|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined:
|
The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils....they call it a transitional to reptiles but it is not. Peg, you have a lot to learn about evolution. your comment is totally absurd. It is the old if "X" evolved into "Y" why is there still "X"?The point is not that any species simply changed into another, but gradually or in some cased more rapidly do to conditions. The change is at the DNA level, not the outer morphology. The point you use , the lungfish you comment on is not the same species that there was back in the paleozoic era. Also it was a lobefin, not a lungfish that is the common ancestor of the Amphibians not the reptiles, althouh the reptiles could be considered eventual descendants of the lobefins. The term transitional does not imply that all of "X" evolved into "Y," but through natural selection those that had a particular trait became different over the course of many generations. A species is transitional if it contains some the traits of the ancestor and some of the traits of the descendant. All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
at the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, in Turin, Italy a Paleontologist named Bernard Vandermeersch said that as far as man’s origins were concerned, what paleontology has shown contradicted the genetics data...genetics has shown that all people alive today come from 1 common ancestor and that one was 'human' not ape. Please provide a source. The statement alone means nothing. We need to know the context and the actual statement. Also, the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology was in 1987. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: If it were the only evidence, you'd have a point. But how about all the other scientific evidence pointing in the same direction? Doesn't that count for anything? Science is really divided. They are holding firm to the belief and teaching of evolution, yet from what i've read , every field of science produces evidence that discounts it. Geology for instance shows sudden appearances in the fossil record rather then a continual and progressive change from one species to another. Mutations fail evolution. Yes mutations do cause changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. But the vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They contribute to the degeneration of animal and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. And after years of expriementation with mutations, scientists have not been able to change one species into another....the evidence shows that mutation doesnt drive evolution. Environmental changes dont cause species to change into new species. Just think of humans living in extremely cold areas, they havnt begun to produce children with fur...you would think that for a creature to adapt to very cold climates, they would need good coverage, yet humans are still hairless in those areas. And other animals choose to migrate when the climate changes rather then adapt.In australia, our warming climate is killing frog populations in the tropical regions so some zoos are trying to breed frogs to save them from extinction. This goes to show that enviroment doesnt cause species to change hence evolution is not the result of environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Peg, you really should stop offering opinions on science. You have neither the education nor the inclination to do an adequate job, and your a priori belief system leads you consistently to the wrong answers.
Science is really divided. They are holding firm to the belief and teaching of evolution, yet from what i've read , every field of science produces evidence that discounts it. Geology for instance shows sudden appearances in the fossil record rather then a continual and progressive change from one species to another. Geology shows both. You should remember that geological time is measured in millions of years, and "sudden appearances" might have taken several million years.
Mutations fail evolution. Yes mutations do cause changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. But the vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They contribute to the degeneration of animal and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. And after years of expriementation with mutations, scientists have not been able to change one species into another....the evidence shows that mutation doesnt drive evolution. False in several ways. The harmful mutations go away! They are eliminated from the gene pool. What do you think natural selection does, anyway? It eliminates those harmful mutations immediately. They do not "contribute to the degeneration of animal" because the animals that have them either are not born or die soon after. It is a creationist religious belief that the genome is deteriorating, and a false one that is not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, scientists have been able to produce new species in the laboratory. You are behind the times in your research. Given this, the evidence shows that mutation does drive evolution, when coupled with natural selection.
Environmental changes dont cause species to change into new species. Just think of humans living in extremely cold areas, they havnt begun to produce children with fur...you would think that for a creature to adapt to very cold climates, they would need good coverage, yet humans are still hairless in those areas. And other animals choose to migrate when the climate changes rather then adapt. Humans adapt to very cold temperatures mostly by wearing clothes. There are some physical adaptations, among Eskimos and the folks living in Tierra del Fuego, for example, that are pretty interesting but I don't suppose you're aware of them. It works like this: if humans (going back hundreds of thousands of years) could adapt through culture to different environmental conditions, the selection pressure was greatly reduced, and they didn't have to adapt physically to as great a degree as otherwise would be the case. So, no. We wouldn't think that humans in very cold areas would begin to develop fur. Humans can only live in those areas through the benefits of our culture and technology, and those obviate the need to adapt physically.
In australia, our warming climate is killing frog populations in the tropical regions so some zoos are trying to breed frogs to save them from extinction. This goes to show that enviroment doesnt cause species to change hence evolution is not the result of environment. Absolute nonsense. As I suggested before, you really shouldn't bother to comment on science. Being so consistently wrong does no credit either to you or your cause. Take the advice of St. Augustine:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: False in several ways. The harmful mutations go away! They are eliminated from the gene pool. What do you think natural selection does, anyway? It eliminates those harmful mutations immediately. They do not "contribute to the degeneration of animal" because the animals that have them either are not born or die soon after. It is a creationist religious belief that the genome is deteriorating, and a false one that is not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, scientists have been able to produce new species in the laboratory. You are behind the times in your research. Given this, the evidence shows that mutation does drive evolution, when coupled with natural selection. Ralph Seelke is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin, his research shows that laborotory induced evolution is as much a failure as it is a success.There is a great article where ID proponents were given the opportunity to present their evidence at the Kansas Evolution Hearings. Kansas Evolution Hearings: Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph Seelke As a scientist, you should be willing to examine the full spectrum of evolution and not just report on when it actually works. From what his research shows, the bacteria are still bacteria.
Coyote writes: umans adapt to very cold temperatures mostly by wearing clothes. yes, and animals adapt to cold by growing thicker body hair. We are one of the animals, we are all linked, so why should we not be growing hair the same way as they do? evolution doesnt fit the facts in this regard.
