Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #406 on: August 04, 2014, 01:24:57 AM »

I think you're misunderstanding a bit.  Evolution is largely a random process.  What that means is that an organism which evolves from bacteria won't necessarily ever evolve from bacteria again.  Furthermore, there's no particular guarantee that bacteria would evolve into multicellular life; it took more than two billion years for it to happen in the first place.

Sure, if you're willing to sit around and wait for a billion years, you might see it happen again.  But I don't think any human could possibly be so patient.

But, that is one of the problems with thinking that evolution is scientific. You can't predict a future species and run an experiment to show if that species will evolve. You also can't construct an experiment that shows a past extinct species evolving into a species of today.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #407 on: August 04, 2014, 02:25:40 AM »
You know, evolution isn't a requirement. In the case of the crocs, they are so well suited for their environment that there has been little pressure to evolve. They are so well suited for where they live that even we humans have failed to causes even one species of croc to go extinct. That means they've got things pretty well figured out, species wise.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It applies to nature as well. But if it is important to you to dwell on one species that has changed little so that you can ignore all the other species that have clearly evolved over the last few million years, you go ahead. That way you won't have to have one of those "inquiring mind" thingies in your head.

What type of change in the environment would cause a species to go extinct vs. evolving to better fit the environment?

Hmmm, let me see. Temperature goes up, or it goes down. Environment gets wetter, or it gets dryer. Fresh water gets salty, salt water gets fresh. Area gets isolated by new landforms. Area gets opened up to more environmental dangers due to disappearing landforms. Asteroids bonk half of everyone on the head. Volcanic action next door. New predator in town. Old predator disappears. New disease shows up. Old disease goes away. New kind of food appears, old kind of food disappears. All of which could give some critter a chance to take advantage of a new feature/ability/tolerance it has. Or an old but unused capacity in some other species might give it a chance to shine.

Humans evolved to stand upright. It isn't actually good for us, and many suffer back pain because of our undesigned backs. But people didn't live as long 100,000 years ago so the back problem didn't really matter much. But standing upright gave us an advantage when it came to running. Any person alive back then was in good enough shape to catch a deer. All they had to do was start chasing it, and though the deer was faster, its endurance sucked, and eventually it got too tired to run any faster and the ancient human could catch, kill and eat it. Healthy runners today could do the same thing were it not for everyones reliance on guns.

Evolution works because it provides so many variations on the theme of life. So that when an opportunity arises, or a new threat looms, some of the existing life forms are able to take advantage of those changes and flourish more than before. Like being able to run. It doesn't work all the time. In fact it doesn't work most of the time. But it only had to work some of the time for you and I to eventually have parents.

Keep in mind that evolution is mostly the story of failures. Over 99% of all the species that have ever lived are gone. Sometimes it was because we shot them all, but mostly they died because they couldn't adapt, whether to weather or to a new, faster cougar. Sometimes big lumbering critters died off because new tiny ones moved in to the region and ate the same kind of seeds. Without enough food to go around, the ones that get to that food first and eat it are the ones that survive long enough to have babies, while those that don't get to the food are the ones that, occasionally, turn in to fossils.

So also keep in mind that only a small percentage of animals do fossilize. But when we find two fossils, identical in practically every way, and one displays a new feature that we know, in hindsight, gave it an advantage, we say that it most probably evolved from the first one. We know how old the fossils are, and when the one we think evolved proves to be younger than the one we think it evolved from, and when we can easily tell via their fossils that both critters are otherwise identical except for the evolved feature, we say "Yup, its looking like that Charlie Darwin fella was right."

When new fossil beds are found, and we determine the age of the rocks there, we can tell you before we start digging exactly what fossils we can expect to find there, and exactly what fossils we know we will never find there. If the rocks are 70 million years old, we absolutely guarantee there will be no stegosaurus fossils in it, because they were gone long before that. So if you guys that say this stuff never happened can just go out and find a T-rex and stegosaurus fossil side by side, you will disprove a huge chunk of evolution. Better yet, go out and find a genuine brontosaurus or any other dinosaur fossil lying next to a human fossil, and you win. That's all you would have to do to disprove evolution. But no, all you guys can do is argue with us on sites like this, because you have no way of coming up with facts that can counter real arguments for evolution. You can dwell on the crocodiles and feel pretty smug, but you don't dare start in the evolution of horses or whales or snakes because we have WAAAAAAY too much evidence regarding the evolution of those species.

