Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:28 AM
35 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Stile, vimesey, xongsmith (7 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,595 Year: 9,631/19,786 Month: 2,053/2,119 Week: 89/724 Day: 21/68 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 256 of 295 (448069)
01-11-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by ICANT
01-11-2008 8:30 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:

I did leave out one solid chemical that I know a little about and that is fertilizer.

Thanks for your support concerning my observations in Message 252

Comic relief it is (although speaking for myself, I generally prefer my comedy to be more sophisticated).


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 8:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 257 of 295 (448070)
01-11-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by anglagard
01-11-2008 7:56 PM


Re: ICANT be Taken Seriously
Hi anglagard,

I see you are the same as usual. But please don't have a heart attack and die laughing at all my jokes.

anglagard writes:

when confronted by the fact that the actual Lucy fossil is at the Natural History Museum in Houston, right now, refuse to apologize for your obvious mistake.

You may believe the actual Lucy fossil is in Houston, I am not convinced she is.

I do not remember saying the one there was a fake I thought I said a replica which is a little different.

I did say concerning the 8 different replicas that have been shown as replicas of Lucy had some major problems and they don't match so they have to be called something beside replicas of Lucy. I will let you decide what to call them.

Have fun,

I would go more with comic relief.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by anglagard, posted 01-11-2008 7:56 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 258 of 295 (448073)
01-11-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Tanypteryx
01-11-2008 6:49 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Tanypteryx,

Chemicals consist of the chemical elements found on the periodic table of elements and mixtures of these elements are called chemical compounds. Chemicals can be solids, liquids or gases.

Thanks, but I didn't say I did not know what chemicals were only that what I knew about was liquid. And I had forgotten that I did know a little about fertilizer.

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-11-2008 6:49 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 295 (448094)
01-11-2008 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by ICANT
01-11-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT

You have whetted my appetite so more information please.

My pleasure. What do you want to know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 5:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 260 of 295 (448103)
01-11-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by ICANT
01-11-2008 8:30 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:

Very believable.

Thank you for reading what I said not what everybody thought I should say.

You're thanking me for pointing out that you really are as ignorant as you seem?

I feel much like Anglagard. Since you're either not interested in or not capable of informed discussion, why are you here?

Members like you always attract a crowd, because the mistakes you make and the things you don't know are so simple and obvious that everyone believes they can be remedied with a few short explanations. I'm sure it comes as a surprise to everyone that such ignorance and confusion can persist across hundreds of posts of useful, relevant information.

A small part of the problem (a very small part) is that this topic is has been allowed to wander all over evolution, but we're so close to 300 posts there's no point in clarifying things now.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 8:30 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 9:12 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 AM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19878
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 261 of 295 (448143)
01-12-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Percy
01-11-2008 11:47 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
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.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 01-11-2008 11:47 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 262 of 295 (448185)
01-12-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Percy
01-11-2008 11:47 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

I'm sure it comes as a surprise to everyone that such ignorance and confusion can persist across hundreds of posts of useful, relevant information.

I would like to examine some of that useful, relevant information if I may.

In Message 45 subbie in answer to a question by jrtjr1 said:

jrtjr1 writes:

Great, give me an example of a transitional form.


subbie writes:

Here are an assload of 'em.

Very informative and educational.

In Message 90 I asked a question. How did we get from there to here today.

jar informs me in Message 99

jar writes:

one step at a time.

In Message 100 I said:

ICANT writes:

Sorry jar with only 550 million years they had to be giant steps not small ones as there was not enough time for the small ones.

jar says in Message 101

jar writes:

Five hundred and fifty million years is a long time.

I suppose compared to 3 billion years 550 million years is a long time. jar said so.

jar writes:

Now do you have anything related to the topic?

Since how we got from there to here is a scientfic theory that is taught as a fact I thought it was related to the topic.

So jar pointing out my stupid notion it was related was very enlightning.

Ringo was very helpful also.

Message 79

Ringo writes:

Now show us the barrier that prevents small steps adding up to big evolution.


Message 83
Ringo writes:

Where's the barrier to macroevolution?


Message 89
Ringo writes:

Where's the barrier between Lucy and you?


Message 92
Ringo writes:

I'm asking you where's the barrier that prevents Lucy (or something like her) from becoming human after many generations.


