Do you think that life is a substance, or anything other than the result of certain arrangements of chemical compounds?
no i dont.
chemical compounds do not produce life.
Woodsy writes:
Chemicals "come to life" in the reproductive tracts of living things all the time.
no, living things contain chemicals, but chemicals to not produce living things.
the reproductive ability is not contingent on chemicals alone but on existing life. An organism can die and still contain all the chemicals that it had while it was alive...but those chemicals do not keep it alive nor do they work to bring the dead to life.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
because there is a species barrier....an internal law that stops a cat breeding with a dog or an ape breeding with a man
Hi Peg! I've been reading your argument about breeds and hybridization and enjoying it a lot. We know that pairs of what are called different species of animals can interbreed and produce hybrids. As, for example, lions and tigers; horses and donkeys; sheep and goats; finches and uhm, other finches?
The normal creationist argument is that these aren't really different species or "kinds", they are just very different breeds of the same kind. That is, even though sheep and goats are very different varieties of creature, they do have a common descent, say from something on the ark for example. Whereas other things, like apes and men for example, are definitely not related, as proven by the fact that they cannot interbreed. That there is, as you have argued, an internal law or species barrier which prevents it, and which they cannot possibly breed past.
So what I got to thinking was, a nice proof that this argument was wrong would be an animal A who could interbreed with animal B, and an animal C who could also interbreed with animal B, even though animal A could not possibly interbreed with animal C. Assuming evolution was right, we ought to have gobs of these kind of situations, right?
we know what guides variation - genetics. We can see it and test it.
Not only genetics, Peg. Natural selection plays an important role here too. Or do you think the variation is purely random, with no benefit to the population at all?
No i dont because its been proven over and over again as impossible.
Actually, what has been proven that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely different.
Here's a test for you. Go out into the street, have a good look around, nice surroundings eh? Now, take a single step. Take another good look around, not much has changed. Now, take another step,and another, and another.... After 1 million steps, have your surroundings not changed completely? And only by taking small steps!
Darwin did believe that animals could go in any direction and he believed that new species could be created by selective breeding.
And they are. We have created new species through selective breeding.
but centuries of cross breeding have not produced any new species...none whatso ever.
Cross breeding is not selective breeding. Cross breeding is breeding one species with another. Selective breeding is breeding a single species, looking at the offspring of that, and selecting those offspring that hold the characteristics you want in your "end-species".
If we cant do it deliberately, what makes you think nature can do it accidently?
First of all, we have done it. Second, nature has far more time than we do.
because there is a species barrier....an internal law that stops a cat breeding with a dog or an ape breeding with a man.
And this means that through small steps and after many many many generations, the offspring cannot be different from the "original species" how? Remember, each step in this process has the ability to breed with their own parents. brothers/sisters and other members of the population, only after 1 million generations, the "end-species" would not be able to breed with the "original species". Also, would you like to point out this "barrier or law"?
and as this paper shows, breeding experiments bring animals to definite limits of improvement but no further.
First of all, that's not a paper. It's more like an essay, second, where are the tests he's done to confirm this? All he relies upon are quotes from works of other scientists, who I doubt share his views (which make it quotemining), like Gould.
Here's one of my favourites:
quote:He notes that "despite the efforts of breeders," the winning times of thoroughbreds in the English classic horse races "have not fallen substantially over the past fifty years"
Yes, it's of course impossible that there is an actual physical limit to how hard something can run.... And that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution being wrong.
also the fossil record shows animals unchanged for millions of years, and a sudden appearance of life in many forms in the Cambrian period.
So, you're a punctuated equilibrium advocate? That's still evolution, you know...
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My 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
Yes, i do get the point. Evolution is the development of the species after life somehow appeared on earth.
But do you also understand that life must have begun on the molecular level before natural selection could have selected any animals to survive and reproduce offspring?isnt a natural origin what evolution is all about? Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?
