Author Topic: Evolution Explained  (Read 30869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #290 on: February 13, 2012, 04:21:07 PM »
Intelligent Design

The rules governing life are and have been the same as long as life has been.
Our lack of understanding regarding the rules does not change them.
Our understanding of the rules has changed, and continues to do so, the rules do not change.
The rules are immutable. We do not question that they are there, we only question why they are there.
Without the rules there would be no life on this planet.
How did the rules get here and why do they not change?
Most of this is accurate as far as it goes, but none of it indicates design or a designer.

Quote from: rhocam
I claim it is because there is a Designer.
You "claim".  Where's your proof?

Quote from: rhocam
The very fact that the rules don't change suggests there is something Keeping them from changing.
Let me introduce you to a little concept called "inertia".  As in, something does not change unless something else causes it to.  The rules that govern the universe won't change unless something comes along and changes them, in other words.

Quote from: rhocam
You live your life in the belief that Gravity will hold you to the surface of the earth.
No, I understand that the force of gravity will attract the mass that makes up my body to the mass that makes up the Earth.  In fact, this is a perfect example of inertia; my body will stay on the surface of the Earth unless some other (stronger) force propels me away from it.

Quote from: rhocam
why, if chaos and randomness created this, how can you be sure they wont change at any moment?
Because random chance and chaos are constrained by what already is.

Quote from: rhocam
It is because you believe there is "something" keeping them this way. Allow me to introduce to to that "something" I call Him God
Nope.  It is because I understand the the basis of those rules and do not have to rely on crude, uninformed belief in some divine being keeping everything happening out of some act of sheer will.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #291 on: February 13, 2012, 04:22:07 PM »
Intelligent Design

The rules governing life are and have been the same as long as life has been.
Our lack of understanding regarding the rules does not change them.
Our understanding of the rules has changed, and continues to do so, the rules do not change.
The rules are immutable. We do not question that they are there, we only question why they are there.
Without the rules there would be no life on this planet.
How did the rules get here and why do they not change?

Which rules are you talking about? Are you talking about biological processes as rules or something else. And do you realize that your use of the word "rules" makes it sound like something you had to follow in the first grade?  You may have a few concepts mixed up here.

Quote

 I claim it is because there is a Designer. The very fact that the rules don't change suggests there is something Keeping them from changing. You live your life in the belief that Gravity will hold you to the surface of the earth. why, if chaos and randomness created this, how can you be sure they wont change at any moment? It is because you believe there is "something" keeping them this way. Allow me to introduce to to that "something" I call Him God

Of course gravity is not a rule, nor something that has been around only since "life began". But I think I see what you're talking about. If something happens, there has to be a reason. And if there is a reason, there has to be a god. Bingo.

Or maybe these rules are this way because it is the only way they can be. Unless someone writes a "rule" that makes gravity go away, how could it? What you see as consistency from a designer might also be (and I trust that it is) merely the only way certain physical forces can act. The speed of light in this universe, in a vacuum, is constant because there aren't any intelligent designers out there with knobs and dials to change it to anything else. The forces that create what we experience as gravity seems pretty darned consistent, and any god who designed it is a creep because innocent people fall and die every year due to us being heavy and all. If you god made this earth for us, why did he make it so hard for us to survive a quick trip down a cliff? Who would write rules like that. Not someone who loves us. But an indifferent set of forces that just happen to coexist with us as living beings would create gravity as it has to be under the circumstances and our occasional propensity to fall would be much more understandable.

And it is.

In the meantime, could you give us a rule of life that is so immutable only because your god whipped it up? Given that you have, thus far, completely ignored my long post in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21418.msg476899.html#msg476899) I still don't know much about your take on science (other than dismissing it's findings) and hence it is a bit hard to talk with you about it.

Of course you might think that is a rule and so I'm out of luck. But I hope not.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #292 on: February 13, 2012, 04:54:08 PM »
Does my little explaination bother you?

I found it...disappointing.  It does bother me when people have such a horrible misunderstanding of me and reality in general.  Plus, you were a real asshole in the way you went about it.  Admit it, you were trying to be offensive.