Message 95
Ringo writes:

And I've asked you repeatedly, where is the barrier that prevents a hominid contemporary to Lucy from micro-evolving into you?


Message 111
Ringo writes:

I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. Do you think there's a barrier that prevents small changes from one generation to the next adding up to big changes? If so, please tell us what that barrier is.


Message 117
Ringo writes:

I think I've been pretty clear throughout the thread. Big changes are from single-cell to Lucy or from Lucy to you. Specifically, what barrier prevents that?


Message 129
Ringo writes:

Show me the barrier to evolution and I'll believe in it.


Message 134
Ringo writes:

Why are you still avoiding the simple question? What prevents the changes from accumulating?

Iasion adds words of wisdom.

Message 137

Iasion writes:

Ringo (as she* so often does) asked just the right question -
what is the barrier between a Lucy-like creature evolving into us?
Not only does ICANT fail to identify a barrier, he can't even accept a POSSIBLE connection between Lucy and us.

Why do I have to accept a possible connection between Lucy and us?
Especially when I don't believe there is even a remote possibility of that being possible.

Message 145

Ringo writes:

All I'm asking is for any kind of evidence that the difference between you and your father can't be extended to the difference between you and Lucy.


Message 150
Ringo writes:

Oh come on. Transmute is the verb, transmutation is the noun. The meaning doesn't change.

Perfect information according to Ringo but not the dictionary.

Message 168

Ringo writes:

There's no "statement" there. It's a question. You claim there's a barrier. I'm saying, "Show me."


Ringo writes:

Of course I did. I said, "Show me the barrier." The barrier would be evidence. Your lame-assed "reasons" have no value whatsoever.


ICANT writes:

You are the one who keeps demanding that I name a barrier why Lucy can't be my ancestor. Which I have not and will not.

Ringo writes:

Thank you. You could have admitted that right from the beginning and saved a lot of wear and tear on my keyboard.

Really useful information.

Ringo asked 12 times for me to prove evolution did not take place.
Since when is it the responsibility of anyone to disprove something that has never been proven to be a fact in the first place?

Is this what you call useful, relevant information in a debate format. Now for more useful information.

In Message 104 Ned gave some informative information in answer to a question I asked.

ICANT writes:

Why don't you prove that they are my ancestors?


NoseyNed writes:

No one is going to "prove" that. It is however the very most reasonable conclusion to draw from the current evidence.

He rightly said: "No one is going to "prove" that."
But Ringo insisted that I prove the opposite.

Ned says this is the very most reasonable conclusion to draw from the current evidence.

For someone who believes that is the way it happened it would be the best conclusion.

But for someone that does not believe it happened that way it is just as reasonable to come to the conclusion it did not happen that way.

Let me point out a real problem here.

When we talk about things evolving everything is reasonable to the evolutionist. But it is just as unreasonable to the creationist.

When we talk about the Bible everything is reasonable to the creationist. But is just as unreasonable to the evolutionist.

Makes for very little communication. Just a lot of name calling.

Message 127 Ned asked me who was my anscestor at the time of Lucy.

Message 131

ICANT writes:

Why do I have to have an ancestor at that time?


Ned replyed with a question.
NoseyNed writes:

Do you have parents?


Real informative but I don't happen to get the relevance since I do not believe I descended from anything other than a pair of 100% modern humans.

Message 167

NoseyNed writes:

S.O.P. -- willful ignorance. Another write off.


Very useful.

DrJones has questions.

Message 183

ICANT writes:

With all these billions of creatures we should have a little more fossils than we have.


DrJones writes:

How many fossils should we have? show your work.

DrJones was refering to Message 182 Where I had entered information concering the extinction events and was questioning out of these undoubtly billions of creatures why we did not have more fossils.
So he wanted me to prove how many there should be.
Yes very useful.

I am going to stop there but I think you should get the picture from these few posts that I have pointed too.

Then you Percy proceed in Message 260 to tell me how ignorant I am because I had made a statement that all I knew about chemicals were liquid infering I knew nothing about the other chemicals.

Does it make you feel good to set on your high horse so to speak and talk down to everyone that comes on this site and claim to be a creationist Your attitude comes over to me as I am better than you I got a better education and you are just a stupid fool and I will show you for the idiot you are all the time telling them you are here for them to learn.