It isn't. It's contested because they somehow think it is. But they are wrong....again....
And if, by evolution, you are refering to the 'variations' found within a species, then i dont have a problem with it.
Then you accept evolution. Now, all you have to realize is that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely Differnt, given enough steps have been taken.
I know species of animals develop over time and show different features.
And that's all evolution is about. Every other thing is a logical consequence (no, not the origin, that's irrelevant).
But if your version of evolution includes the idea that species can develop so much change that they become a new species, then i dont believe that there is any evidence for that.
So, all the evidence we have does not exist? You can even find the evidence on wikipedia, or google scholar, jus type in speciation, and voila, there you go (on google scholar, there are currently 324,000 articles about speciation, that's a lot for something we don't have evidence of).
I agree that many creation storys are rediculous...but not so with the bibles creation account which is why I accept it over other stories such as Brahman for instance.
Yes, completely arbitrarily believing one account over another makes that one account true....
The bible creation account shows animals created according to their 'kinds' and going forth to multiply. this is in perfect harmony with what breeding projects have found with regard to species. Species reproduce according their parents.
Of course, just like evolution says they will. The children will be a bit different from their parents though, as will their children be. This difference is never big enough to stop them looking very much like there parents, yet never completely so. Look at yourself, you don'texactly look like your mother and father, do you? Now then, after a million generations, what makes you think all those small changes could not have added up and there is a very different species then the "original species", but very similar to it's own parents?
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My 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
We know that pairs of what are called different species of animals can interbreed and produce hybrids. As, for example, lions and tigers; horses and donkeys; sheep and goats; finches and uhm, other finches?
i did look up some sites about these sorts of hybrids and found it quite intersting. One site did say that in the wild, lions and tigers would not normally breed though...this only happens because man interferes with them. Also, the offspring are infertile so it kind of backs up the point i made about the species barrier...they can only go so far.
Iblis writes:
So what I got to thinking was, a nice proof that this argument was wrong would be an animal A who could interbreed with animal B, and an animal C who could also interbreed with animal B, even though animal A could not possibly interbreed with animal C. Assuming evolution was right, we ought to have gobs of these kind of situations, right?
Ring Species!!
to be honest, i havent read a great deal about ring species. What is known about the genetics of the various ring species?
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
Then you accept evolution. Now, all you have to realize is that small steps will inevitably lead to something completely Differnt, given enough steps have been taken.
that is pure speculation
No one had been around long enough to see an entirely new species develop. Everything we have today is the same as it was millions of years ago.
Huntard writes:
So, all the evidence we have does not exist?
perhaps the evidence you have has been fitted into the existing theory.
Huntard writes:
Now then, after a million generations, what makes you think all those small changes could not have added up and there is a very different species then the "original species", but very similar to it's own parents?
with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same. We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.
show me where we have changed dramatically? (and dont show me an ape)
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
Thank god you creationists are here to tell evolutionary biologists what evolution is all about. Sadly you all think that it is only about what Darwin wrote and tend to ignore the subsequent 150 years of research.
We do also see both of those things that were in your quote, and you going "LA, LA, LA!" with your fingers in your ears doesn't change that. Just because you have an insane creationist understanding of the concept of what 'becomes a new species' actually means doesn't mean that what it actually means in evolutionary terms, two supopulations from an originally interbreeding population becoming reprodcutively isolated (post-mating for a strong biological species concept), doesn't happen.
with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same. We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.
So all the people with polydactyly and syndactyly simply don't exist? Plus way to once again present the idiotic creationist strawman version of what evolution should look like?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
No it isn't. Look up "speciation" on google scholar (324,000 articles) and then tell me there's no evidence for it.
No one had been around long enough to see an entirely new species develop.
We've seen them develop, both in the wild and in the lab.
Everything we have today is the same as it was millions of years ago.
Yes, like Modern humans... Who weren't around millions of years ago...
perhaps the evidence you have has been fitted into the existing theory.