Assuming that you didn't actually read the above wall of words and simply skipped to the last paragraph, I give you this simple synopsis. You are proving that evolution doesn't always work by being a human who is afraid of the truth. And your kind will die out eventually, because you'll be too busy living in the past to deal with the future. And it will hurt. But life won't care. It never does. It just keeps keeping on, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

So as I've always said, volunteering to have atavistic characteristics is patently silly.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #408 on: August 04, 2014, 03:57:44 AM »
The creature that evolved from bacteria should evolve from bacteria in lab experiments, then.

One species evolving into another takes millions (yes, with an "m") of years most of the time. At best, hundreds of thousands of years. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, in, at best, 1809, assuming he proposed it the year he was born. That means we've known about evolution for 205 years at best. 205<<100,000. However, even time is not the issue. Evolution has been proven. Creationists just can't accept it. To deny that one species can turn into another is to deny that 1+1=2, which itself has also been proven (seriously; Google it, though I doubt you can understand it). They also demand impossible things from science, as if that made their beliefs any more true.

It would be hard to say.

It seems you're not familiar with the phrase "in addition". It doesn't mean "feel free to ignore everything before it". It means "I have said some things, so here's another one". Reply to my comment regarding YHWH and clay or admit your question was idiotic. Also, if you don't know, just say so. Don't go off on a tangent in a futile attempt to protect your false faith. My guess? You already know what you believe is false, but are trying to ignore the proof.

Is it possible that a brand new species will evolve from humans? if so, what do you think it might be and how might that happen?

Or will humans be like crocodiles and remain humans for millions of years?

Define "humans". Seriously. What genetic differentiation would be enough for you to consider "humans" an entirely different species?

I'm not sure if the "odds argument" is the best one to use. For example, the odds of life forming on its own have been calculated to be a number of a much higher magnitude than the one you posted here.

lolno.
I actually did calculate the odds of life and how many planets in the Universe we should expect to contain life. Well, to be more precise, I calculated how many planets with something we should expect, given very low odds. I assumed 1/one quintillion (0.0000000000000001%) for the odds of life, and then calculated the number of planets, using the average galaxy as an example. Of those, I assumed only 1% were in the "habitable zone", which allows for life as we know it. However, using our solar system as a standard, that number is actually closer to 12.5%. I am already assuming much lower odds than what I should be. The number of planets with those conditions? About 8.9*10^19, or 890,000,000,000,000,000,000. Yes, you heard that right. The number of planets that are habitable, assuming terrible odds, is still much larger than the odds of life spontaneously appearing. Now, if you multiply 8.9^19 by 1*10^-18, you get a grand total of 89,000 planets. I'll say that again: 89 thousand planets where we should expect to find life.
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again. Theists whose beliefs are contradicted by science (that is, when they believe their beliefs are being contradicted by facts) just tend to be slower than the rest of humanity when it comes to accepting new information.

yet, atheists believe it happened on its own.

Every single atheist in history believes this? Really? Even now, at this very second, not all atheists believe this. Hell, we might have a few of those on this very forum.
The only thing every single atheist in history (per the current definition of the term) had in common was the lack of belief in deities. To assume anything else is stupid.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4838
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #409 on: August 04, 2014, 07:51:32 AM »
But, that is one of the problems with thinking that evolution is scientific. You can't predict a future species and run an experiment to show if that species will evolve. You also can't construct an experiment that shows a past extinct species evolving into a species of today.
Are you at all familiar with chaos theory?  Basically, it's the study of fractal mathematics, which covers things that are difficult if not impossible to predict, such as weather, air turbulence, the human brain, and evolution.  It's been popularized as the butterfly effect, usually along the lines of a butterfly flapping its wings somewhere and causing some major weather event halfway across the world.  What it means is that very small changes in the initial conditions cause tremendous changes in the results; essentially that if a system is complicated enough, it's extremely difficult to predict what the outcome will be, especially since it interacts with itself, thus generating even more complexity and change.

The evolution of life on this planet is at least that complicated.  You know how weather forecasts are limited to a few days in advance for specific predictions, and still have to give them as "X% chance of rain/snow/whatever"?  It's like that, except worse, because the complexity of even the simplest living organisms makes a weather system pale by comparison.  And all those organisms interact with each other, causing the system to become ever more complex over time.