You said:

ignoring the obvious (there is design therefore a Designer)
through exploring the frivolous (these bones mean I am right)
to defend the ludicrous (I can do what I want, there is not God)

I don't find design to be obvious and not because I ignore it.  I just honestly do not see design or the need for a designer.  Plus, even if I saw design, it explains nothing.  It just moves the question one step farther away - where did the designer come from? 

And your trollish triplet implies that ToE was invented to aleviate guilty minds.  How on earth does that make sense? You are saying that the most scrutinized theory in science has survived 150 years in the science world just because it makes scientists feel better about their shabby ethics.  Earth to rhocam, scientists are not a pack of crazed, murderous hedonists. They don't need the ToE for that.  They keep it around for its explanatory power.


The whole point behind it was to illustrate the lies you cling to in order to fight the truth I profess.

What lies?  Be specific.  And show how you know they are lies.


I am not a scientist. true, and I may not know all the ins and out of scientific mythology sorry method.

So, maybe you should not be shouting your stupid, completely unqualified opinion from the rooftops?

"science".

What's with the quotes around science?  That and the snotty mythology barb make it look like you have a problem with science in general.

Here is someone I could have a discussion with.

I love biology, and I love chemistry, and I love physics.

Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals. The evidence just doesn't support this. The similarity between us and the large primates has been highly touted as a champion of evolution. The similarities, while the differences are ignored. If they are so similar why aren't we using ape parts for organ donations. Why did we use pig hearts? The genome is arrogantly championed as the proof, without looking at what their genome produces. If they are so similar why are all chimp parts easy to tell from human parts and human parts from chimp parts. They are not the same, that is why, nor are they similar enough to even need gene testing to verify their origin.

Gene theory is based in the belief that genes and cell behave in a predictable way. As such we are able to create vaccines, antibiotics, research therapies regarding cures for cancer and other diseases. Where is the fear of rapid random mutations? If evolution is true and we are constantly changing, how can we know that aspirin will work for our kids, grandkids? We know because we are not evolving, nor have we ever evolved. The way humans were in the Time of Jesus is the way they are now. We have not changed. sure the tools and technology have changed, but people haven't. If evolution is true should not we have changed? we still get the same diseases, we still have the same limbs in the same places. How many changes would have been necessary to bring us from great grandpa ape to today?

I have to go, life calls,

rhocam


Since I graduated high school the universe has aged 10 billion years, why, has the evidence changed? no only our interpetation of it. The Theory of evolution needed more time, so it got it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #293 on: February 13, 2012, 05:47:23 PM »
Here is someone I could have a discussion with.

I love biology, and I love chemistry, and I love physics.
You apparently don't understand that evolution is a central part of biology.  You couldn't even explain immunization as being more than "taking a small part of a disease to avoid a large amount of the disease".  I could explain immunization more accurately than that in the fifth grade, when I did a project on AIDS and had to cover why it couldn't be immunized against.  And yet you love biology?

Quote from: rhocam
Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
If you think evolution is circular logic, then you have to prove how.  Not simply point to individual facets of evolutionary theory and say, "those are all proven, but evolution itself has not been".

Quote from: rhocam
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals. The evidence just doesn't support this. The similarity between us and the large primates has been highly touted as a champion of evolution. The similarities, while the differences are ignored. If they are so similar why aren't we using ape parts for organ donations.
We share 50% of our DNA with an organism as dissimilar to us as the fruit fly.  So despite saying you love biology, you don't understand enough about DNA to realize how it actually works, and why two organisms that have very similar DNA can still end up being dramatically different in form.

Quote from: rhocam
Why did we use pig hearts? The genome is arrogantly championed as the proof, without looking at what their genome produces. If they are so similar why are all chimp parts easy to tell from human parts and human parts from chimp parts. They are not the same, that is why, nor are they similar enough to even need gene testing to verify their origin.
We don't use pig hearts for transplants, because of organ rejection.  We use pig hearts for science because they happen to be the same size as, and share characteristics with, the human heart.  I think you might find that human hearts share many characteristics with those of other primates, but pigs are far more common than primates.  And as for why it's easy to tell chimp parts from human parts, and vice versa, I think you might actually have trouble if you were tested on it.  So perhaps you shouldn't try to claim that it's "easy".

