|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution makes no sense | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: oh spiff..... please please please single me out for your hatred!!!!!! ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: okie dokie Take a shot at something. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ewwwww.... icky
[QUOTE][b]It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect.[/QUOTE] [/b] I hope you don't equate rebutting you arguments with not listening to you.
quote: So we start off guilty? Is this cold war preemptive strike logic? Geez...
quote: Everything is a transitional form in that the population it is a part of is changing very very slowly. There are mountains of evidence connecting various critters.
quote: You mentioned 'mutation' then quickly forgot about it. Genes do not replicate with 100% accuracy. There are errors, hence not all the genes match exactly the DNA of the parent organism(s).
quote: Perhaps you can precisely define 'basic kind.' No one has yet to do so, that I can tell.
quote: Are wolves dogs?
quote: If you alter a gene such that it has a different amino acid sequence than it had, is this not new? It was not there before....
quote: This is simply wrong. Not all mutations are harmful-- most are perhaps, but not all. One mutations for example, allows a bacteria to digest nylon-- not a bad trick when food is scarce. Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.
quote: A wristwatch is a terrible analogy. For one, a wristwatch isn't self-replicating. Even the most simple organism is many times more complicated. Ever notice that a wristwatch isn't ALIVE?
quote: This is called Social Darwinism and it isn't part of the ToE.
quote: This is a very simplistic application of natural selection to human society. Look up a field of anthropology called 'cultural ecology' Human society is far more complicated than people killing each other and strangely enough, it all has adaptive value. Think about it. No one would live very long if we were driven solely by the desire to destroy the weak. Ever notice that everyone thinks that everyone else is inferior? So WHY would this trait be selected for? Or, more accurately, why would this be the only trait selected for? Why not some other traits as well, that tone down this violence? Your argument is inconsistent.
quote: Natural selection has no forethought at all. Eyes function at every level of evolution. At first as a vague light sensor, then as a little bit better sensor and so on. What you posit isn't evolution.
quote: Are viruses alive? No bodies. No brains. No respiration. No digestion.
[QUOTE][b]3. Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder. [/QUOTE] [/b] All a system needs is power and it will develop order of a sort. Take convection currents in a pot of water on the stove.
quote: How do you figure? Seem like they would be much better designed for the environment if they were created to live in it.
[QUOTE][b]2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor.[/QUOTE] [/b] Why? The designer ran out of designs for molars?
quote: Statements are not arguments. Care to elaborate?
quote: Ok.
quote: You never get an exact duplicate ('cept for twins) How is this circular? You never ever ever return to the same starting point.
quote: Sure it can. Humans are social creatures. Outside of society we don't survive well. But as you mentioned earlier, there is a tendency towards selfishness and barbarism. Emotions like love bond us together. Its a balancing act.
quote: That order an independence is a vicious arms race. It isn't some kind of utopia. Things kill other things-- a lot.
quote: Humans are animals.
quote: Based on what?
quote: All you need is a tiny little self-replicating molecule to get things started. You do not need billions of parts or whole organisms falling together by chance.
quote: These are descriptions of how things now work. They are not binding laws.
quote: I spent five years in college studying anthropology/archeology. The process doesn't work like this. There is an enormous amount of measurement, comparison, math, geoscience, etc, etc....
quote: And evolutionists corrected the problem as well.
quote: And you've analyzed the macro and microscopic wear patterns and the fracture patterns to determine that these are just rocks, not tools?
quote: Again, there are distictive patterns which can be analyzed if care is taken to do so.
quote: So there are extinct hominids. Big deal. There are extinct horses, and extinct birds, and extinct whales. Ancestor does not mean 'part-human'
quote: No one is going to argu this point. But so what?
quote: Wrong. Just wrong. All apes share a lot of charicteristics with humans. Monkeys share a bit fewer characteristics. Lemurs and lorises fewer still. All the way back to this little mouse-like thing with opposable thumbs.
quote: A monkey skull is not like every other monkey skull. They all have distinguishing characteristics.
quote: Just as we would expect if we evolved from primate stock.
quote: What final three? And stop with the part ape bit.