When we're dealing with events that happened billions of years ago, all it would take is not knowing one tiny scrap of data - say, the position of a single atom - to end up with a prediction that is completely wrong.  And we have nowhere near that much data about how things were back then.  That's why we can't predict just what organisms would have evolved.  Nonetheless, it is scientific, just as other fields where chaos theory applies are scientific.  Our inability to exactly predict something does not make our study of it non-scientific, it just makes it non-predictable.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #410 on: August 04, 2014, 09:33:02 AM »
Skep, you need to provide a viable alternative to evolution. Science looks at the oldest rocks and finds simple organisms. It looks later layers of rocks and finds more complex organisms. It looks at yet later layers and finds even more complex organisms. None of which survive today. As it goes through newer and newer layers of rock, it finds new varieties of life, varieties that seem based on older varieties, coming on stronger and stronger as older ones disappear. And the newest fossil layers show many life forms that resemble or (in the case of crocs) are pretty much identical to life forms today.

How else are we supposed to interpret such information. We date rocks, we look inside, the fossils are consistent with previous findings, the fossils are predictable, the fossils are ALWAYS in the same order, the fossils in any given layer usually resemble older life forms and newer fossils in newer layers usually resemble older life forms. I say usually because sometimes we find brand new species that we never saw before, but when we're relying on digging in the dirt and rocks to find this stuff, our discoveries will always be hit and miss.

So you tell me. How come the fossils seem to tell a story? How come they appear to have the relationships that science has discovered? How can there be so many fossils, even though very few animals fossilize? There are fossil beds with, based on what we can see on the surface, many billions of critters still uncovered. And yet they are just the tip of the iceberg, life-wise.

And why do genes look exactly like they evolved. Why can we look at the genes of any given creature and see its connection with what appears to be its ancestors? How come you and I have some genes that are identical in both structure and purpose as some genes found in yeast? Science can trace the evolution of cells through the yeast stage straight to humans, and both that organism and us have genes in common, and you're saying that there is no proof of evolution?

And be careful what you ask for, proof-wise, because folks are still out there digging, still out there working on genetics, still out there working on the mechanisms of evolution, and we will undoubtably have even better answers in the future. While the best that you and yours will be able to come up with will be the constant repetition of the same old  and ignorant questions, the same old assumptions, the same old erroneous conclusions, the same old fears.

When knowledge is growing constantly and your only response to to insist that your ignorance is better, it is very hard to take you seriously. For me to become religious like you, I would need, and this is serious, to have a huge portion of my brain excised. And I could never trust a religious person to do that for me, because none of you would be educated enough to do such a thing.

Not that I'd ever be tempted, though...

« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 09:34:38 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #411 on: August 04, 2014, 09:47:36 AM »
This is a lot to read right now. I have to do important things for my job for the next few days and I should be posting regularly by the end of the week. I don't know how much time I will have from today until around thursday/friday.

Rest assured, I will be back to post when I get the time.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12206
  • Darwins +655/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #412 on: August 04, 2014, 09:56:33 AM »
All,

skeptic is on post approval at the moment.  Please be patient with him as his replies will likely be delayed since they will require moderator approval. 

Skep,

I asked you to please do some research and report back.  Twice.  Please do so now.  Creationist websites will not be acceptable because your question was "what evolutionists say".  Creationists cannot speak for science. 

Once you complete this assignment, you will become a free-range member again.   


 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1235
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #413 on: August 04, 2014, 11:18:36 AM »
skeptic54768, the basics of evolution are covered here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/evolution/evolutionrev1.shtml

Have a look, it may answer some questions :)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1966
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #414 on: August 04, 2014, 11:36:24 AM »
I believe that is a false equivalency fallacy.

Creationists have access to the same kind of evidence the evolutionists have and do plenty of research on the subject. We only come to different conclusions based on the exact same evidence. It's basically a "gut feeling" of which option is the correct one. We creationists have a "gut feeling" that creationism is right. You guys have a "gut feeling" that evolution is right.
This is untrue - others have tried explaining to you that evolution is not a 'gut feeling', but rather, a cohesive and coherent model that explains the facts that have come from observation and makes useful predictions.  But even beyond that, people studying evolution and people studying creationism are not basing things on the exact same evidence.  The creationists submit a very old, very cryptic poetic book as piece of evidence that describes and reflects actual reality.  Those that study evolution do not do that.  They do not make the assumption that the bible represents the communications of a divine being.

That is one hell of a difference.