Quote from: rhocam
Gene theory is based in the belief that genes and cell behave in a predictable way. As such we are able to create vaccines, antibiotics, research therapies regarding cures for cancer and other diseases. Where is the fear of rapid random mutations? If evolution is true and we are constantly changing, how can we know that aspirin will work for our kids, grandkids? We know because we are not evolving, nor have we ever evolved. The way humans were in the Time of Jesus is the way they are now. We have not changed. sure the tools and technology have changed, but people haven't. If evolution is true should not we have changed? we still get the same diseases, we still have the same limbs in the same places. How many changes would have been necessary to bring us from great grandpa ape to today?
Most of this is except the first two sentences are complete nonsense, and if you actually understood how biology works, rather than parroting back things you remember, you would understand why.  You act like the fact that humans haven't changed all that much in 2,000 years (100 generations) is significant, yet we've seen evidence that even bacteria take several thousand generations in order to evolve significantly.  If you could point to humans from 20,000 years ago (1,000 generations) or 200,000 years ago (10,000 generations), and show that they were practically the same as modern-day humans, then you might have a point.  But as it is, you're demonstrating that whatever you say about liking biology, you don't have any real understanding of it.

We aren't talking about grandpa, or great-grandpa.  We're not even talking about great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa, only a hundred generations or so.  Imagine a string of greats a hundred times that long, and you might begin to understand the length of time needed for significant amounts of evolutionary change.

Quote from: rhocam
Since I graduated high school the universe has aged 10 billion years, why, has the evidence changed? no only our interpetation of it. The Theory of evolution needed more time, so it got it.
This is contemptible.  You're suggesting that astronomers deliberately changed their interpretation of things in order to give evolution more time.  What changed was our understanding of the evidence and our ability to discern it, and it certainly was not done to prop up evolutionary theory.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #294 on: February 13, 2012, 06:18:59 PM »
Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals. The evidence just doesn't support this. The similarity between us and the large primates has been highly touted as a champion of evolution. The similarities, while the differences are ignored. If they are so similar why aren't we using ape parts for organ donations. Why did we use pig hearts? The genome is arrogantly championed as the proof, without looking at what their genome produces. If they are so similar why are all chimp parts easy to tell from human parts and human parts from chimp parts. They are not the same, that is why, nor are they similar enough to even need gene testing to verify their origin.

Gene theory is based in the belief that genes and cell behave in a predictable way. As such we are able to create vaccines, antibiotics, research therapies regarding cures for cancer and other diseases. Where is the fear of rapid random mutations? If evolution is true and we are constantly changing, how can we know that aspirin will work for our kids, grandkids? We know because we are not evolving, nor have we ever evolved. The way humans were in the Time of Jesus is the way they are now. We have not changed. sure the tools and technology have changed, but people haven't. If evolution is true should not we have changed? we still get the same diseases, we still have the same limbs in the same places. How many changes would have been necessary to bring us from great grandpa ape to today?

I have to go, life calls,

rhocam


Since I graduated high school the universe has aged 10 billion years, why, has the evidence changed? no only our interpetation of it. The Theory of evolution needed more time, so it got it.

Apparently I have to insult you before I get a response. So here goes.

Are you authorized to be this inept?

There. That ought to help.

First of all. What makes you think that evolution operates under the premise that it has already been proven? Where do you get this stuff? Stupid R Us? (I tossed in another insult just to be sure.)

Evolution is subject to exactly the same rigorous tests that every other science has to deal with. I realize that makes it inconvenient for you because that means there is less to complain about, but unless you can show me some evidence that says otherwise, I am going to have to go with what I trust to be true. The study of evolution, by biologists and chemists and geologists and paleontologists and others has to toe the same line of scientific inquiry that any other science uses. Period.

We don't use ape parts for transplants because there aren't that many apes left. We've got lots of pigs, because the jews and muslims won't eat them. Thank god for small favors.  :)

There are currently almost 100,000 people waiting for heart transplants in the US alone. The latest figure I could find says that there are only 35,000 apes in the whole world. Can you see why there might be numerical reasons for our not even trying to use such things. However, if it makes you feel better, chimp hearts have been successfully transplanted in humans.