quote: There is not a single complete and consistent flood model that can explain the rock strata, much less explain it better than mainstream geology.
quote: Where did you hear this? Animals generally require rapid burial to fossilize, and then a tremendous amount of time.
quote: A lot of fossils show just this sort of damage. Bacteria don't eat bone.
quote: But this pattern isn't found in the fossil record. Besides which, smaller animals would be suspended by the currents for a longer period and would be deposited at the top.
quote: But fish swim... and so should have the best chance of all to survive, though they would ultimately succumb to the destructionn of thier habitat. Fish ought to be deposited high up.
quote: Not even close.
quote: ummm..... the fossils simply are in the rock sediment. How can you argue with this?
quote: Like for example?
[QUOTE][b]In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years.
[/QUOTE] [/b] Where? Cite something. Roots do not count. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: oooooo..... all that Latin..... Anticipating Conspirator's response..... but there ARE NO TRANSITIONALS between the species/fossil's you named!!!! ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[b]The reason that I didn't show you guys any respect is because I don't know how you people will react in a debate.[/QUOTE] [/b] Like I said, we start off guilty.
[QUOTE][b]quote: Could you show me this evidence?[/quote] [/b] Well, for starters, this idea is embedded in the ToE. Evolution doesn't propose that creatures jump from one form to another in one huge leap, but that the characteristics of the individuals within a population change slowly over many generations. Evidence? You can follow the slow morphological changes of limbs all the way from pre-dinosaur ocean life to modern animals.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/2/l_042_01.html http://www.teaching-biomed.man.ac.uk/student_projects/2000/mnzo7cas/evolution.htm http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/projects97/Kagle.html [QUOTE][b]I don't know if I can precisely define "basic kind," but I can tell you what I think it means.[/QUOTE] [/b] A large part of your initial argument depends upon the concept of 'kinds' whether you realize it or not. That argument in indefensible if you cannot define 'kind' very specifically and give evidence to back it up.
[QUOTE][b]John:Are wolves dogs? Yes. What's your point?[/QUOTE] [/b] The point is to push you toward defining a 'kind'. Are house-cats and cheetahs the same kind, or different kinds? Are baboons and monkeys the same kind? Horses and donkeys?
quote: Random mutation. This is a measurable effect. A chromosome is never copied perfectly. It is always being changed slightly by copying errors.
quote: Because the people who had the harmful mutations died. The people who had helpful mutations lived and reproduced, thereby passing along those mutations. Besides, even small changes to a gene can result in massive changes to an organism.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-02g.html quote: [/b] Then why use the argument you did against the ToE?
quote: Look at all the people who band together for a common good. The family is an example. Cities, states, governments, trade alliances....
quote: http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html quote: Acid eats bodies. It isn't alive. Viruses actually don't eat in any real sense of the word anyway. They just reproduce. That's it. No eating, no drinking, no mating, no nothing. The point is to show you how fine the line is between living creatures and chemistry. We have today a class of organism-- the virus-- which doesn't meet most of the requirements for being a living organism. Why, then is it so hard to imagine abiogenesis?
quote: What? This sounds nothing like natural selection.
[QUOTE][b]How do I figure? Being created for the environment sounds the best to me.. Organisms adapt to environments.[/QUOTE] [/b] How do they adapt? This is the question evolution answers.
quote: Sure you have. Bacteria are becoming dangerously resistant to our anti-bacterial drugs due to our extensive use of those drugs over last century. This is just the sort of 'evolution into an environment' you claim hasn't happened.
quote: This doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE][b]Natural selction couldn't've evolved them to the environment because that would've taken much more time than natural selection had time to do that in...[/QUOTE] [/b] hmmm.... have you done the math? Studied the math? Do you even know how much time we are dealing with?
quote: You really need to get a grip on your terminology. Natural selection is NOT a disorderly system. Natural selection isn't even a system. The environment is a system. The planet is a system. Systems are collections of interelated parts, like a machine. The idea of natural selection describes a small part of the system. It describes how and which mutations accumulate in a population.
quote: Look around you!!! The planet is complicated but hardly disorderly. It is self-ordering, like marbles in a jar.
