Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
39 online now:
dwise1, vimesey (2 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Remedial Evolution: seekingfirstthekingdom and RAZD
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 14 of 58 (493472)
01-09-2009 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
01-05-2009 11:19 PM


Re: predictions and the evidence
Wow I'm in. RAZD before we start can we firstly agree that you ask no one else to join in on our discussion? And secondly, tell me a little bit about yourself and your experience. I'll do the same. And thirdly, after we have exchanged a bit of info about each other would you do me the favour of attempting to rebut your first 12 posts. I see you have taken some time to educate me, would you let me at least give my view. You can rubbish it after I've finished. Cheers.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fluffed up the formatting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 11:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 2:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 16 of 58 (493487)
01-09-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by AdminNosy
01-09-2009 2:04 AM


Re: Invitations
quote:
It is not clear that it furthers the discussion to exchange any personal information. It is the ideas, concepts, facts and reasoning that one brings that counts

Ideas concepts and reasoning that someone promotes tend to be products of the environment that the person was raised in or works in.A bit of background about each other also humanises the debate.

I was thinking about this and decided to tell a little of my background .I was raised in a small rural town,in a country known as the worlds biggest farm,my father and mother were both animal lovers and my father was also an obsessive organic vegetable grower.

We grew up over time with 2 dogs,5 cats,8 chickens,8 rabbits,3 budgies,and perhaps over 100 tropical fish and 10 goldfish.We lived within 5 mins of a river that held wild fish that we would catch and attempt to domesticate,usually ending up in dead fish.We would try to domesticate the wild birds that surrounded our property.It usually ended up in dead birds.

Ive worked in horticulture,agriculture and now in forestry.Im not a microbiologist but have had hands on experience with animals.Curiously im not an animal lover and am quite detached.To me they are generally nice to eat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 2:04 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:39 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 17 of 58 (493489)
01-09-2009 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-03-2009 9:41 AM


Re: the "amazing magic yeast" concept
quote:
Is this how you think evolution happens? That individual organisms "transform" into new organisms?

Ill clarify.My understanding of evolution is that desirable traits are promoted down thru generations until the organism looks nothing like its ancestors.It even means according to you that the organism could even change kinds.I agree with aspects of evolution that of course there is a certain amount of natural selection and variety.I dont believe this means that kinds can change into other kinds.There seems to be genetic boundaries that of course evolutionary scientists attempt to blur.
quote:
The process of evolution occurs constantly, all around the world, in all forms of life

But not to the extent you and your kind claim it to be.You raised an alarm in my head when i asked where in the natural world could you point out the type of evolution that you promote.You immediately pointed to a textbook instead of an example in your mind.Which should of come easily to you after your countless hours here.You could quite easily point to some tenuous examples in the fossil record.But to point to an artists impression doesnt sit easily with me.Heck you could of just said we are all transitional....without any proof of course.
quote:
Darwin's insight was that this simple process was sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

Darwin observed animals and saw tremendous variety.He never saw reptiles turning into birds.Thats something yall made up to suit the godless philosophy you promote.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2009 9:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 8:33 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded
 Message 24 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 9:39 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 18 of 58 (493491)
01-09-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-05-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
quote:
It seems you only deal with small bits of information at a time, so I'll try to reply in kind.

Hmm.Im searching for an appropriate net owning comeback,but i got bored.
quote:
That is Dawkin's walking back through the evidence to see where it leads. It is not the theory of evolution

Semantics.Please no more.After looking over the length of your posts and your habit of repeating yourself,im wondering if my approach might be the more economical one.After all waste not,want not.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:48 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 19 of 58 (493493)
01-09-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
01-05-2009 10:20 PM


Re: Evolution and religion/s
quote:
So you are admitting that you are intolerant of other beliefs, while expecting us to be tolerant of yours? Glad you realize it.

You made quite an error here.You misrepresented what i said.Thats all i have to say.
quote:
My personal belief is that god/s (unknown, unknowable) created the universe with all the physical laws etc such that life was inevitable, and the evolution of that life also was designed to reach - ultimately - a level equal to theirs. We are nowhere near that now, but life is not over yet either, nor is life necessarily limited to this planet.