Oh, and pig heart transplants haven't been successful enough yet, as far as I know, to be considered as a viable option. The pig heart transplants that may happen in the near future will be done with genetically modified pigs, so that the risk of rejection is reduced. And handily, pig hearts are about the same size and human hearts if the person weighs about the same as the pig.

We do use pig heart valves to replace faulty ones in humans now.

Pig hearts and human hearts are similar because we're all mammals and the pig heart has evolved to be fairly similar to the heart we humans have. Get used to it.

Then you get into the field of random mutations, and wonder why we don't fear them when we give kids aspirin and stuff. People do. The reason people sometimes react differently to certain drugs is that sometimes their genetic makeup is incompatible with the medicine. That's not so much evolution directly as it is the simple fact that we're not all identical, and that includes differences in body chemistry, etc. brought on by genetic differences.

And ordinarily the differences aren't going to show up over a few generations. It might take tens of thousands of years for a currently effective medicine to stop working in most humans. I dunno. I haven't been around that long.

But what about antibiotic soaps? They have sped up the evolution of the much simpler bacteria that at times cause diseases. There is not a new infection showing up in India that has people scared shitless. We have no treatment. And it may be because that pathogen evolved out of bacteria that could survive antibacterial soaps. And because their niche is fairly empty because of all the dead bacteria the soaps killed off, they are getting stronger faster.

Humans evolving. Actually it is probably slowing down because people are having fewer children and hence fewer variations are manifesting themselves. But again, looking at humans over a few thousands years won't show much difference. It takes longer to  have easily measurable changes, and since nobody back then was taking samples, we don't know for sure what differences have occurred during that time. Two thousand years from now scientists will have a better idea because date from this period will presumably be available in some form.

Oh, the the universe aging ten billion years since you graduated from high school? You graduated ten billion years ago. So the reason should be obvious.  ;)

No, actually you were wrong when you said the evidence is the same as it was when you graduated. It's not. We know more. Research has revealed new information. And so the timeline changed. It may change again when we get even more information. If you're lucky we'll change it to 6,000 years and we'll all turn into christians. If we're lucky, it will simply be another case of modifying our theories and timelines and such based on even newer info.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #295 on: February 13, 2012, 11:17:45 PM »
no, i know just enough to be dangerous, the best way I learn is by doing. I like hands on, I like to visualize and discuss.

Insulting me is nothing. You don't care about me, its my ideas that you hate. If I changed my mind and came to agree with you, would you still hate what I have to say?

Where do you get the premise that evolution has been proved, Atheists R Us?

Now show me HOW evolution has been confirmed
as nice a succinctly is I irritated you to start. 3 lines.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #296 on: February 13, 2012, 11:31:32 PM »
Is that how you think most science is done?

In 3 trite lines?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #297 on: February 13, 2012, 11:47:57 PM »
Here is someone I could have a discussion with.

I love biology, and I love chemistry, and I love physics.
You apparently don't understand that evolution is a central part of biology.  You couldn't even explain immunization as being more than "taking a small part of a disease to avoid a large amount of the disease".  I could explain immunization more accurately than that in the fifth grade, when I did a project on AIDS and had to cover why it couldn't be immunized against.  And yet you love biology?

Quote from: rhocam
Evolution does not subjest itself to the same rules the above sciences do. Evolution begins with the premise that it has already been proven.
It hasn't. What has been proven is adaptation, speciation, genetic drift.
If you think evolution is circular logic, then you have to prove how.  Not simply point to individual facets of evolutionary theory and say, "those are all proven, but evolution itself has not been".

Quote from: rhocam
The issue I have with this is the gene transfer necessary to produce new animals. The evidence just doesn't support this. The similarity between us and the large primates has been highly touted as a champion of evolution. The similarities, while the differences are ignored. If they are so similar why aren't we using ape parts for organ donations.
We share 50% of our DNA with an organism as dissimilar to us as the fruit fly.  So despite saying you love biology, you don't understand enough about DNA to realize how it actually works, and why two organisms that have very similar DNA can still end up being dramatically different in form.

