|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6037 days) Posts: 3 From: Fargo, ND, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific theories taught as factual | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You have a good point with the walking thing. However, to make the comparison valid you would have to be able to get to the moon by just walking. Why?
We see not only variants on a design, but new designs. (I.E. give me a process that gets me from never having leg to walking upright) You have to have legs, to be able to walk, to take the first step of a journey of a thousand miles;-} Others have combined this kind of analogy with taking photographs along the way, where the photographs represent "fossil records" of the process, each one intermediate between the ones before and after in their progress across the US. Photographs that make a logical and consistent pattern from A to B. To borrow the analogy and take it another step () further, each step made can represent a generation in the development of a species. Each step will differ from the one before it, maybe a little, maybe more (a jump over a creek, a skip). At a certain point this walking will need to adapt to a new environment, that necessary to get over mountains, and the adaptation will involve a different kind of step and additional support. Finally, when you reach the california coast you can walk out into the surf until you float, and then adapt that walking/step motion to swimming. An entirely different kind of step. Now if you think that evolution just cannot explain "large scale change" well enough to suit you, or that there is some magic barrier to what evolution can accomplish, please define what you mean or need to see\understand on Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? or MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? or "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?. So far I haven't had a creationist able to explain what the problem is. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taking you off the planet is my point; and yes, I would say that it is necessary. (Not literally but figuratively.) So it's an analogy, one that breaks down tragically because the moon is not an island of life separate from earth. There is no there there for life to walk to. Of course your analogy would also mean that life would be homogeneous - same animals in similar ecosystems - and this too is not true. Biogeography is a fact that is explained by evolution, but not by genesis. The numbers and types of species that make it to volcanic islands - like hawaii, like galapagos - show that not all types of animals can walk on water, but that doesn't prevent life from getting there. So your analogy even fails to apply to life on earth. Tough luck, reality is like that.
No transitional forms, just a whole lot of new phyla (species, or group of animals) popping into existence in a vary short period of time (geologically speaking). like the 65 million years between appearances of coelacanth in the fossil record ... guess that means that they don't exist. And before you say "but they haven't changed" you better check the facts. (hint - it's an order not a species). Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So why is either of those a problem?
One, they are present day animals; they would have had to exist hundreds of millions of years ago to be transitions from fish to land animals. So we can't have a modern day transition of fish to land animals? Another radiation?
Two, they’re fully formed creatures, they have functional limbs. So is\do every single transitional animal. Again, why are these problems? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is the gist of my point. My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”. I.E. you have life form ”A’ and life form ”B’. If life form ”A’ and life form ”B’ are fully formed where are the intermediates?; (the transitional forms) Let's test this concept: You have a life form 'A' - your maternal grandmother and a life form 'B' - you. Where are the transitionals, the intermediates? Do you not have a mother? Is she fully formed or is she half you and half your maternal grandmother? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : have half we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... when evolution is exempt from putting its source on the table? The "source" of evolution is the evidence for it, the evidence that helped in formulating the original theory, and in testing theories since then down to the present day. That source is available to everyone. That source is the life around us and the observations of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Whether it was Darwin observing finches on the Galapagos Islands in the 1800's or the Grants observing finches on the Galapagos Islands 150+ years later, it is still the observations of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation that is the source of evolution. All theories are based in the present day, tested in the present day, and do not rely on the past. The past is evidence, evidence that can validate or invalidate concepts of how that past occurred -- including astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry and biology.
I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form that no one knows where it came from to get on the planet earth that no one knows where the singularity came from that birthed the planet earth came from is just as stupid to me. In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon. Fortunately nature is not limited by opinion. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : 150+ Edited by RAZD, : natures limit we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My source for the Universe is God. My source for Life is God. So what is your source of Life and the Universe it inhabits? Without the universe and Life there is nothing to evolve. What is the source for the Universe and the first form of Life that you claim evolved. What letter in the alphabet is the number 4? 22/7? ∞? If you are asking what religious or philosophical concept do I need to have to understand evolution, then I would answer any one that is not contradicted by reality. The choice is up to you, for the question is a religious\philosophical question outside the realm of science, all science (not just evolution). There are many (∞?) options. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, it is not a philosophy of "life, the universe, and everything," (DNAdams), no matter how much creationists lie about it. If you want to talk about the meaning of life then let's talk about religion or philosophy. If you want to talk about evolution then we can talk about the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. If you want to talk about natural history then we can talk about what the evidence of the past shows. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you don't believe in speciation, which has been documented in laboratory settings? He's not talking about speciation, but about the creationist myth of a fly becoming an elephant overnight. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The question I asked had nothing to do with religion or philosophical concepts. Then god cannot be your source. If god is your source then you are de facto talking religion and philosophy when you ask about sources. No special pleading.