Makes you feel like God don't it. Did you know that is what Eve was trying to accomplish in the garden.

Percy you put your britches on the same way I do one leg at the time.
One day if I am right you will stand before the God you say does not exist and bow your knee and confess that He is God. I will be standing there and I will say I told you so.
If you are right you got nothing to lose.

Now as far as this statement:

Percy writes:

why are you here?

I stated in the beginning I was here to learn and whether you believe it or not I have been able to learn a lot from research and reading different posts. RAZD, Modulous, and sidelined have been of tremendous help. A few others have been of help. But all the creationist bashers have been of absolutly 0 help, as they are to involved in their agenda. I have even learned from you Percy.

Now if you want to rephrase the question and ask why I am still here I have an answer for that one. Because I am not going to go away.

Now I am sure that if you so desire with a few mouse strokes you could make me disappear. That is up to you.

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 01-11-2008 11:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 01-12-2008 12:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Percy, posted 01-12-2008 12:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16671
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 263 of 295 (448203)
01-12-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by ICANT
01-12-2008 11:49 AM


ICANT writes:

Ringo asked 12 times for me to prove evolution did not take place.

No I didn't.

I asked you to show that it's impossible - that there's a barrier.

Why do I have to accept a possible connection between Lucy and us?
Especially when I don't believe there is even a remote possibility of that being possible.

When did I ever ask you to believe anything? You're welcome to believe that it isn't possible. I think I've told you that I couldn't possibly care less what you believe.

This is a science forum and I asked you to show why it isn't possible.


“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)

“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 264 of 295 (448205)
01-12-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by ICANT
01-12-2008 11:49 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi ICANT,

Naturally you believe you're doing a wonderful job, but your performance is not the topic of this thread. It only comes up when you make particularly noteworthy or spectacular gaffes. We're only human, after all. Even in the midst of serious discussion, or at least attempts to coax someone into serious discussion, no one can ignore the clown slipping on the banana peel. When you engage in discussion primarily with quips and errors instead of evidence and argument then you shouldn't be surprised when you're not taken seriously.

But why don't you let the rest of this thread serve as a demonstration of how wrong I am. If you're so inclined, you can start with the messages from me that you ignored, Message 205 and Message 206, but there's lots of other messages from others with substantial information that you've ignored.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 11:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 265 of 295 (448252)
01-12-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
01-10-2008 11:36 AM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Percy,
Message 264
Percy writes:

But why don't you let the rest of this thread serve as a demonstration of how wrong I am.

I am game to give it a go although it is very hard for me to think of the process as 3 seperate events.

In Message 190 You commented on a statement I made to Taz:

ICANT writes:

This is one of the most amazing things about creatures springing up using natural selection and survival of the fittest. You have to have 2 to start and they can survive and produce millions. But when the populations get low they can't survive. Something is wrong with this picture of evolution as presently taught.

Percy writes:

For the umpteenth gazillionth time, what you think evolution is isn't being taught, except by creationists at their websites and in their books and lectures. New species do not begin with a single pair. Species evolve as populations. For sexual species, the genetic diversity of a single pair is likely far too low for the species to be viable, inbreeding being only one of the problems.

I wanted to start out with a pair. You said it didn't work that way that they evolved as populations.

In Message 193

ICANT writes:

Let me try to understand this.
I have always thought there was one single cell life form that appeared out of the absence of anything.

I was stating I thought that the first life form was singular that it only happened one time.

Message 193

Percy writes:

We were talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life. I think it would be better to focus on just one thing at a time, don't you?

You wanted to concentrate on after life began. But either it happened one time or many times, and you got to have that first life form or forms before anything is going to happen. We will not get into how it came into being. I know the evolution answer that is abiogenesis and we don't know. I got no problem with that.

Now back to the search.

Message 193

Percy writes:

You said that there was once a population of only two carrier pigeons that over time increased to over five billion. I explained that it was unlikely for there to have ever been a time in the passenger pigeon's evolutionary history when their population was reduced to a single pair. Species evolve gradually as populations.

Here you state that is was unlikely that there was ever just a pair of passenger piegons.

You said they evolved as a population.

