|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
While much condescending and generic Creationalist bashing is evident here, even accusing them of being illiterate, the most fundamental factors have been avoided by Evolutionists in this thread. This indicates a tunnel vision, akin to a Talibanic dogma, which uses manipulative and unsustained premises to evidence their claims.
Firstly, the most vital part of evidencing Evolution is not in the minute research conducted - but the conclusions derived from it. Now this path can go cyclical and use up much posts and energy, and determine nothing conclusive. An Evolutionist is NOT going to ever say, GEE SORRY, I WAS SO WRONG! Forget it - they are today more dogmatic than any religionist they ridicule, but remain in denial of it. I would get around the minute details which evolutionists love to point to - and thereby derive at runaway unconnected conclusions - by asking those questions which must be evidenced well before reaching the research stage. Here's one fulcrum issue: Q 1: Is Evolution a verified 'constant' - and is this a universal constant, or a localised one which effects only one planet? How can one discuss a phenomenon without a definitive preamble of its status!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Retroviruses: are these limited to the 3rd rock from the sun - and why so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Re: "Retroviruses: are these limited to the 3rd rock from the sun - and why so?" Obviously, contesting darwin's cross-specie theory is not an easy task. I felt, one way to respond to retroviruses as evidence, is to challenge adaptation as a constant by its limitations. That's all #61 asks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its not about research but what conclusions are made from it I am debating. My arguement is not about adaptation either, but whether this is subsequent to a host seed or external factors such as a stump or root from millions of years ago. How else does one debate against cross-specie?
quote: What does that mean: that evolution is not a universal phenomenon, or is that a qualified statement?
quote: Changes, common to everything, and cross-species, are not obvious derivitive equations. The snap-shots of imprints do not automatically connect A with Z: its the conclusions drawn from the research which is my issue.
quote: How so - if adaptation is not seen outside earth, it has definitive impacts and limitations here - and not because no life is seen elsewhere. Its like gravity posited exclusively for earth, but not seen around other space bodies.
quote: Disagree. You are admitting a variance within the framework of ToE, as opposed rejecting the crucial and stand-out feature of cross-specie - which in effect is a negation of the fulcrum factor of ToE. 6000 years old: this is a main ridiculing tool of would-be evolutionists, but let's hope you don't read darwin the same way as you do Genesis!
quote: Disagree. Wrong conclusions can result from wrong readings of the researched evidence. Research is a technicality - the important part is what is concluded from it. Research can indicate growth and elevation (aka Adaptation), within a grouping of life forms; it may not apply outside that grouping. I understand your point, other scientists can question the ligitimacy of wrongfully extending adaptation to a cross-specie level if it is not justified - and this is occuring, but the debate is from a small sector to an entrenched worldly mindset. I also question your use of 'fact' for the 'theory' of Darwin's evolution: should there be no debating the issue anymore?
quote: No, I did not refer to nazism, but to today's most prominant dogma pervasive in current news. See what I mean about conclusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I appreciate your response - most evolutionists not like that question. With your response, it is not about comparisons with pi, etc. But if there is any inference that cross-specie is a result of some underlying laws - one way to test this is to look outside earth. What factors would allow adaptation to prevail or not prevail outside of earth? Here, life itself can be sited, namely adaptation is seen only where life exists. Other factors will include critical conditions. But both those reasons are contradictory: life's emergence is totally dependent upon adaptation, and adaptation has no meaning if it is limited to only the earth's critical conditions but not other critical conditions. These issues are not prevalent in life repro and all successive transmissions being subject to the host seed - here adaptation within a grouping is evidenced and appears a universal constant free from the issues nominated in darwin's cross-specie conclusions. The issue of a theory not seen as a universal constant is damaging; such issues are being debated quite recently only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Ice, the conclusion does not fit the research here. Let me point out the glitch in your analogy. Replace the exam paper 'error', with say a 'comma' being common in the two papers, but not necessarilly in the same equal locations. Would you still conclude as before? Of coz not! Now see that a certain virus with a specific signature (reverse mode rna-dna action), attacked numerous life forms (different species)- and let us assume also that the 'retrovirus' strand on all life forms is from an equivalent same source and period: would you still conclude that cross-species is proof positive here? No you cannot when seen in this perspective, anymore than deeming a 'hair' folicle on two different animals as proof. That a virus is embedded in dna, and a hair on the skin, does not change the principle of the logic - the equity of its spacetime does not prove a direct cross-specie subsequence. The issue becomes more encumbent when we are told this virus imprint remains intact - which means it is still around now, and can attack an oak tree or a zebra, and perhaps even some food left open in a kitchen table. It may sound arrogant to question findings by the scientific community's minds and determinations, but these kind of 'poor' logic in conclusions are rampant, and a constant source of disputations in the science fields. Research and the conclusions derived by science is not always in sync; chess players make poor war generals. There is a huge mindset today which deems the odds for life outside the earth as very 'positive'. One of the reasons sited is the vastness and variety of the universe. But this is poor maths: the vastness and variety actually negate the odds and render the equation as 'NEGATIVE' for life out there! This is true to the extent we can safely conclude the probability of life outside earth is close to nil: the maths says so. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
LOL. Your getting desperate: what else did you think? I was born crying in english.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No sir! That has no impact, and I did factor it in. The same location in the dna genome map does not alter the principle: both life forms could have been/would have been infected the same manner by the same virus. Typhus virus also attack the same organ: the lungs.
