, or they move out of the habitat. Either way, those 2000 were not "fit" enough, and do not pass off thier genes in this population of deer.
Let's use a real world example, like Sickle Cell Anemia. It is generally a deletorius gene--that means it's bad. However, in regions in the world with a high incidence of malaria, it is no longer deleterious so long as the person with is not homozygous recessive. The normal, dominant condition is AA. The SCA condition is either Aa or aa. The last is what is known as homozygous recessive, and it kills you before the age of five, well before we reach sexual maturity. The heterozygous condition (Aa) is also deleterious, except in places with malaria.
Another fact to remember, malaria kills those without SCA much more easily, so they often do not reach sexual maturity.
THis means that the most "fit" are the ones with the heterozygous condition, becuase they survive to sexual maturity and procude more offspring than the others. And becuase the others are not passing their genes on, fewer and fewer are going to be AA or aa, until most of, if not all of, the population is Aa.
And if someone else can better explain this, please do, because I realize I'm not the best at explaining.
N:
Natural selection only gets rid of information and certain organisms, it doesn’t add information to the genetic code,
or new organisms into the world. But that is exactly what we would need to get a single cell or something even simpler,
to evolve into a human over time, great increases of information in the DNA
Do you know how many genes humans have? about 25,000, based off of the research done by the Human Genome Project. Do you know how many the common fruit fly, Drosophilia melanogaster, has? Something like twice as many. So does this mean that the fruit fly is more complex than man? Because that is what you are implying--you need more information for more complexity, and lo and behold, man has relatively few genes. I guess that means were pretty simple, huh?
O:
About 99.9% of mutations are neutral or harmful! They would only make the case worse for evolution by destroying the organism
Actually, it fits in perfectly with NS, as Darwin realized. Those that die before they can reproduce will not pass on these deletorius genes, and hence NS is verified, not falsified.
P:
Any mutations in other body cells do not pass on to offspring. So even IF a monkey did learn to walk upright,
its descendants wouldn’t walk upright
Mutations in somatic cells (body cells) will not make a monkey walk upright. In order to do that, the mutations would have to change the monkey's skeletal structure while it is living, as well as reposition the entrance of the spinal cord into the skull and doing a few other odds and ends, and no matter how much the transformers may look real, those sort of mutations aren't possible. Our bodies just can't reorient that quickly without being excrutiatingly painful as well as possibly deadly (for those who read everything in Metroid Prime, think back to what happened to the Space Pirates that tried to use Samus' morph ball--death).
Q:
For example, in order for food to get from our mouths to our stomachs, we need a tube connecting them. Or to breathe, we need not only lungs,
but also a nose or a mouth, and an expanding rib cage, and a diaphragm
.
Not quite true. Starfish empty their stomachs onto their food. Reptiles don't have diaphrams. Insects don't use thier mouths to breathe, and they don't have noses. many animals don't even have lungs. We might need them, but that doesn't mean that they don't work without those other parts or can't be used without the other parts.
R:
Besides, natural selection is supposed to only evolve that which is necessary for our survival.
So how did we obtain social skills, love, care, feeling sorrow for others, friendship, and other feelings and emotions?
How could those feelings and emotions, not necessary for survival, evolve!
Again, I refer you to the morality, charity, and evolution thread of mine to see why you are wrong. with this. Oh, and natural selection doesn't evolve anything, it is the mechanism by which organisms evolve. It's like saying that the computer monitor runs the computer, but it is actually the mechanism by which the computer displays graphic representations of data.
S:
but evolutionists say, that in the early history of the earth, life came from non-life. [29] What absurdity
And this disproves evolution how? Remember, there was no life, and then there was. Even if God made life, he still made it out of non-life--you know, the whole from the dust of the earth bit, from which you are made you shall return.
Biological evolution only starts when there is life present, it doesn't matter how said life arose.
T:
Take a plant cell, it should be simpler than an animal cell, right? Yet man still doesn’t fully understand how the chlorophyll converts solar energy into chemical energy!
Or, exactly how meiosis of the cell works
And this disproves evolution? Who said a plant cell had to be simpler, they could just as well be more complex. After all, they are our relatives (and the possible descendants of the animal kingdom, at any rate, they appear after animals do). If evolution is supposed to increase complexity, like you imply, then you contradict yourself. At any rate, we know fairly well how chlorophyll converts solar energy into chemical energy.