Quote from: rhocam
Why did we use pig hearts? The genome is arrogantly championed as the proof, without looking at what their genome produces. If they are so similar why are all chimp parts easy to tell from human parts and human parts from chimp parts. They are not the same, that is why, nor are they similar enough to even need gene testing to verify their origin.
We don't use pig hearts for transplants, because of organ rejection.  We use pig hearts for science because they happen to be the same size as, and share characteristics with, the human heart.  I think you might find that human hearts share many characteristics with those of other primates, but pigs are far more common than primates.  And as for why it's easy to tell chimp parts from human parts, and vice versa, I think you might actually have trouble if you were tested on it.  So perhaps you shouldn't try to claim that it's "easy".

Quote from: rhocam
Gene theory is based in the belief that genes and cell behave in a predictable way. As such we are able to create vaccines, antibiotics, research therapies regarding cures for cancer and other diseases. Where is the fear of rapid random mutations? If evolution is true and we are constantly changing, how can we know that aspirin will work for our kids, grandkids? We know because we are not evolving, nor have we ever evolved. The way humans were in the Time of Jesus is the way they are now. We have not changed. sure the tools and technology have changed, but people haven't. If evolution is true should not we have changed? we still get the same diseases, we still have the same limbs in the same places. How many changes would have been necessary to bring us from great grandpa ape to today?
Most of this is except the first two sentences are complete nonsense, and if you actually understood how biology works, rather than parroting back things you remember, you would understand why.  You act like the fact that humans haven't changed all that much in 2,000 years (100 generations) is significant, yet we've seen evidence that even bacteria take several thousand generations in order to evolve significantly.  If you could point to humans from 20,000 years ago (1,000 generations) or 200,000 years ago (10,000 generations), and show that they were practically the same as modern-day humans, then you might have a point.  But as it is, you're demonstrating that whatever you say about liking biology, you don't have any real understanding of it.

We aren't talking about grandpa, or great-grandpa.  We're not even talking about great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandpa, only a hundred generations or so.  Imagine a string of greats a hundred times that long, and you might begin to understand the length of time needed for significant amounts of evolutionary change.

Quote from: rhocam
Since I graduated high school the universe has aged 10 billion years, why, has the evidence changed? no only our interpretation of it. The Theory of evolution needed more time, so it got it.
This is contemptible.  You're suggesting that astronomers deliberately changed their interpretation of things in order to give evolution more time.  What changed was our understanding of the evidence and our ability to discern it, and it certainly was not done to prop up evolutionary theory.

You really think that I am that ignorant of science? I was purposely shortening my responses in order to keep your attention. Had i wrote more would you have changed your opinion? I kept it short to save time

A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a discussing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
http://en.wiped.org/wikipedia/Vaccine

 I got this off of wikipedia, How does it say anything different then what I said? It just took longer.

In reference to your refutation of my knowledge in biology. I understand that fruit flies make fruit flies. People make people. I am not the one boldly claiming that an amoeba, given enough time could make a human. Which one makes more sense? 

Addressing my stance regarding the sameness of man. How many changes would have been necessary to complete the transition from said amoeba to man? I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes. in two thousand years there should be a few more. Or did all the changes conveniently stop when we became sentient?

And finally, for now, yes I am suggesting that when the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis of evolution, the evidence gets discarded.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #298 on: February 13, 2012, 11:50:02 PM »
Is that how you think most science is done?

In 3 trite lines?

You seem to love quoting authors who write off religion in one cute line

Or is your understanding of science to poor to develop a succinct enough response

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #299 on: February 13, 2012, 11:55:00 PM »
That doesn't answer my yes-or-no question.  Hmm.  What're you hiding?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #300 on: February 14, 2012, 12:17:24 AM »
In reference to your refutation of my knowledge in biology. I understand that fruit flies make fruit flies. People make people. I am not the one boldly claiming that an amoeba, given enough time could make a human. Which one makes more sense? 

In the absence of a full understanding of all the facts associated with the TOE, your logic holds true... Your problem is your lack of understanding of the facts, and your very, very narrow time line view of the history of life on earth.  Applying logic in the absence of relevant facts will screw you up most of the time. 