quote: Irrelevent.
quote: We're on the same page now.
quote: Agreed. But that does not support the runaway conclusion - and such a leap is only evidence of a desperation, and an antithesis of a scientific process leading to a vindicated conclusion.
quote: The math says the evidence negates life probability outside the earth: 1. We have an actual survey poll of the known universe: no life on our cloest neighbours (moon, mars); no life in the solar system (voyager mission); no life outside our solar system as per telescopic and radiation imprints. The factor of a poll of the known sector of the universe, overides the factor of 'no poll' of the unknown sectors of the universe. The unknown is more probably the same as the known than not: consider how you would bet of the unknown half of your village, if you knew that in half your village pigs don't fly! In fact, there is no other more conclusive method of estimating the unknown universe - save visiting every nook and corner, leaving not a single sector uncharted. 2. Re: Time and Distance factors. Science works by probability, not possibility. The time and distance factors say, that not all surrounding space bodies would be too far and too old: some would be new and relatively close; some would be more advanced than earth. If life exists, at least some would be advanced enough to break the treshold of distance (advancement being time related, as with this planet). this has not happened - no imprints of ET are found for 4.5 Billion years of this planet's history. 3. Re Conditions factor. The vast variety of conditions and different atmospheric mixes seen in the universe also favour a negative conclusion. This says that similar conditions are more possible than not, and the view that ours is a singularly unique mix is improbable; and if it is, then again it results in the negative, because we are then saying that life cannot prevail outside earth and siting its reason! 4. Re. Evolution/Adaptation. Here, the very theory of evolution can come apart, because it infers that it cannot occur elsewhere - else life would have emerged on the moon. The notion of adaptation cannot be that it only applies to prevailing over an earthly set of tough conditions; adaptation means prevailing on any adverse conditions, qualified only by 'within reason'. On earth we have life in the most inhospitable conditions, including poisonous volcanic cores and where no light penetrates. There is no valid reason that life does not exist in the diverse conditions in the known universe. The largely accepted Evolution theory basis says there should be millions of life forms out there, while the manifest situation casts a damaging impact on this theory. Fr certain, the manifest indicators say Evlution is not a universal constant, and an anomoly on earth. The latter is a contradiction of the universe structures being an intergrated system. The Q is: what does it mean if life is limited and unique to this planet? Any takers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Have a good holiday - but at least tell your view of life probability out there? Postive or negative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The relevent factor was, that a virus generally attacks and embeds in a same organ, not which location any virus attacks? I showed that this is true but of no impact.
quote: I think there's a dis-connect here. The relevent factor of my arguement pointed to the total absence of life in the known universe - namely one out of - take you pick: 8 trillion zillion!
quote: So? Think outside earth. Think adaptation. Think life forms addicted to helium? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Ever wonder how a cow gets all its sustainence from hay - but a lion would die off with the same diet?
This amazing feat is due to the cow being able to secrete a certain enzyme which converts the hay to protein. But for the lion, as well as for a human, there is no protein in hay. Adaptation is the ability to change the prevailing conditions to suit: like being able to extract a component on another space body and convert it to a life sustaining product. There is no *OTHER* meaning of adaptation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is a third option. Disregard the term, species, at least in the method of categorising life forms, and replace it with the broader margins of 'kind' as per genesis. This allows a far greater grouping of life forms, namely speech endowed humans are seen as one 'kind', and all animals - including 'all that creapeth upon the earth' and any protoypes applied to modern humans - become one 'kind'. How does this apply? This is the categorising method seen in Genesis, which is not based on zoology or botany, but from a premise applicable to humans. This does not mean darwin's species categorising is wrong or not useful, but that it is different. It means virus from fish and vegetation, two other 'kinds', will not effect different 'kinds', (a pineapple virus will not effect a zebra), but that a virus from one kind will effect life forms within that kind (an ape virus will effect a zebra). Here, a far greater allowance is made for cross species interaction than is realised. One may ask here, what about the recent bird flu virus, which mutated to also attack humans. Here, it relates to a virus which can attack different kinds, but not that it developed millions of years ago via dna mutations as depicted in your post: bird flu was probably not around that time, and the indications it manifest itself only recently, says it is resultant from a more recent factor.