I know your answer because you have given it to me before on a couple of occasions. The answer being "We don't know" That is not the source but the question on the beginning of life. Source is a religious and philosophical consideration beyond the question of the beginning of life.
You say we got here by evolution. Which you cannot prove as there has never been a proven case of one creature becoming a different creature. You say with enough changes in 550 million years it could have happened. 55 million should enough, based on the evidence, but you do have to look at the question rationally. Try your hand at dogs will be dogs will be .... Notice that in the first part you have to define what constitutes sufficient change to divide taxonometric categories, such as the difference between a common domestic cat and a red fox. The last creationist (Beretta) didn't get very far. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Beautiful 54 million year old picture of something. See "something" Enjoy. (is anyone on topic these days?) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm not I keep getting bombarded with questions and I don't have any better sense that try to answer them. Take 5 minutes to breath. Read the thread and try to respond to the issue and not your cognitive dissonance reactions. Take a day to formulate a rational response if you need to, instead of just posting some silly knee-jerk reaction.
BTW you totally missed my message on the beautiful photo. I was trying to point out that the picture is someone's rendition of what he\she thought the animal would look like. In other words you never got to the issue of dog vs eohippus skeletons.
That is a lie because no one knows what that animal looked like. We do know what the skeletons look like, and we can compare those skeletons to the skeletons of modern animals and other fossils, we can see the hereditary traits that are common from one to another. This is what the skeleton of phenocodus looks like: Rather more like a dog than even eohippus eh? At least go to message 12 on the thread to see the actual skeleton of dog and eohippus rather than the artist rendering of phenacodus, an ancestor of eohippus (ie even older).
Now we have a 3 toed horse after we have a two toed horse not before. Irrelevant. You still go from A to B, and B to C, and C to D ... and Y to Z by the process of changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation ... and any detours on the way from a direct path from A to Z only demonstrate evolution - and lack of 'design' (couldn't he make up her mind?) - even more. Trust me, thinking you have found some horrendous error in evolutionary thinking is only because you don't understand the way evolution works - it is not linear. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : expanded evolutionary path Edited by RAZD, : added phenocodus skeleton we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
EVO: gosh, look at the evidence ...
CREO: gosh, look at the time ... gotta go ... Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when. A multicellure life form appeared. Cyanobacteria - Wikipedia
quote: There were colonies of bacteria long before the multicellular life evolved. What is the difference between a colony and a multicellular life? Sponge - Wikipedia
quote: There are several kinds of sponges that you can run through a screen to make them break up into small bits, and they will reassemble into a sponge afterwards. In other words we see fossil evidence and evidence from life today of intermediate forms.
Over the next 700 million years these multicellure (one or more) life forms gave birth to all the life forms we see today through a process of natural selection and survival of the fit Survival of the barely able to survive is also natural selection -- it is not just the "fittest" that survive and breed. The working definition of "fit" is "being able to survive and breed."
These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist. Not really - I don't assign them to micro or macro, and "macro" generally refers to (continued) evolution after speciation, so speciation is just the boundary of "micro" and "macro" levels. What "macro" actually is - in evolutionary biology - is just the diversification of life from common ancestors. This happens by evolution within species as well as by further speciation. Now back to your regular program of (mis)information (and trolling). Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A colony of single cell bacteria=a bunch of organisms that are composed of a single cell. A multicellular organism=an organism composed of A colony also comes from 1 or more cells that have divided and compose one colony. What's the difference? Your body is composed of cells that are similar to single celled eukaryotes. What's so special about multicell organisms?
Since the first life form was a single cell life form you stated these processes sufficient to trace all the way there. They are. The genetic record does not contradict this. The fossil record does not contradict this. The history of natural life that we know does not contradict this. Therefore no other process is necessary. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : reword end Edited by RAZD, : natlif add we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
rather than a bunch or organism's How do you tell? Is a sponge a bunch of organisms or a single organism?
Re: Your statements (Message 221) What's the problem? Evolution occurs within species, within populations. The fact remains that "The genetic record does not contradict this. The fossil record does not contradict this. The history of natural life that we know does not contradict this." The only difference you see is that once speciation has occurred that the different species evolve along different paths, as each evolves within the species, within the populations. As more time passes they can become more different. You don't see any different evolution or any other process.
Then why did you say? Because it is true. It is just evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - plus speciation - the division of parent species into two or more daughter species. Speciation allows differences to accumulate, but the differences that accumulate are all due to evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - within each species. No other process is needed to explain the evidence. The genetic record does not contradict this. The fossil record does not contradict this. The history of natural life that we know does not contradict this. The reality is simple. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What we don't have is any evidence of theory taught as fact.
If creos want to run out the meter on threads they started without presenting any information that shows their claim is valid, it is their loss. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024