In Message 200

ICANT writes:

Now if thousands, millions or billions of creatures came on the scene at one time it would lead me to believe that back at the beginning the same thing would have had to happen. That there had to be whatever number we choose evolving parallel to each other to arrive at a number more than two.

I said if many creatures came on the scene at one time.
That it would lead me to believe that we would have to go back to the beginning and the same thing happen.
I then narrowed it down to whatever number we choose evolving parallel to each other to arrive at your population of more than 2.

Message 205

Percy writes:

Actually, I've been trying to say the exact opposite, that millions and billions of a new type of creature do not appear at the same time. Sexual species evolve as populations of interbreeding organisms, and they evolve very gradually in tiny, tiny steps.

Here you say "I have been saying the exact opposite. NO millions or billions.

Then you say:
Message 205

Percy writes:

After 10,000 generations our population, which has always maintained a population of several million, now has 0% A-like traits and 100% B-like traits.

Now you start out with several million A and end up with several million B.

Sounds good then you say:

Message 205

Percy writes:

Notice that there was no point in time when several million B's just suddenly popped into existence. The evolution of the population of A's into a population of B's occurred very gradually one tiny transition at a time.

This one I don't understand. I need help Percy.

Because now I become a creationest and I have questions.

We start out at ground zero with several million.
At 2500 generations what would this population look like? Maybe A because they haven't changed enough.
At 5000 generations what would this population look like? Not like A and not like B so what would this population look like.
At 7500 generations this population definetly would not look like A and would look more like B maybe.
At 10000 generations A has become B and looks nothing at all like A and probably nothing like they did at 5000 generations.

Now the creationist in me says where are the fossils of the population when they were at the half way point 5000 generations.

As I said Percy I need help here.

Lets say that several million was 10 million.
Over 10000 generations thats at least 50 billion + boddies along the way.

This is why creationist are always crying where are the fossils.

Message 201

ICANT in Message 201 writes:

The fact remains that I am looking for the tons of evidence that I have read on this site exists that proves evolution beyond a shadow of doubt.

You keep telling me it does not exist.

I do not know if you noticed in this quote I said you keep telling me it does NOT exist.

I was not saying you said that because you never have that I remember of but there are others here that have said it many times.

Message 205

Percy writes:

Proof of evolution beyond a shadow of doubt? Of course not.

Well then Percy I believe in evolution stronger than you do then because I believe there are things that have changed over time. I am 68 years old have raised many hybred crops, achieved some dramatic changes with selective breeding. Yes change over time happens and that is a fact.

That is not the question. The question is there enough time to get from a single cell life form to where we are today through a process of small changes over time with natural selection, survival of the fittest or weakest with the extinction events all playing their parts in the process.

You are correct in saying evolution has not been proven beyong a shadow of a doubt. In fact that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to many.

Message 205

Percy writes:

Circumstantial evidence is a legal term, not a scientific one. Scientific observations can be indirect, but it would be very bad scientific practice to accept the equivalent of circumstantial evidence as anything more than an indicator of something worth looking into more rigorously.

I brought up circumstantial evidence because basicly that is all I have. I can search sites on the web and get lots of opinions. I can go to sites like Dr. Hawking's site. I can gather information. I can look at pictures like the Lucy skelletons. I can read mountains of information at the end of the day I have what somebody has said, their opinion, their findings. Then I can go to another site and find the opposite information. That man's opinion, and findings.

Now since I have nothing concrete a smoking gun for instance. A video tape of someone shooting the clerk in the store. I have to go on what someone else says. Their findings, Their beliefs. Since there has been many frauds brought to light by different groups even scientist whose word am I supposed to take.

Message 205

Percy writes:

Or it might be that evolutionary theory represents our best attempt at developing an accurate model that explains the diversity of life and earth, and that God is just fine with people figuring out how the real world really works.

Either way on that we will know the answer.
This part I will refrain from going any further.

Message 264

Percy writes:

If you're so inclined, you can start with the messages from me that you ignored, Message 205 and Message 206, but there's lots of other messages from others with substantial information that you've ignored.

Percy I started a little further back to be able to clarify my position a little better hope you don't mind.

Percy I noted Ringo in Message 263. posted a rebutal.

I hate to put you on the spot.