Now im interested.What evidence do you have of this apart from your own personal take on it.Free thinking is fine and dandy.But without a basis,i can just dismiss.
quote:
Now, see if you can get off your high horse and prove that my god necessarily does not exist if evolution is true

lol we cant even agree on evolution.Slow down a tad sport.The rest isnt on topic and you havent factored in humans freewill into the equation.I want to focus on the chart from now on if i may?Thanks for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 10:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 8:12 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 25 of 58 (493803)
01-10-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
01-09-2009 7:39 AM


Re: Invitations
im impressed.time actually out seeing how nature works is always a plus obviously.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:39 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 26 of 58 (493805)
01-10-2009 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
01-09-2009 7:48 AM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
quote:
The evidence of fossils and the genetic record etc shows how life has developed on this planet, from the oldest fossils of single cell life to what we see in the modern world. These are the facts that need to be explained, and the theory of evolution explains how such diversity develops.

still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.even the turtles with no shells that you posted as "proof" would need many transitional forms in order to show progression from no shell to fully shelled.this isnt apparent.if there was, no doubt evolutionists would make sure we knew about it.that type of turtle can be easily explained away as another variety that became extinct.and my caps lock has decided to not work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 7:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 10:23 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 10:44 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 11:10 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 27 of 58 (493806)
01-10-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
01-09-2009 8:12 AM


Re: Evolution and religion/s
quote:
Sorry about that, however I went with all the evidence at my disposal.

apology accepted
quote:
I'll just say I had a personal experience. Feel free to dismiss it, that does not concern me, as another personal belief is that any persons religious path to enlightenment is their own, and cannot be shared by others

fair enough.i was harsh to word it the way i did.
quote:
Religion is free to believe anything

correction.morons will believe anything.im quite happy to believe science until it comes into conflict with the bible.this is where we differ.you hold science as the ultimate authority ,i do not despite all the good(and bad) its done for mankind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 8:12 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2009 10:22 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 10:25 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 31 of 58 (493812)
01-10-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-09-2009 8:33 AM


Re: the "amazing magic yeast" concept
quote:
Now you are going to need to define what a "kind" means. Then you need to actually show there is a genetic boundary, something in the cell that prevents mutations beyond a certain level.

mammal.amphibian.bird.reptile. the genetic boundary is obvious.
quote:
Can you point to one single population of organisms that does not show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation?

lol?you are misrepresenting my position.read again what ive said.the extent of what you are claiming is the issue that i have. the proof that you have of kinds changing from one to another are tenuous "links" in the fossil record.the natural world shows no crossover.except the coelcacanth.right?:)
once again you are making assertions that we are transitional.ill ask you how much ape like material was found in egyptian pharoahs who were buried some 3000 odd years ago?of course even a tiny amount would strongly support the theory we are transitional.they were very well preserved and i understand 3000 years is only a tiny amount of time compared to the many tens of thousands of years you claim humankind to have existed.but surely it would show something.
quote:
greenish warblers

no evidence of reptile to bird.its still a bird.
quote:
pelycodus speciation

you ve posted hoaxes on that page?im not sure how that supports your position?please pick a specific one that you feel supports the theory the most.
quote:
foraminifera evolution

i will have a read.are you picking this case as the strongest for changes in kind?

can you clarify please that you say there has been no transition from reptile to bird?
and ill will be back in a few weeks.i will come back into town and have a read up on foraminfera evolution.plus try to expand on habilis.its hard finding peer reviewed material that supports my assertion its a chimp.i might have to concede.however look at its size(3.5 feet) the cranial capacity,the puny amount of fossils uncovered and the possibilty that a chimp whoops i mean handyman that small could take down anything decently sized.where im going has no internet access but ill be back.take care.:)

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2009 8:33 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:28 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:31 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:33 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:46 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:56 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 12:10 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 1:30 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 43 of 58 (494210)
01-14-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-10-2009 10:44 PM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
hi razd i hope things are good with you.we have come into town somewhat earlier than expected due to an unforseen occurence so im here for an evening before going out again.now i feel i must reemphasise my problems with the theory with evolution and remind you i believe in the account of genesis.

this tends to render most of your examples that you have provided rather moot.i have a problem with.

.1.simple lifeforms like bacteria being able to become superior lifeforms
.2.reptiles being able to become mammals,especially reptiles becoming birds.
.3.habilis being a link in mans ancestry.

the example you provided in this post doesnt actually address my concerns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 10:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 7:43 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 44 of 58 (494213)
01-14-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
01-10-2009 11:28 PM


Re: moving goalposts?
quote:
Tiktaalik rosea

never heard of fish that can survive outside of water for periods of time?also show me in clear fossil form how this representative of your transitional beliefs evolved from fish to land if thats what you are getting at?
quote:
archeopteryx

you seem to know a lot more about this "transitional" creature than scientists who have studied it and have decided to put it on a seperate branch rather than a direct ancestor between reptile and bird.also in some quarters its been regarded with suspicion.further study will provide the answers someday.but to promote it as a direct ancestor is untrue.
quote:
therapsida

cold blooded probably reptilian.warm blooded probably mammal.i have issues with evolutionary artistry and creative license.lets see some actual fossils please.and without step by step fossil links to prove this is a link,it becomes just another variety.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 8:26 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 45 of 58 (494216)
01-15-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-10-2009 11:31 PM