Not really no.
with all the billions of people who have ever lived on this earth, we still all look the same.
No we don't. We look differnet from homo sapiens of 200,000 years ago. Not by much, but there hasn't been much pressure on humans to evolve further, since we can fit adapt the environment to fit our needs, bu still, there are some differences between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens.
We have not changed our physical form, we still have 1 head on our sholders and 2 legs beneath our torso and 2 arms with 10 fingers on each hand.
Of course, there's not been much pressure. Just like evolution predicts.
show me where we have changed dramatically? (and dont show me an ape)
Ok.
No, that's not an ape, and yes, that is our ancestor. Now, tell me we haven't changed from that?
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My 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
Let's not turn this thread into a catch-all evolution discussion. At the very very least the conversation should be education related. If anybody wants to discuss the present but basically off topic subjects elsewhere - there are existent threads for just about all of them, or create a new one. Here are two for a start:
Isnt that why evolution is so fiercly contested by creationists?
No. Evolution is so fiercely contested by creationists mainly because it turns "THE creation story" into allegory. Most of the rest of the bible can still be taken at face value, even in light of the facts of evolution, provided you view it as no more than a history book.
But wait! THE creation story can still be *true* if you don't actually thk A&E were actual humans, but just the first lifeforms.
*on a side note (which hopefully isn't too far off topic):
I asked on semi-almost-creationist friend of mine what race he thought A&E were. He said caucasion. I almost fell out of my chair. Do they really think that caucasion's were the first people? Was jesus caucasion as well?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
I didn't intend what i wrote to be taken LITERALLY. of course I know the bible is not a history book.....at least not the way we see actuall history books. I meant you can view it to gain perspective of what our ancestors thought. Isn't that still history?
Jesus would have looked very much like any other male Israelite at the time, that's why Judas had to identify Him with a kiss.
He would not be blue eyes or white and certainly not have long hair.
(psst: That was a rhetorical question.)
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan
No. Evolution is so fiercely contested by creationists mainly because it turns "THE creation story" into allegory. Most of the rest of the bible can still be taken at face value
no it can't. The bible is the communication from the one who created the man and woman in his image, and all the animals 'according to their kinds'
he does not say that the put molecular life on the earth and allowed it time to evolve. He says he created each kind of animal and finally created the human man and woman as separate creations.
This is exactly why christians contest evolution.
Hooah212002 writes:
But wait! THE creation story can still be *true* if you don't actually thk A&E were actual humans, but just the first lifeforms.
Jesus christ spoke about A&E as real people. They are even listed in his geneolgy...so if they are not real, then nor is Jesus.
hooah212002 writes:
on a side note (which hopefully isn't too far off topic): I asked on semi-almost-creationist friend of mine what race he thought A&E were. He said caucasion. I almost fell out of my chair. Do they really think that caucasion's were the first people? Was jesus caucasion as well?
Not all christians think that. The reason why some might is because most christians dont study their own religion. They should know that he was not a caucasian because caucasian people are decended from Noahs son Japheth who was the progenitor of the Aryan or Indo-European (Indo-Germanic) branch of the human family. The son Shem gave the line of Jews/Cannanites/Assyrians/Aramaeans etc.
It is pretty funny though to see a picture of Jesus with blonde hair...makes me cringe lol
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
No it isn't. Look up "speciation" on google scholar (324,000 articles) and then tell me there's no evidence for it.
I know about speciation...there was a discussion on it here recently where I pointed out that the Golapogas finches were said to have developed into new species...but the facts are that the finch's are still finch's
Each 'kind' of animal has the genetic potential for great variety, thats why there are more then 400 different breeds of dogs. You might call it speciation, but the reality is that they are all still dogs.
Huntard writes:
No, that's not an ape, and yes, that is our ancestor. Now, tell me we haven't changed from that?
so a skull with a thick brow means a different species?
Im sure you could still find some people with very thick brows
Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