quote: The organisms you see today did not HAVE TO evolve. Billions of different organisms could have evolved. It just so happens that the one we see are the ones that actually did evolve.
quote: You should figure it out. This idea runs through several of your initial arguments. If you can't refute this, you have to drop those arguements.
quote: We are animals who evolved from other animals.
quote: And what are those odds? Have you done the math? How did you make the calculations?
quote: [/b] You don't have to have a fully functioning cell pop out of the primordial slime. All that needs to happen is for a small molecule to start making copies of itself. Something like this one http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html That molecule via copying errors, slowly becomes more like what we think of as life.
quote: Laws of science are descriptions of data. They are not binding. New data can cause the laws to be refined or otherwise modified. Newton's Laws of Gravity for example, don't work at the core of black hole. The black hole is not bound to obey them. Newton got the description wrong-- well, only partially right. Einstein did much better by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. Better? Einstein's equations describe more of the data than Newton's equations do.
quote: Yes, there are. Australopithicus afarensisAustralopithicus africanus Australopithicus robustus Australopithicus boisei Homo habilis Homo erectus Homo ergaster Homo Neanderthalensis quote: Anscestor means 'those organisms from whom the organism in question descended'
quote: Its more complicated than that. Size isn't the best indicator of descent. But there are countless measurable traits that can be tracked. Things like peculiar cranial features that persist through hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.
quote: You objected that no supposedly human skulls had been found outside the range of other types of primate. Assuming you are talking about the distant past (because now human skulls can be found in place where other primates don't live), you would expect to find pre-modern human skulls in exactly those places where other primates lived at the time.
quote: Care to name those 'final three'? There is no such thing as a part ape/monkey part human. There never was and no one claims there was. We are talking about the Island a Dr. Moreau. There were a string of anscestor critters, but they were no more part ape part human than a wolf is part dog.
quote: A big flood is not a global flood. Maybe you don't realize the significance of the difference, both scientifically and theologically.
quote: Damage? Scarring patterns suggesting that the animal had been killed by predators or gnawed on my scavengers. You suggested that a carcass would be destroyed by bacteria if it were not fossilized rapidly. Bacteria do not destroy bone. This portion of the argument fails.
quote: The PATTERN YOU DESCRIBED!!!! ..... the circulating water of the flood (along with gravity)would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the abilty to temporarily avoid the flood, woudl be buried close to the top. You described the order of fossils in the geological record as you feel it would occur in the event of depostion by flood. This is not the pattern observed in the actual strata.
quote: You've missed the point. The fish would be some of the last creatures to die and so would deposit at the top.
[QUOTE][b]How?[/QUOTE] [/b] There is no evidence at all pointing towards a global flood.... none.... zero.....
quote: Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard? Back up what you say. That's all I ask.
quote: Then don't bring it up. Are you just spewing out something you heard? Back up what you say. That's all I ask.
quote: Plants and animals diverged from common stock not one from the other.
quote: Of course, happens a lot I imagine. quoteFailure of Logic: begging the question. Statement is meaningless. Whatever you say.. And what the heck does this mean?[/quote] http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm [QUOTE][b]And I have done adequate journal searches...[/QUOTE] I doubt that. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So, where'd you go, Conspirator? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I was thinking about that too. If you start from Conspirators registration date, July 18, and take gene's post on the 23rd as the cut-off date, then he made it 5 days. If however, you start with C's first real post on the 22nd, he lasted ONE day!!!! Sheesh.... I thought he hated us much more than that. I mean, you'd think all that hate would provide more momentum than one day. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, I am sad that my last post shall die an unresponded death. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Hi Quetzal... Welcome back. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[B]And I didn't copy and paste anything from my first lengthy post because that would be a little something called "plagerism" which is illegal.[/quote] [/b] I, for one, am happy you are back. Now, your posts are freakishly like the posts gene found. Your posts are almost exact copies. This doesn't happen by chance. Someone is a plagarist. Are you the plagarist, or is it the people who wrote the articles gene found who are plagarizing you?
quote: ahhh.... the sweet smell of hubris..... So come on now. I'm dealing with it. I'm over it. So how 'bout replying to my previous post? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024