Re: hominids now
quote:
Actually I'll go you better. We have DNA from H. neanderthalis and from Cro-Magnon age H. sapiens that can be compared with ape DNA. The consensus is that H. sapiens are more closely related to H. neanderthalis than to chimps, but that we are still some 95% similar to apes DNA and that H. neanderthalis branched from the hominid line some time after the hominid line branched from the chimp line.

That means we are 95% chimp now. We are likely closer to the common ancestor to both chimps and humans, as the DNA would change in both lineages, each different from that ancestor population in different ways.



i find the 95% figure misleading .to me theres a huge difference between chimps and man.care to disagree with that statement?you ignored my example of evidence of young male pharoahs 3000 odd years old that show no sign of being more primitive.dna similarities are due to being designed to cohabit.

quote:
It's the tools that provide the leverage. Have you seen any of the documentation of chimps using weapons to hunt? I also remember seeing an old video of a band of chimps attacking a (mock for the purpose of the experiment) tiger with sticks, taking turns to beat it.

interesting strategy.you are using chimp behaviour to justify that habilis isnt a chimp.chimps use stone tools as well according to jane goodall.
quote:
The hunters will pursue at a relatively measured pace a targeted quarry which in response will make short but high energy sprints to escape. Eventually the relentless pursuit will exhaust the quarry allowing it to be brought down by its pursuers.

except you would need a lot of 3.5 foot high small brained chimps to take anything down.how many fossils of handyman have been found in the area again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2009 11:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 7:33 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 46 of 58 (494217)
01-15-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
01-11-2009 11:10 AM


Re: Further Evidence that there is no "genetic barrier"
im going to research this.anymore proof apart from a chart that what you say here:
quote:
Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh.

is actually true or you just defending a belief system?i see similarities in this example and to me its the strongest one you have provided.dont take it personally razd im in no way attacking you. and its unlike talking to fanatical atheists to whom talking about this type of topic is akin to entering a mosque wearing a shirt of mohammed eating a pork chop.i can see why a deist is a deist.and in some ways i believe god has left us to run the world the way we want.start another thread coyote.thanks.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2009 11:10 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 49 of 58 (494315)
01-15-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
01-15-2009 7:43 AM


Re: Misunderstanding theory vs fact
quote:
Denial of evidence is like that. What the evidence shows is that there is no genetic barrier to what organisms can evolve. A placental mammal can become a flying squirrel, while a marsupial can become a sugar glider; a mammal can become an orca, while a cartilaginous fish can become a white shark. You can dodge the issue or you can address it and show that there is some mechanism that actually stops evolution.

whats this got to do with what i specifically asked for regarding reptile to mammal?quite clearly the 1st example has nothing to do with what im debating.please stay on point.secondly give me time to research your claims regarding how closely related the shark and orca actually are.its so glaringly obvious to me there are barriers inbetween reptiles and mammals.surely you must know this.
quote:
Curiously, the fact that you have a problem has absolutely no effect on the validity and reality of the fossil record, nor does it stop evolution as one organism evolves into another, generation by generation.

not to the extent you are claiming.the reality is you are taking tenuous examples,ignoring the obvious and attempting to put pieces where they dont fit.theres nothing in the natural world that backs you up.nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 7:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 8:09 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 4445 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 50 of 58 (494316)
01-15-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
01-15-2009 8:26 AM


Re: definition of transitional
quote:
This is what makes Tiktaalik a transitional fossil

once again you need more than 1 fossil and a few drawings to convince anyone who doesnt share your faith.closer inspection to me that could be anything.im always amused at evolutionists unseemly haste to claim what is transitional on the merest hint of evidence.give it time.
quote:
archaeoptrix

http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
please look at conclusions.
quote:
Again, the fact that you have issues does not mean that therapsids are not transitionals showing generation by generation the adaptation of features that don't exist in reptiles and that become more and more developed in later generations.

unseemly haste to claim it as a transitional.i suspect that you arent open to the possibility that you are wrong.that makes this debate invalid.you cant even tell me what temperature its blood was or distinguishing features that could help identify it properly.in your eyes its transitional already.youve made a conclusion without giving it time or considering new evidence.how is that true science?

Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 8:26 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 9:02 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2009 9:31 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021