Coyote writes: Absolute nonsense. As I suggested before, you really shouldn't bother to comment on science. Being so consistently wrong does no credit either to you or your cause. Take the advice of St. Augustine: whats nonsense? that frogs are going extinct in australia because of climate change??? http://www.news.com.au/...tory/0,23739,24228561-3044,00.html I dont speak nonsense, i only relay information that is put out by science.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Peg, I'm not going to bother pointing out all the errors in your post.
Just accept that you are not the best person to be posting opinions on science. You do your cause no credit by being consistently wrong, and refusing to actually study the fields you are posting on. Creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science, and it would be best if you can't learn this to at least take my word for it and stick to subjects of which you might actually know something. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
seems to me that what you call 'creation' science is in fact 'evidence' leading scientists to that conclusion.
did you look at this? Did you read about these scientits research and see why they are led to conclude that darwinian evolution is not factual? Kansas Evolution Hearings: Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph Seelke the article is posted on talk origins and perhaps this makes you automatically dismiss it....is that the usual procedure in science? to dismiss something before you examine it???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are you aware that Wells is a member of Rev. Moon's Unification church, and only studied for his Ph.D. because he was asked to do so by Rev. Moon--for the purpose of combating the theory of evolution?
Jonathan Wells - Wikipedia(intelligent_design_advocate) I don't think I would trust the Rev. Moon or Wells for an accurate opinion on anything pertaining to science. Nor should you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I don't think I would trust the Rev. Moon or Wells for an accurate opinion on anything pertaining to science. Nor should you. so what you are saying is that a person who believes in God and chooses to study science, will never be a real scientist? Have you looked at his peer reviewed research? Or do you choose to ignore his research because of his belief in a creator?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
so what you are saying is that a person who believes in God and chooses to study science, will never be a real scientist?
Many creationists put scripture and "divine" revelation above the scientific method. For example, the Creation Research Society has the following in its Statement of Belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. Would you say that their members, who ascribe to this statement of belief, would be able to do actual science? What if scientific evidence came into conflict with scripture or revelation? Which would they follow? It would seem to me that they have chosen a path that is the exact opposite of science, and in fact is anti-science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
It would be better if you produced the actual research that made them doubt it, rather then statements of them saying they've done research that makes them doubt evolution. Did you read about these scientits research and see why they are led to conclude that darwinian evolution is not factual? I could make a statement that I've done research which makes me not believe in god. Would you now start to doubt god, Peg? I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Ralph Seelke is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin I have a concern about any researcher that posts this on his university webpage.
quote: Source As you can see from his webpage he does not seem to have any peer reviewed research. He has PowerPoint presentations. If you can find any peer reviewed articles by him please present them. Also, maybe Moose can tell us a little more about him. He is just across the harbor from Moose at UW-Superior. I am from up that way too and know a couple people that just went through UWS so I might try to find out more that way too. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3001 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Peg writes:
No. In fact there is no scientific evidence that would lead any thinking person to conclude that the mythology of creation is fact. Creation scientists don't do science. They begin from the conclusions and attempt to discredit any science that disagrees. Take Dr. Wells as an example.
seems to me that what you call 'creation' science is in fact 'evidence' leading scientists to that conclusion. did you look at this? Did you read about these scientits research and see why they are led to conclude that darwinian evolution is not factual?
Yes. I read that article long before you even knew it existed. I read it at the time of the hearings. The question is whether you actually read it, and if you did, if you actually understood. You see, it is not about the research of any scientists. You might notice that when Dr. Wells is asked to describe his "research" he instead talks about a book he wrote. That book isn't actually based on any sort of scientific research. Do you know what is meant by scientific research? Did you read the cross examination? Did you read any of the 14 links that report the errors in Dr. Wells testimony? Did you follow any of the links to articles by Drs. Hurd and Theobald that explain why Wells is wrong? Did you understand any of it? Kansas Evolution Hearings: Jonathan Wells, Bruce Simat, Giuseppe Sermonti, and Ralph Seelke Perhaps you could give us some links to actual research in "creation science" that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Such research will, of course, have the ability to falsify creationism, i.e., prove it to be false, if it is wrong.
the article is posted on talk origins and perhaps this makes you automatically dismiss it....is that the usual procedure in science? to dismiss something before you examine it???
No. But is it the usual procedure in "creation science" to claim testimony before a committee as evidence without having actually read all of the testimony? Do creationists dismiss something before examining it? Did you read the cross examination? Did you read the links that show the stupidity of Dr. Wells' testimony? Bet not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3001 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
Peg writes:
I don't think he's saying that at all. There are many christians who are real scientists. Probably the most famous is Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University (previously Harvard University). He has written text books about evolution. Moreover, Dr. Miller has done actual scientific research and has many peer reviewed articles. Jonathan Wells has stopped doing science. He writes books that distort science in order to support his preconceived notions of moonie religion.
so what you are saying is that a person who believes in God and chooses to study science, will never be a real scientist? Have you looked at his peer reviewed research?
I don't know of any. Why don't you give a a list. Remember, "Icons of Evolution" is neither research nor peer reviewed.
Or do you choose to ignore his research because of his belief in a creator?
Again, where is this research published? All I am aware of is his gross misrepresentation of real science. Wells doesn't do science anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
the article is posted on talk origins and perhaps this makes you automatically dismiss it....is that the usual procedure in science? to dismiss something before you examine it??? Peg, Peg, Peg, How many times have you been advised to confirm your sources. Do you know anything about talkorigins.org? It is not a creationist or ID website. It is an "evolutionist" website.
quote: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy Edited by Theodoric, : tags Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024