There are two photosytems, I and II. In each one, there are two types of chlorophyll, A and B. Chl. B surrounds A. Now then, when light hits photosystem II, it excites electrons in the photosystem. These are bounced around until they end up on the chlorophyll A molecule, which then throws it out of the photosystem. This electron passes through what is known as an electron transport chain, and something like 2 ATP is made. Then this electron enters photosystem I, bounces around until it gets to the A molecule in the center, it launched up again, and absorbed by (NADP?). But I'm too far ahead. Remember that first photosystem? Well, when that electron jumped out of it, it split water. This is possibly done by activating an enzyme or through the eletrical charge itself. Then you have 2Hsub2O yielding 2Hsub2 and Osub2. The Hydrogen is accepted by (NADP?) The oxygen will be incorporated into the Calvin Cycle, which makes the sugar molecules that provide the source for chemical energy, which is what the mitochondria does. The (NADP?) becomes NADPHsub2 at the end of all this, at which point it plays a role in the Calvin Cycle. Don't get me started on meiosis.
U:
Such as the fact that amino acids are destroyed by oxygen. So, in order for these “building blocks of life” to survive,
the early atmosphere of the earth would have to have been oxygen free. But then another problem arises, if there was no oxygen,
there would be no ozone layer. No ozone layer means that ultraviolet rays of the sun would reach the earth.
Then these ultraviolet rays of the sun would inevitably destroy any amino acids.
Therefore making the whole idea of amino acids living and joining to form a cell impossible!
Not too far off, but ultraviolet radiation is nothing more than alpha radiation, if I remember correctly. Alpha radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper. Water breaks up Ultraviolet radiation, so in a deeper pool of water, the amino acids would be quite safe from the UV radiation. Again, this doesn't disprove evolution.
V:
there are over 500 cases in the fossil record, where “simpler” organisms were found in “more recent” layers, then some “more advanced” organisms. [33]
Now evolution cannot account for this.
Actually, it can. Do you realize how many simple organisms there are on this planet today? They outnumber the complex ones by a lot. Simple ones can also be simplified. Also, what if they lived at the same time? You use this same argument to say that Homo sapiens lived at the same time as Homo erectus, and thus we didn't come from this "simple" man. Parent species don't have to die out after a speciation event.
X:
Another interesting observation, in many places of the earth, we find groups of fossils; meaning that the animals were fossilized in groups.
Now tell me, can evolution explain this?
No, evolution cannot. But paleontology can. Ever hear of Pompeii? That entire city was buried in a very short period of time (in less than an hour if I'm not mistaken), and everone in the city was preserved. This same phenomenon happens a lot with the fossil record, and a good thing to.
Y:
But that means we are degrading, losing the functioning of our organs.
But evolution requires just the opposite, upgrading, from a single cell to a human. So are we upgrading, degrading, or neither
Evolution does not require upgrading or degrading. (This one is refering to vestigial organs)
Z:
But this is not an example of evolution! This is an example of microevolution
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your paper state that
quote:
There are two basic forms of evolution: microevolution, and macroevolution. Microevolution is just the variations within a kind of an organism
When trying to disprove something, or prove something, its best not to contradict yourself. It just doesn't add credibility to your argument. And unless I'm gravely mistaken, nothing I written here is a contradiction or one as big as the one you made in that paper.
AA:
No new information was added to the genetic code, as evolution would require in evolving a single cell to a human over time
I've answered this before. You know, about how humans actually have a small number of genes compared to simpler orgranisms, and how evolution doesn't require new information in the manner you mean.
BB:
If the time dates of evolutionists are true, the world would be overflowing with humans now. But that’s not the case
By that same logic, the world should be overflowing with visible bacteria (visible because there are so many). It's called the carrying capacity of the environment, that it, how many organisms the environment can support. And we have a tendency to increase that with our agricultural methods. That began ten-thousand years ago (roughly the time of the agricultural revolution). Before then, we were hunter-gatherers, and that lends itself towards smaller, village like or less numbers in the community. In fact, even with agricuture, the carrying capacity didn't increase too much, as evidenced by the native americans, with a few notable exceptions. It wasn't until mechanized farming that the capactiy wildly increased. And since then, we have grown exponentially in population. Again, not a disprove of evolution.
As a final note. WHy the focus of plants and animals? You really should have included all the kingdoms, and if you want, I can dig through your paper again for more wrong stuff. I jsut spent over two hours on this set of roughly 27 quotes, but I know of more mistakes you made in the paper, I just didn't feel like going through them all.