A very good analogy to make you understand this is if you were to take a picture of yourself every single day of your life and put them all in order from one day to the next.  When you compare 2 or 3, or even 5 days side by side, you will always appear to be whatever age you are at the time. You will not be able to tell the difference.   But if you were to compare the way you looked when you were 5 years old with the way you look today, you might not even recognize yourself.  Now... are you going to argue that a zygote is always a zygote?  A toddler is always a toddler? Or that a baby is always a baby?  Of course not.  And THAT's how you have to view evolution.  In the short run, people do make people.  No argument there.  In the very, very long run, however, an amoeba can make a person just like a zygote made you. 

Addressing my stance regarding the sameness of man. How many changes would have been necessary to complete the transition from said amoeba to man?

Maybe.. 3 billion years worth.  But let me ask you this... Can you see going from 1 cell to 2?  If you can see going from 1 to 2, then given enough time, you can go from 1 to a trillion. 

And finally, for now, yes I am suggesting that when the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis of evolution, the evidence gets discarded.

First, evolution is no longer a hypothesis.  It is a scientific theory.  Big difference. 

Second, discarded by who?  The scientists?  The very ones who have EVERYTHING to gain by disproving evolution?  What is their motivation to discard evidence against evolution?  It's certainly not financial.  It's not fame or fear.  What is it then?  Some sort of anti-God conspiracy?  Please... This is science.  Nobody gives a shit about any specific God theory. 

Please do not conflate science with religion in this sense.  Only religious people have reason to deny the TOE'; and it has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with ignorance and dogmatic attachment to their belief in god. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #301 on: February 14, 2012, 12:20:25 AM »
And finally, for now, yes I am suggesting that when the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis of evolution, the evidence gets discarded.

Okay, I'm going to put this as simply as I can.

Lets just say each and every atheist on this site has been misinformed. Lets say that evolution is false, but we don't know it. And you know better. You have the information necessary to put the theory of evolution into the fiction section at library. Once and for all.

Give it to us. Tell us specifically where evolution is wrong. You're the teacher, we're the students. Give us sources. Give us the research done by christians and ID'ers that specifically squashes evolutionary theory. Give us more than one sentence that those of us suckered into evolution so easily dismiss. Give us something specific.

And make it good. Because we're getting sick and tired of people coming here and telling us that evolution is wrong and never never never never ever giving us specifics that include sources. Other than their god, which, as you can imagine, doesn't hold much weight around here.

And we don't hate you. Well, I don't. If I ever ring your neck, it will be because you are being so frickin' flippant with this so called superior knowledge of yours. Not because I don't like you.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #302 on: February 14, 2012, 12:20:37 AM »
rhocam, thank you for my new sig.

BTW.... it generally takes a poor stance written with complete ignorance to make it as my choice signature. You outdid many a theist that has come before you on here....you should be justifiably proud, and again, I thank you.
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #303 on: February 14, 2012, 12:21:50 AM »
[

Quote from: rhocam
The very fact that the rules don't change suggests there is something Keeping them from changing.
Let me introduce you to a little concept called "inertia".  As in, something does not change unless something else causes it to.  The rules that govern the universe won't change unless something comes along and changes them, in other words.

Inertia looses its velocity through friction, does not explain sub atomic particles.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #304 on: February 14, 2012, 12:23:03 AM »
rhocam, thank you for my new sig.

BTW.... it generally takes a poor stance written with complete ignorance to make it as my choice signature. You outdid many a theist that has come before you on here....you should be justifiably proud, and again, I thank you.

Show me how my quote is "ignorance". I didn't make up evolution, I am just argueing it

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #305 on: February 14, 2012, 12:23:42 AM »
Inertia is not an object with velocity to lose, and velocity is not a scalar value that can be "gained" or "lost" in the first place, only changed.

Have you considered trying to learn something at some point?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2012, 12:25:15 AM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #306 on: February 14, 2012, 12:52:57 AM »
And finally, for now, yes I am suggesting that when the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis of evolution, the evidence gets discarded.

Okay, I'm going to put this as simply as I can.

Lets just say each and every atheist on this site has been misinformed. Lets say that evolution is false, but we don't know it. And you know better. You have the information necessary to put the theory of evolution into the fiction section at library. Once and for all.