quote: This says a virus can continue for millions of years via the host reproduction process, then pass on via cross-species transfer onto other life forms, or become part of a new life form when an elevation occurs. Now there is no doubt that when cross-species occurs, the host life form ends - so it is also included that certain traits of the host will continue with the newly evolved species, and certain traits will not be included. And this is due to the premise of 'adaptation' or NS, both of which signify a means to better adapt. Do you not see a contradiction here - namely that a new species can discard unwanted traits to elevate itself - yet still accept a deathremental virus? We must also assume here, that the infected life form does not seccumb from that virus for large epochs of time, yet become a dangerous virus carrying medium to other life forms: if there are any immunity factors here - it would pass on along with the dna retrovirus, thereby self-negating its alledged application - and we know that if the virus-carrying body survived for long epochs of time, this would certainly be due to an imunity factor. There are contradictions in the premise put forth. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps I should remind you - the first recording of life form categories was introduced in Genesis. Of coz there is evidence here - more so than you can provide. 99.9% of all life form transmissions, including adaptation, natural selection and dna transmission, occur via the 'seed'; where does it fit in with your evidence? The latter is not superfluous.
quote: It does. Else there is no successful cross-specie, thereby negating the principle it espouses. Are you saying, all forms of pre-h-sapians prevailed simultainiously? In any case, it is reasonable to assume the case in the conext. It is numerously stated that speciation is a perishment of a life form.
quote: If a virus is dna/rna embedded, it is heriditorial common ancestry, same as any other dna traits. It is selective to chose your traits. My point was if the virus is dna-prevalent, it is a transferable one.
quote: But it CAN occur - along with some consequences - so where has it been factored in?
quote:No impact. Equally, it can readily be transferred. Here, its consequence must be factored in. quote: So now we have negated heriditory factors, while enumerating transmissions of traits - maybe it does not suit you! What if this was the case, and there is good reason to believe it can happen - have you not heard of gene related propencity?
quote: There was no explaination which meets the conclusion derived.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Of coz it is a legitimate means of categorising. Speech, more than skeletal or dna imprints is what differentiates modern humans. Further, 'all' the animals, categorised as a 'kind', have no such attribute despite the time advantage. Its like those tests: tick off the stand-out difference in all these 1.2 million life forms: you arrive at Genesis' 'kind' category. There is no law which says you have to be in a fixed tunnel vision and no other view is allowed!
quote: I did. Bird flu. Also, mad cow.
quote: Yes, never mind. It was an example based on the principle.
quote: I was avoiding the specie term when replacing it with 'kind'. One does not have to impress scientific terms to be scientific. Chess players make lousy war generals.
quote: Never mind the placenta: do you agree that a virus, aside from your stated reasons, can be passed on? If yes, there has to be a filtration mechanism for rejecting this with speciation - else there will be no speciation! Its like saying life adapted - but had no adaptation mechanism - which is a contradiction.
quote: That does'nt make sense! Suddenly, the host is not in control - the virus is. Yes I realise a virus adapts to survive, and quite engeniously, but the host could not survive and effect speciation unless it had the control to survive a virus which 'could' kill it, regardless if the virus decided not to kill the host. Your view says speciation is subject to the virus decision - which is a damaging impact on this principle.
quote: Rare occurence - who's measured it - its not even factored in? But this is not what I'm sying: I believe you rested this factor to promote speciation.
quote: I'm not a rocket scientist, but I have studied science - and also math, logic and history. I respect science fully - but some theories are mistakenly taken for fact. Speciation, as with the entire premise of evolution, is still classed as a theory. It is unscientific to disregard this. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This was expressed as relating to evolution.
quote: That's a deflection. The point is, one can create categories based on any of numerous factors, depending on the application - eg: speed, beauty, brain, biology, etc. It is correct that addressing the issue of fulcrum differences, covering all generations, that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not. I put it to you, any other answer would get you an 'F' in a test of name the difference between animals and humans!
quote: Incorrect. My reference to virus was to say that with cross-species occuring, a dna-embedded virus can be transmitted also.
quote: The relevence depends on the application. The point it related to is, if a virus can be transmitted, deathremental to the host, either there is a filtering system - or the premise of adaptation suffers. Accepting deathremental baggage is not a good means of survival. It seems there is a selection process here - not regarding the host and virus, but on your own preferred basis. Else relevent and impacting factors should be considered.
quote: Again, this is a selective view - it is not very remote when considering the odds contained in evolution, nor does 'remote' odds negate the principle it can happen. As I said, this is not even factored it, so remote becomes mute. You should consider what situation results when a host takes on board a fatal virus - because it can happen - and the host can die - and speciation will fail.
quote: I did. And these infections are recent - not millions of years old. Recently, AIDS is also seen as such a possibility. But what is it you are saying - if a new virus can effect animals and humans - does your premise become dented? - I am trying to avoid a cyclical debate here.
quote: A reason should be given if its off topic: the debate concerns most convincing arguement for evolution - I don't see any veerings here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024