ABE:
I forgot to make my main point--that is, it is apparent that you don't know too much about the sciences--yet
Oh, and it's cool how the link is made automatically.
Edited by kuresu, : memory lapse

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM kuresu has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 164 of 302 (319412)
06-09-2006 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rob
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
yeah, the experiment done by Miller and Urey that produced amino acids and some RNA. This, and the ones that followed, mimic early-earth atmospheres, so this "language" can be created without intelligence. It also does it every day, when your body is replicating somatic or gametic cells. No intelligence involved, just a bunch of chemical reactions. Unless, of course, you feel that God has his hand in you insides moving everything around (now that would be an intersting image of God--one with an infinite number of arms to move an infinite number of things ).

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 2:13 AM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 197 of 302 (319847)
06-10-2006 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
I'm glad you took the time to respond. Now then . . .
Evolutionists can be wrong, and I don't think that hippos have a similar hoof structure to pigs, cattle, and I don't think that the whale ancestor would be based off of hoof structure alone, esp. since today whales have no hooves.
You agree that insects are animals, which was not evienced in your paper. If I remeber correctly, the way you wrote it was to imply that insects aren't animals. However, they are not that different. First off, they represent one of the major classes in the animal kingdom. And that class belongs to one of the major phylums of the same kingdom.
Let me get back to the Neanderthalensis not stooping, so I can get the appropriate evidence.
I was meaning hominid as in the part of the supposed primate human ancestors, as it is in this definition: hominid: "an adjective referring to primate human ancestors and the rest of the human line or family, starting from Australopithecus" define:hominid - Google Search
Then you are still wrong on saying that Homo erectus is not a hominid. The definition you use is not too different from the one I used. Fact is, they are hominids, or else they wouldn't be the the hominidae family (which is where hominidae is gotten).
The fact that we may or may not have been alive along with H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis does not mean that we didn't evolve from them. Of course, in the H. neanderthalensis case, the scientific conclusion is that they are a cousin, not an ancestor. H.erectus is, if I remember correctly.
but the point is, Cro Magnon Man is not a hominid, or primate human, he is a fully developed human
For previously stated reasons, you are still wrong on this. Cro-magnon is H.sapiens (and we are, more specifically, H. sapiens sapiens). As such, he is a hominid.
Because they didn't have refined sugars
That doesn't mean that they can't have tooth decay. All you need is for bacteria to break through the lining on our teeth, which is what plaque does. A cracked tooth would easily allow for it, I'd say.
As to the Henry Morris, if you're following MLA format, then you need to double-indent your paragraph. But as you're from Europe, I don't know which country or language you speak, so I'm not familiar with whatever format you use. In the US, we use MLA for formal papers. And of course they aren't our ancestor--all those species are currently alive today, and our links with them are millions and millions of years older--when these species weren't present.
Are you saying that the octopus and the human came from one ancestor?!?
Yes. I would need to look at a cladistics chart to be more precise, but we do share a common ancestor. Now, if you mean that Octupi and humans share a recent ancestor, then no (recent being less than several hundred million years ago).
I further and more specifically defined NS because the definition you used in your paper was lacking, and no, not everyone knows what NS is. And if you are trying to disprove evolution, it helps to give a good, precise defintion of what NS is.
You don't need mutations to get multicelled creatures. You just need a colony (which most likely is created because the genetics allow for communication or whatever). From there things get more complex, and even if 99% of mutations won't help doesn't mean it won't, or can't, happen. I refer you to my post regarding the 603 or more generations needed to rework your post into one supporting evolution, as to why this is so.
So how did stooped monkeys evolve into upright humans?
A somewhat long answer. First off, what do you mean by stooped, because that generally refers to a hung head and a bent back. Monkeys do not walk upright because their hips and head don't allow for it. You need to change the orientation of the pelvis so that the legs are closer to gether (closer to being parallel with each other, rather than being pointed away from each other at something like a 45 degree angle). Then, the spinal cord needs to enter from the bottom of the skull, not the back, in order for the head to be held up porperly. This would be done through mutation.
I really wish you would get the time to check out the "morality, charity according to evolution" thread. It should help increase your understanding of how they fit in.
Random processes cannot form life from non life, that goes against scientific principles.
Oh, so you say it doesn't matter how life arose? You aren't even the least bit curious
You were using it as a disproof of evolution, which it isn't, which is why I explained it out. I am curious as to how life originated, but it's not important to the theory of evolution, the one area I'm schooled in as far as science goes. (though not so much as some others here)
Oh, and you say a random, chance process did all this?!? ^^ How could it?