Give it to us. Tell us specifically where evolution is wrong. You're the teacher, we're the students. Give us sources. Give us the research done by Christians and ID'ers that specifically squashes evolutionary theory. Give us more than one sentence that those of us suckered into evolution so easily dismiss. Give us something specific.

And make it good. Because we're getting sick and tired of people coming here and telling us that evolution is wrong and never never never never ever giving us specifics that include sources. Other than their god, which, as you can imagine, doesn't hold much weight around here.

And we don't hate you. Well, I don't. If I ever ring your neck, it will be because you are being so frickin' flippant with this so called superior knowledge of yours. Not because I don't like you.

I don't claim to have superior knowledge. I claim to have no faith in evolution. I am also trying to demonstrate why.

I have evidence of why I do not believe. I am content with this evidence. Unfortunately you will not accept my evidence. I have tried already.

the fossil record. Your Champion. A clear line from our time to the beginning of time.
yet where is the continuous record of transition between species?
Long eras of stability then huge changes the next layer.

at the very beginning of his treatise vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Robert Carrol observes " most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradual account" of evolution. Yet Darwins theory requires it. It is the heart and soul of the theory.

Like I stated earlier. You have taken evidence from adaptation, specialization, and genetic drift. Misappropriated it and applied it to the theory of evolution without evidence -transitional forms.

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #307 on: February 14, 2012, 12:53:53 AM »
Inertia is not an object with velocity to lose, and velocity is not a scalar value that can be "gained" or "lost" in the first place, only changed.

Have you considered trying to learn something at some point?

Have you?

Offline rhocam

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • Darwins +0/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #308 on: February 14, 2012, 12:56:20 AM »
That doesn't answer my yes-or-no question.  Hmm.  What're you hiding?

yes?

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #309 on: February 14, 2012, 01:05:39 AM »
I don't claim to have superior knowledge. I claim to have no faith in evolution. I am also trying to demonstrate why.

Evolution is not about "faith".  It's about facts.


Quote
I have evidence of why I do not believe. I am content with this evidence. Unfortunately you will not accept my evidence. I have tried already.

You have not presented any evidence.


Quote
the fossil record. Your Champion. A clear line from our time to the beginning of time.
yet where is the continuous record of transition between species?
Long eras of stability then huge changes the next layer.


Strawman, arguing from ignorant.


Quote
at the very beginning of his treatise vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Robert Carrol observes " most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradual account" of evolution. Yet Darwins theory requires it. It is the heart and soul of the theory.


Strawman.


Quote
Like I stated earlier. You have taken evidence from adaptation, specialization, and genetic drift. Misappropriated it and applied it to the theory of evolution without evidence -transitional forms.

Strawman, ignoring the evidence, arguing from ignorant.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #310 on: February 14, 2012, 01:13:51 AM »

I have evidence of why I do not believe. I am content with this evidence. Unfortunately you will not accept my evidence. I have tried already.

the fossil record. Your Champion. A clear line from our time to the beginning of time.
yet where is the continuous record of transition between species?
Long eras of stability then huge changes the next layer.

at the very beginning of his treatise vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, Robert Carrol observes " most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradual account" of evolution. Yet Darwins theory requires it. It is the heart and soul of the theory.

Like I stated earlier. You have taken evidence from adaptation, specialization, and genetic drift. Misappropriated it and applied it to the theory of evolution without evidence -transitional forms.

Yep, Darwins' theory does require it. But his is not the only one, and as a pioneer in the field, he can be forgiven for not having all the information we have now.

The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium matches the fossil record much better. And when researchers create computer models to simulate evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium happens in them too. Just keep in mind that Punctuated Equilibrium isn't instant. It takes 50-100,000 years or so for the changes to take place. And this is reflected in the fossil record.

Darwin didn't have enough information to be able to consider other mechanisms. He was hanging out 150 years ago, before the civil war in the states, the Suez Canal was just being started. Scientific sophistication wasn't what it is today. Don't assume that Darwin's version of what happened hasn't changed.

At least you seem to be willing to admit that evolution occurred, even if you give a designer all the credit. We get christians here all the time who insist that all the dinosaur fossils were formed after Noah's boat ride. I hope I'm reading you right.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #311 on: February 14, 2012, 01:53:48 AM »
no, i know just enough to be dangerous...
A danger to yourself mostly.