But is there anyway I can prove it was impossible for me to evolve from Lucy without proving it did not happen?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 01-10-2008 11:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by ringo, posted 01-12-2008 7:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 01-13-2008 11:47 AM ICANT has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16671
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 266 of 295 (448264)
01-12-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
01-12-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT writes:

But is there anyway I can prove it was impossible for me to evolve from Lucy without proving it did not happen?

Of course there is. Going back to the analogy, I'm asking you to prove I can't walk from coast to coast. I'm not asking you to prove I didn't do it.

Whether it happened or not is completely irrelevant to the question.


“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)

“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 6:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 267 of 295 (448318)
01-12-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ICANT
01-08-2008 1:37 AM


Re: God on the lab table - evolution in the present day.
you don't believe in speciation, which has been documented in laboratory settings?

Please read: Message 93

yes, in fact i had read message 93. the post you replied to was a reply to message 93. i was asking for clarification, and referring me back to the original message that needed clarifying does not help.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:37 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 268 of 295 (448390)
01-13-2008 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by ICANT
01-10-2008 4:23 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
quote:
Forgive my stupidity I have been reading about 1000's of partial animal fossils that are microscopic in size that has no bone mass but are perfectly preserved. These fossils are 800+ million years old.

So please forgive me if I am being unreasonable when I would expect that we could find fossils half the size of a man or elephant or dinasour that has bone mass.


You are still suffering from a lack of understanding of how fossilization occurs.

Here's another hint: Why do you think we have found a large number of fossils of bottom-dwelling marine animals like trilobites?

What about their environment was different compared to large, land-dwelling mammals which could affect rates of fossilization?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 4:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 340 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 269 of 295 (448392)
01-13-2008 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by ICANT
01-11-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
quote:
All chemicals I know about are liquid.

Wow.

Never heard of Oxygen gas?

I think you have just given us yet another glaring example of the poor state of science education in the US.

Geez, the only Chemistry class I ever took was in the 11th grade over 20 years ago and I despised it, but I managed to retain some minimal knowledge about atoms, molecules, elements, chemicals (solids, liquids, and gasses), and bonds.

At the risk of insulting your intelligence, ICANT, I will just tell you the embarrasingly obvious:

The "Chemicals" that you buy in plastic containers at the hardware store to kill the dandelions in your yard aren't the only kinds of chemicals that exist.

Hint: Think of vitamins and minerals. What are they made of? How does our body use them?

Think of red blood cells. What are they made of? How does our body use them?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 5:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 270 of 295 (448422)
01-13-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
01-12-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi ICANT,

As much as I would like to, I'm not going to try to convince you of how accurately and well science describes reality. I'll just focus on explaining the nature of science and its relevant evolutionary views, and you can accept or reject them as you wish. Whatever decision you make, at least it will be based upon what evolution actually is and says, rather than upon misconceptions.

ICANT writes:

Percy in Message 205 writes:

ICANT in Message 201 writes:

The fact remains that I am looking for the tons of evidence that I have read on this site exists that proves evolution beyond a shadow of doubt.

You keep telling me it does not exist.

Proof of evolution beyond a shadow of doubt? Of course not.

Well then Percy I believe in evolution stronger than you do then because I believe there are things that have changed over time. I am 68 years old have raised many hybred crops, achieved some dramatic changes with selective breeding. Yes change over time happens and that is a fact.

I'm happy to grant that change over time happens, but the difference of opinion is about evolutionary theory, not change over time. The evolutionary explanation of how change over time has produced the diversity of species we see today through a process of descent with modification through natural selection is tentative. It is not a fact, it is a tentative theory. It can and will change in light of new evidence or improved insight.

All scientific theories are tentative, including Newton's laws of motion. In science, "law" is just a synonym for "theory", and Newton's laws have already been falsified by Einstein's theory of relativity, which itself could one day be falsified.

So when I say evolution cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt, I'm not telling you anything at all about evolution but about the nature of science itself, because no scientific theory can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Scientific theories are considered tentative, not certain.

But scientific theories do have mountains of evidence supporting them, and they've gone through an intense process of review, replication and prediction validation, and so while our certainty of their validity can never reach 100%, we can still be extremely confident in them. When Newton's laws of motion were falsified by Einstein's relativity, it didn't suddenly mean that everyone who had ever calculated distance as being equal to velocity multiplied by time had gotten the wrong answer, because Newton's laws are completely accurate for non-relativistic velocities. We know so much today that new knowledge is almost always a refinement of past knowledge, not an invalidation or rejection of it.