You're moving the goalpost. You claimed that we did not fully understand how this process works, and by doing so, trying to claim "how can we then fully understand anything else". I was just showing you how much we do know. And yes, random processes were invovled, as in the mutations that lead to the ability to create chlorophyll, and whether or not it was inbedded in the thylakoid membrane. However, the reaction is predictable, nothing random about the chemical reaction itself.
But why would these "parent" species be found in "more recent" layers than the daughter species?
Perhaps the parent species outlived the daughter species. Or, maybe we haven't found any daughter species fossils yet in the younger layer. Again, not a disproof of evolution, which I contend you were using it as.
But then, ultraviolet rays of the sun break up hydrogen molecules, which would in effect release oxygen
I'm going to assume that you mean water molecules. I left out that statement because of the ambiguity as to which molecule the UV rays were breaking up. After all, Hsub2 has no oxygen. Now, Hsub2O does.
And how I wish this were true. That would mean that we could get all the hydrogen needed for the hydrogen powered cars really cheap. Let the sun do the work. But question--considering its the UV rays that create the sunburn, that means that UV rays reach the earth's surface. Why does it now not split water?
I'm not even going to bother with the global flood. You do realize that the bible says it rained for 40 days and nights. The force you describe in your paper is that of a flash flood or a fire hose. Not the force of a global flood. And volcanoes do a really good job at fossilizing. I wouldn't be surprised if fossils were found in Indonesia (wherever it will be millions of years from now) from the recent eruption.
I'm also ignoring the repeat of "how can it become human"--I've already answered why that is the wrong type of question because of what it implies.
Now then, as to the contradiction. This is what you did.
"Evolution = microevolution and macroevolution.
When I say evolution, I mean macro."
or
"x = y,z
x = z
both are true"
And yet you have already defined what you consider evolution in the paper before you make the second statement. Which means that you are saying this.
"macro is evolution. macro is therefore micro and macro."
or
"x = z
z = z, y
both true"
do you not see the contradiction? Esp. if both statements are true. How can "x = y,z" be and "x =z" This means that "y,z" are the same thing. Which means that you are saying that macro is the same as micro. Or "y = z". Which means, since you accept micro, you must then also accept macro. Way to go for disproving macroevolution. It's the most original strategy I've seen--disprove by acceptance.
It shows that evolution is flawed. I mean, if humans have been around for "millions" of years or something, then, according to average reproduction speed, we would have way too many humans!
This would assume that we all die at old age, and that our growth has been constant. It took over a million years to get a billion people. A century later, there were three billion. But that doesn't mean evolution is flawed. How can one too many of any organism disprove evolution?
I will do another disection when I've more time, and any points you replied to, that I did not reply to in this post, may or may not be covered at a later time. Right now, I find them irrelevant to the larger issue, and hopefully people will firgure out what I didn't respond to. Of course, that would mean looking at yours and mine, and both are long, so . . .

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 11:05 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 263 of 302 (320480)
06-11-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:38 AM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
Really? Did you know, that the chance for the first cell to form by chance is mathematically impossible? It takes faith to believe in something that is mathematically impossible...
You keep on bringing up this point as if it ahd something to do with evolution, as in you need it for ToE to be right. Stop it. It's a wrong assertion (where's the math?) for disproving evolution.
ANd all the evidence you see against evolution is tainted by those who have a vested interest in spreading misinformation, like the religious right in the US. THe only reason Bush supports teaching ID is becuase he is pandering to the religious right in his party, and they will spread any amount of lies in order to be taught.
Science, on the other hand, has no vested interest in spreading minsinformation. Every hoax that has been perpetrated is dropped as soon as its found to be a hoax. The creationists, however, hang on to them to say--"look at these fools, trying to spread lies cause they know their theory is wrong"--as if their cries will disrove evolution.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:38 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by CK, posted 06-11-2006 12:05 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2627 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 293 of 302 (322766)
06-17-2006 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Rob
06-17-2006 10:53 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
Your post was directed towards Percy, but I'll take a crack at it too.
Humans, while having roughly 25000 genes, can get more than one protein per gene in quite a few cases. This is all I can think you mena when you say that:
In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?
And this increased "complexity" (because I don't know exactly what you're driving at) was arrived at by a not entirely random process called evolution. So while God (I assume that's who you refer to in your last statement) may not be necessary for it, that doesn't mean that the process was random and unguided.
It'll help when I know what you're driving at though.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 10:53 PM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024