Quote
Maybe if writing and agriculture existed before 6,000 years ago instead of coming into existence coinciding with the biblical age, or if the population was larger than it is now if we were around for so long, then maybe I would feel differently.
I admit I'm a little confused about the population thing.  That seems to be a...strange expectation.  Why would you think that there should be more than 7+ billion people alive today?  Are you oversimplifying math again?  Are you assuming that the primary indicators for predicting the size of a population of a species are initial conditions and the amount of time that has passed?  'cause that's one of those oversimplifications that sweeps many, many, many other factors under the rug and ignores them.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline 1makesitwrong

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #415 on: August 04, 2014, 06:39:07 PM »
Skeptic I am waiting for you to produce your god, so we may hear him explain himself. Can he answer for him or her or itself? Does god always have to have a human defense?
The bible was pronounced dead at the scene

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #416 on: August 04, 2014, 07:05:13 PM »
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again.

If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1729
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #417 on: August 04, 2014, 08:20:09 PM »
^^^How about, since you seem convinced that evolution is NOT the most reasonable explanation, you explain YOUR position first. It would be a nice change of pace to know what YOU think happened, and why the ToE is wrong.

Go ahead, if you actually want to talk about this, you start.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #418 on: August 04, 2014, 09:04:00 PM »
^^^How about, since you seem convinced that evolution is NOT the most reasonable explanation, you explain YOUR position first. It would be a nice change of pace to know what YOU think happened, and why the ToE is wrong.

Go ahead, if you actually want to talk about this, you start.

Since you (or anyone else) can demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and fact, I think you know what I believe.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1729
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #419 on: August 04, 2014, 10:34:39 PM »
I don't know what you believe, but I believe you just dodged my post entirely.

Why is that?

My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6353
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #420 on: August 04, 2014, 10:39:52 PM »
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again.

If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Skep, who has not yet replied.

How come, if the theory of evolution is wrong, scientists can go to a newly discovered fossil bed, determine its age, and then predict what will and will not be found in it. They can say with complete certainly things like "These rocks are 150 million years old. We may find a stegosaurus, but we won't find a T-rex". Conversely, they can find much younger rocks and say "We won't find a stegosaurus, but we might find a t-rex".

How come, when we look at 500 million year old rocks, we find only small organisms. When we look at 250 million year old rocks, we find larger, more complex organisms. When we look at 100 million year old rocks we find giant trees and huge dinosaurs and terrifyingly large meat eating sea creatures. When we looks at rocks that are 50 million years old, all the dinosaurs are gone, but mammals have appeared in large numbers.

We can tell you right now that we will never find trilobite fossils in rocks less than 250 million years old. All you have to do is go out and find trilobites in rocks we have said are younger than that, and you ruin everything for us.

We can date rocks before looking in them. And the fossils we find in those rocks are always, as in every frickin' time, exactly the fossils we would expect to find from that time period. Sure, we find new stuff all the time too, but everything we find is consistent with the evolutionary time frame we've developed by looking at the evidence. And we never find fossils from two different ages together. Yea, you guys think everything is 6,000 years old, but if our claims are wrong, why all the consistency?

All you have to do to disprove evolution is go out and find a stegosaurus and a t-rex buried side by side. That would disprove everything. Why aren't you guys working on that?

Again, all you have to do is go to a fossil bed, ask ahead of time how old scientists say it is, and start digging. And then all you have to do is find something that science says won't be there, and we're in trouble. What could be easier.

Do it, or shut up, creationists.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #421 on: August 05, 2014, 04:43:00 AM »
If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

Define "macro biological phenomenon".
The first few replies will be asking you to define some terms as you see them, since all creationists throw around these words they made up as if they're supposed to mean anything to us, and even creationists can't agree on their meaning.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #422 on: August 05, 2014, 07:42:01 AM »
I don't know what you believe, but I believe you just dodged my post entirely.

Why is that?
Because what I believe is irrelevant to whether you can provide the supporting evidence I requested. I suspect that you dodged my request since you know that you are unable to demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a FACT.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #423 on: August 05, 2014, 07:45:53 AM »
The odds argument is not the best one, but creationists seem very fond of it. We're just playing their game. However, it doesn't really matter, since evolution has been proven time and time again.

If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Skep, who has not yet replied.

How come, if the theory of evolution is wrong, scientists can go to a newly discovered fossil bed, determine its age, and then predict what will and will not be found in it. They can say with complete certainly things like "These rocks are 150 million years old. We may find a stegosaurus, but we won't find a T-rex". Conversely, they can find much younger rocks and say "We won't find a stegosaurus, but we might find a t-rex".