You don't care about me, its my ideas that you hate.
Well they are stupid ideas.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #312 on: February 14, 2012, 01:58:23 AM »
You really think that I am that ignorant of science?
It is blatantly obvious from your posts that you are that ignorant of science.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10603
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #313 on: February 14, 2012, 02:02:34 AM »
You really think that I am that ignorant of science?
It is blatantly obvious from your posts that you are that ignorant of science.

Fixed.
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 Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Darwins +71/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #314 on: February 14, 2012, 02:38:28 AM »
Since I graduated high school the universe has aged 10 billion years, why, has the evidence changed? no only our interpetation of it. The Theory of evolution needed more time, so it got it.
This claim struck me as fishy since I distinctly remember reading when I was a kid in the 1970's from an encyclopedia that was printed in the 1960's that the universe was 10-20 billion years old. So, with a bit of googling I found that the most commonly cited modern estimates of the age of the universe are based on the Hubble constant, which describes the rate at which the universe is expanding. Edwin Hubble's own calculation of the Hubble constant contained several errors. Hubble was aware that he had a problem because his calculations (ca. 1928) put the age of the universe somewhere around 2 billion years, which was younger than the most accepted estimates of the age of the earth at the time. In 1952, astronomer Walter Baade found and corrected one of Hubble's errors, resulting in a larger estimate, but it still seemed to young based on other evidence.  In 1958 an astronomer named Alan Sandage discovered another error and estimated that the Hubble constant to be in a range that would put the age of the universe in the 10-20 billion year range, which corresponds to what I remember reading way-back-when. As better data has become available, this estimate has been refined and the range narrowed, but it has stayed inside the range proposed by Sandage in 1958.

So, since you claim that the age of the universe has increased by 10 billion years since you graduated high school, you either graduated high school more than half a century ago, or your high school had a badly outdated (or YEC influenced) science curriculum, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

I'm curious, rhocam: was that claim based on your own recollection, or is it something you picked up from some creationist source? I'm 47 years old, and I don't remember ever seeing a contemporary estimate of the age of the universe that wasn't at least 10 billion years.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #315 on: February 14, 2012, 06:04:24 AM »
....the fossil record. Your Champion. A clear line from our time to the beginning of time.  yet where is the continuous record of transition between species?

See, here is my problem with what you are saying.  Fossil are only one part of the evidence for the ToE - and, frankly, only a very small part.  So for you to dismiss the evidence for evolution based solely on fossils suggests to me that you do not understand either the ToE or the evidence for it well enough to legitimately object to it.

Further to that, your request for a continuous unbroken string of fossils suggests that you also do not even have much of an understanding of what fossils are, or how they are formed.

Given the above - that you don't have the knowledge to legitimately object to the ToE or the evidence for it - why should I pay any attention to your objections? 

Please note, BTW, that "lack of knowledge" is not intended as an insult.  I lack knowledge on all manner of things.....how the internal combustion engine works for one, or how plastic is made.  Lack of knowledge on those subjects doesn't make me a bad person (according to you, "being an atheist" does that!) - but that lack of knowledge in specific subject areas SHOULD stop me objecting to those things......like me saying that cars don't work because surely they'd just explode all the time because they say the ICE works by continual explosions!!  How ridiculous!!!!

Perhaps you have a legitimate objection to the evidence underlying the ToE?  Forgive me, but I have yet to see you post it!
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #316 on: February 14, 2012, 08:11:58 AM »
yes?

So you do think science is generally done in 3 trite lines.

Hmm.  Guess you aren't familiar with any science.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #317 on: February 14, 2012, 09:42:44 AM »
rhocam, thank you for my new sig.

BTW.... it generally takes a poor stance written with complete ignorance to make it as my choice signature. You outdid many a theist that has come before you on here....you should be justifiably proud, and again, I thank you.

Show me how my quote is "ignorance". I didn't make up evolution, I am just argueing it

You said: "So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes."

Happy?
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10603
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution Explained
« Reply #318 on: February 14, 2012, 09:45:30 AM »
You said: "So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes."

Happy?

Actually virtually everything he said shows his utter ignorance of... well, everything.
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.