But enough about the nature of science, let's move on to fossils:

As I said Percy I need help here.

Lets say that several million was 10 million.
Over 10000 generations thats at least 50 billion + boddies along the way.

This is why creationist are always crying where are the fossils.

You never responded to my earlier explanation, so I'll just repeat it, which began by asking a rhetorical question: Why aren't our forests awash in bird and squirrel skeletons in the process of fossilization?

The answer is that fossilization is rare. We only see in the fossil record creatures that happened to become preserved. We know almost nothing about the entire evolutionary history of upland creatures, because that is not an environment favorable to fossilization because upland regions are areas of net erosion rather than deposition. A dead upland creature is very unlikely to become buried and preserved. Most fossils come from layers deposited beneath shallow seas, and the next most common category comes from lowland and shore areas. Mountains erode away, lowland areas accumulate materials eroded from upland areas.

Creationist reasoning would conclude from the absence of fossils of upland creatures that upland creatures did not exist a million years ago, or 100 million years ago during the dinosaurs, or 300 million years ago during the Permian age of reptiles, that they did not exist ever until very recently. But of course hills and mountains existed during all eras, there were indigenous creatures to hills and mountains just like there are today, but they aren't regions likely to preserve any fossils.

Fossils are what were accidentally preserved. We can only find what was actually fossilized. If you think more creatures should be fossilized then I again suggest you walk through a forest and see if you can find a single squirrel or bird skeleton.

Let me relate an experience I've had more than several times over the years while mowing the yard. I'm pushing the mower along and notice a dead bird or chipmunk at the edge of the yard (I have cats who are already well fed and only interested in sport, which is how I suspect this happens), and I make a mental note to clean it up later, then I forget. The next week while mowing the yard I remember that I forgot to clean up the dead animal, but when I reach that point in the yard it is gone. It's always gone. Dead animals are food, and unless some lucky accident buries them and prevents their bodies from being attacked not only by scavengers but also by bacteria and fungus, which are present even underground, then it will not be preserved.

Fossilization is rare.

Moving on to how it is populations that evolve, and that new species do not suddenly pop into existence, one problem you had was that, like most evolutionists, I noted that the origin of species is a different topic than the origin of life. But you can project back to the origin of life using the same principles we use for evolution, except that we can no longer know what the mechanism for heredity was. There was a point before which DNA and genes and chromosomes existed. There's a mild consensus today that the first life was based on RNA, but there must have been something before RNA-life, and what was that?

The most important reason for distinguishing between the evolution of life as we know it today, versus the evolution of pre-life, is that we have little more than speculation at this point about the hereditary mechanisms of pre-life. Certainly the principles must have been the same, and so we believe that whatever replication mechanisms were in place were imperfect, and that selection operated on variation to produce populations of pre-life best adapted to their environment.

This means that populations of pre-life gradually evolved into populations of life. There was never an original cell. Rather there were populations of incredibly primitive pre-life that gradually evolved into populations of less primitive pre-life that gradually evolved into populations of merely primitive pre-life that gradually evolved into populations of proto-life that gradually evolved into populations of the very first forms of primitive life, which is where we usually consider the theory of evolution to take over. But evolutionary principles are considered to have governed the evolution of pre-life, we just don't know the hereditary foundation.

We start out at ground zero with several million.

At 2500 generations what would this population look like? Maybe A because they haven't changed enough.

At 5000 generations what would this population look like? Not like A and not like B so what would this population look like.

At 7500 generations this population definetly would not look like A and would look more like B maybe.

At 10000 generations A has become B and looks nothing at all like A and probably nothing like they did at 5000 generations.

Hopefully I've assuaged your concerns about the lack of fossils for every stage of progression from A to B, and if so, then your account of this gradual transition of a population of A's into a population of B's is largely correct. As time goes on the population has a smaller and smaller proportion of A-like traits, and a larger and larger proportion of B-like traits.

As I said in the opening, I'm not trying to persuade you that evolution is correct, only that this is the correct explanation of evolution. The evolutionary views I've just described are the ones you have to criticize.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 6:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 3:46 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2008 4:16 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019