How come, when we look at 500 million year old rocks, we find only small organisms. When we look at 250 million year old rocks, we find larger, more complex organisms. When we look at 100 million year old rocks we find giant trees and huge dinosaurs and terrifyingly large meat eating sea creatures. When we looks at rocks that are 50 million years old, all the dinosaurs are gone, but mammals have appeared in large numbers.

We can tell you right now that we will never find trilobite fossils in rocks less than 250 million years old. All you have to do is go out and find trilobites in rocks we have said are younger than that, and you ruin everything for us.

We can date rocks before looking in them. And the fossils we find in those rocks are always, as in every frickin' time, exactly the fossils we would expect to find from that time period. Sure, we find new stuff all the time too, but everything we find is consistent with the evolutionary time frame we've developed by looking at the evidence. And we never find fossils from two different ages together. Yea, you guys think everything is 6,000 years old, but if our claims are wrong, why all the consistency?

All you have to do to disprove evolution is go out and find a stegosaurus and a t-rex buried side by side. That would disprove everything. Why aren't you guys working on that?

Again, all you have to do is go to a fossil bed, ask ahead of time how old scientists say it is, and start digging. And then all you have to do is find something that science says won't be there, and we're in trouble. What could be easier.

Do it, or shut up, creationists.

Why this long winded explanation of fossil predictions, etc? It does nothing to demonstrate that birds-from-dinosaurs is an evolutionary FACT supported by the scientific method.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #424 on: August 05, 2014, 07:48:37 AM »
If it has been proven, as you say, then kindly explain the mechanism(s) and the pathway(s) that this large scale (macro) biological phenomenon occurred. Remember, evolution is considered both a theory and a fact so please make certain that your proof is supported by the scientific method.

Define "macro biological phenomenon".
The first few replies will be asking you to define some terms as you see them, since all creationists throw around these words they made up as if they're supposed to mean anything to us, and even creationists can't agree on their meaning.

It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #425 on: August 05, 2014, 07:53:21 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

It didn't. At first, it multiplied without restraint. Its offspring evolved into other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into colonies of single-celled organisms, which then evolved into multicellular organisms, one of which was what we call "Homo sapiens sapiens" (modern humans).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #426 on: August 05, 2014, 07:56:37 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

It didn't. At first, it multiplied without restraint. Its offspring evolved into other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into colonies of single-celled organisms, which then evolved into multicellular organisms, one of which was what we call "Homo sapiens sapiens" (modern humans).

Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #427 on: August 05, 2014, 08:22:08 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

It didn't. At first, it multiplied without restraint. Its offspring evolved into other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into colonies of single-celled organisms, which then evolved into multicellular organisms, one of which was what we call "Homo sapiens sapiens" (modern humans).

Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

http://iwanticewater.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/brian-cox-on-genetic-mutation/
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #428 on: August 05, 2014, 08:23:13 AM »
Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

Two major factors: natural selection and random mutations. We'll start with mutations.

Every time DNA is "copied", it's not done perfectly. That's why we get cancer and genetic diseases. Most mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful on their own, though. Maybe they make a creature get thick hairs on their eyelids (AKA: eyelashes). Maybe they just change its color a bit (like, say, from cyan to teal). Of course, some mutations are harmful, such as a four-legged creature being born with three legs, or a deformed leg. Others are beneficial, like when E. coli developed the ability to process citric acid (an experiment done by a creationist, if I might add, aimed at disproving evolution. Try finding a record of that on any creationist website that doesn't lie about the results; I dare you), which they couldn't do before, giving them an additional food source.

Now on to natural selection:
Harmful mutations are "filtered by" environmental factors, such as predators or differences in the environment itself. Beneficial mutations are then passed on to the offspring of those carrying the mutations, until they become the "norm" within the species. "Neutral" mutations stick around, mixing with other "neutral" mutations throughout the whole species. For an example, look at butterfly species' wing patterns. They're not always the same, but most of the differences are neither beneficial nor harmful. These can then be helpful, should the environment change. If not, they just keep occurring, yet never becoming the "norm" within any species, since there's nothing to make that mutation more important for survival than other mutations.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #429 on: August 05, 2014, 08:24:48 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

It didn't. At first, it multiplied without restraint. Its offspring evolved into other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into colonies of single-celled organisms, which then evolved into multicellular organisms, one of which was what we call "Homo sapiens sapiens" (modern humans).

Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

http://iwanticewater.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/brian-cox-on-genetic-mutation/

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.



Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #430 on: August 05, 2014, 08:26:12 AM »
Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

Two major factors: natural selection and random mutations. We'll start with mutations.

Every time DNA is "copied", it's not done perfectly. That's why we get cancer and genetic diseases. Most mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful on their own, though. Maybe they make a creature get thick hairs on their eyelids (AKA: eyelashes). Maybe they just change its color a bit (like, say, from cyan to teal). Of course, some mutations are harmful, such as a four-legged creature being born with three legs, or a deformed leg. Others are beneficial, like when E. coli developed the ability to process citric acid (an experiment done by a creationist, if I might add, aimed at disproving evolution. Try finding a record of that on any creationist website that doesn't lie about the results; I dare you), which they couldn't do before, giving them an additional food source.

Now on to natural selection:
Harmful mutations are "filtered by" environmental factors, such as predators or differences in the environment itself. Beneficial mutations are then passed on to the offspring of those carrying the mutations, until they become the "norm" within the species. "Neutral" mutations stick around, mixing with other "neutral" mutations throughout the whole species. For an example, look at butterfly species' wing patterns. They're not always the same, but most of the differences are neither beneficial nor harmful. These can then be helpful, should the environment change. If not, they just keep occurring, yet never becoming the "norm" within any species, since there's nothing to make that mutation more important for survival than other mutations.

See my above reply to Ataraxia.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #431 on: August 05, 2014, 08:28:04 AM »
It’s very simple. Please explain to us deluded theists what biological process explains how a single celled organism (LUCA) evolved into a human.

It didn't. At first, it multiplied without restraint. Its offspring evolved into other single-celled organisms, which then evolved into colonies of single-celled organisms, which then evolved into multicellular organisms, one of which was what we call "Homo sapiens sapiens" (modern humans).

Okay. Now please explain the biological process that supports your claim. In other words, biologically speaking, how did this occur?

http://iwanticewater.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/brian-cox-on-genetic-mutation/

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.

At least take a look at the link I posted before posting your ready made response.

I've been over this with you before about macroevolution, so I will only say this the once - macroevolution is evolution at the level of speciation and above. Speciation has been observed therefore macroevolution is fact.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1729
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #432 on: August 05, 2014, 08:28:48 AM »
I don't know what you believe, but I believe you just dodged my post entirely.

Why is that?
Because what I believe is irrelevant to whether you can provide the supporting evidence I requested. I suspect that you dodged my request since you know that you are unable to demonstrate that the entirety of the ToE is both a theory and a FACT.

What you believe is vitally important to having a worthwhile discussion. Theists who want to argue over evolution almost inevitably are basing their position of things that have nothing to do with the ToE, so knowing what you think the theory actually says, and hat the implications of that are, would be extremely useful.

Or you can just keep pretending that you don't understand why I'm asking instead. No one is going to believe you, but you're welcome to do it anyway. But I have to wonder why you want to talk about this if you don't actually want to say anything.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10926
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #433 on: August 05, 2014, 08:30:47 AM »
See my above reply to Ataraxia.

Define "macro evolution" and "large scale biological changes".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #434 on: August 05, 2014, 08:48:42 AM »
I've been over this with you before about macroevolution, so I will only say this the once - macroevolution is evolution at the level of speciation and above. Speciation has been observed therefore macroevolution is fact.


The question remains: Where is your evidence that this ‘speciation’ process can produce fundamentally new types of organisms and/or new complex biological structures ?

You see, the definition of ‘speciation’ that you use is vague and misleading. It dupes people such as yourself into thinking that because one species of birds won’t do the nasty with another species of birds anymore that somehow it makes a case for snakes evolving from lizards.

I honestly don’t think you fully understand the enormity of the chasm that your idea of ‘speciation’ is incapable of bridging. And, this is not an isolated observation made by just me and my so-called confirmation bias. There are many in the scientific ranks who have expressed a similar concern:

 James Tour, who is one of the most cited chemists in the world:

"… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules." 1

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”
Lecture: James M. Tour Ph.D, Georgia Tech, November 1, 2012


Arguing about the definition of ‘macroevolution’ is simply an attempt to blur a line that clearly exists in reality. You are attempting to portray the debate over ‘macroevo’ and ‘microevo’ as if it were a superficial matter when, in fact, it strikes at the very core of the hypothesis.