PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Black Samurai on June 24, 2002, 04:48:26 PM
-
Some of you may have heard of it. Many of you have not. Science\'s argument against Darwinism is the subject of "Intelligent Design". Intelligent Design suggests that evolution wasn\'t the random, chaotic process most biologists believe it to be; but indicates the probable existence of a designer who was responsible for the design.
Pieced together from a webpage on the subject
What makes this significant is that Intelligent Design is a phenomenon to be dealt with and studied scientifically rather than a topic left to religion or other pursuits. It\'s a claim that leads directly to the other principal argument made by Intelligent Design adherents: that science as it now is constituted isn\'t adequate to deal with the discovery of intelligent design in nature because science is too closely wed to materialistic and naturalistic interpretations of what nature is.
This is a very revolutionary claim. What\'s at the basis of the argument, says Dembski, is a controversy over "the nature of nature." Dembski finds naturalistic science "impoverished" when it comes to handling intelligent design. How impoverished? Because materialism and naturalism assume that natural explanations will suffice to answer every question that arises in science, and this simply won\'t do when it comes to dealing with the phenomenon of Design.
Intelligent Design does not argue any specific theology. The word \'Designer\' doesn\'t necessarily mean the God of Genesis,(though it doesn\'t exclude Him). "My view is that from the empirical data we have we cannot make affirmation of a deity. It is the possibility [of a deity] that we arrive at." Charles Thaxton explains that it is a "generic design that we talk about in Intelligent Design. When people want to go beyond that, that\'s where their particular views [about God] come in."
What makes the Intelligent Design Movement so revolutionary is that it goes full force against the perceived wisdom of science, and particularly biology. Darwinism pervades every aspect of Western civilization and Darwinists argue that there is no design in nature, none at all that would suggest a designer. Everything in nature, say the Darwinists, is the result of random evolution, with no design that would suggest direction or planning.
Here is how one of the world\'s foremost Darwinists, Oxford University\'s Richard Dawkins, described this worldview in his 1995 book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, a direct attack on the possibility of design in nature: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
The Darwinian position was put in even starker words by Peter Atkins in his book The Second Law, which appeared in 1984, the same year that Thaxton and his coauthors published The Mystery of Life\'s Origin: "We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the universe."
Michael Behe takes on Darwinism from a different angle. A Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania, Behe argues that life at its most fundamental is "irreducibly complex," a phrase he has added to the Intelligent Design debate. To explain what he means by irreducibly complex, Behe talks about a mousetrap, a human construction made up of a base, hammer, spring and holding bar, each of which is needed for the mousetrap to work. Without any one of the aspects, the mousetrap would not be a mousetrap.
Nature, too, has examples of irreducible complexity -- the system in a cell that targets proteins for delivery to subcellular compartments, for example. Almost every one of the components that make up this system is necessary for the system to work. Without one of the components, the proteins are not delivered to their proper destination.
Behe argues that the development of such an elaborate and complex system in Darwinian evolutionary terms by one small step after another simply won\'t do, because during any step prior to all the complex parts working together, the system would be nonfunctional. What is the probability of all those parts that have to work together starting to work together at a given moment? Just as the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap indicates a design that renders the possibility of its parts working together, so the irreducible complexity of the cellular protein-delivery system indicates design.
Behe likes to quote from Darwin himself to show the importance of irreducible complexity when it comes to Darwinian theory. In the Origin of Species Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Behe believes that the existence of such a complex organ already has been demonstrated.
Sir Isaac Newton (who died in 1727) wrote, "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
The English divine William Paley who published his Natural Theology in 1802 in which he made his famous argument that if we came upon a watch in a field, we would assume that it was made by intelligence because its various parts are directed toward one aim: the telling of time. (Paley also had much to say about the complexity of the mammalian eye, which seemed to him to indicate design. Darwin, who was equally in awe of the complexity of the human eye, concluded that, despite this complexity, the eye could have evolved small step by small step over time.)
Behe is optimistic about the future of the Intelligent Design Movement: "I don\'t know whether it\'s going to be two years or 20, but that\'s where the data of science is heading," he says. "Scientists sense that something\'s not quite right. There are new ideas we need new definitions for."
Its a long read, so I doubt this gets many replies. Still I want to start a good scientific argument against Darwinism.
And now I banish this thread to obscurity.
-
Intelligent Design is not a scientific argument. Intelligent Design is a restructured God of the Gaps argument--whatever we don\'t understand, God Did It.
Intelligent Design has no experimental background, makes no predictions, and, ultimately, is untestable.
ID is effectively saying "We don\'t know how this could have possibly evolved. Therefore, God Made It." or "Everything\'s balanced so perfectly, there\'s no way it could have evolved by chance. Therefore, God Made It."
Sure, they\'ll claim that God isn\'t necessarily involved, but the ID hypothesis requires some unknown super-intelligence that left absolutely no evidence behind of its meddling.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/stealth.pdf
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html
-
To make this even longer, here\'s an excerpt from the book: The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Written by: Stewart Kauffman.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/themes.html
A quick Synopsis for those who don\'t want to read it all: The phenomenon we call life life is self organizing, much in the same way non-biological examples such as snowflakes or crystals form their own unique shapes out of seemingly nothing.
Enjoy. :D
The title of this book, Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, states the book\'s task: To answer the question, What are the sources of the overwhelming and beautiful order which graces the living world? To presume to ask such a question is also to know one must not presume to succeed. Questions such as this must ever be asked anew as each generation comes to perceive new ways of ordering its view of life.
One view, Darwin\'s, captives us all: natural selection and the great branching tree of life, spreading from the major phyla to the minor genera and species, to terminal twigs, to curious humans seeking their place. Darwin and evolutionism stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientists. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth. For Darwin\'s answer to the sources of the order we see all around us in overwhelmingly an appear to a single singular force: Natural selection. It is this single-force view which I believe to be inadequate, for it fails to notice, fails to stress, fails to incorporate the possibility that simple and complex systems exhibit order spontaneously. That spontaneous order exists, however, is hardly mysterious. The nonbiological world is replete with examples, and no one would doubt that similar sources of order are available to living things. What is mysterious is the extent of such spontaneous order in life and how such self-ordering may mingle with Darwin\'s mechanism of evolution---natural selection---to permit or, better, to produce what we see.
Biologists have not entirely ignored the spontaneous emergence of order, the occurrence of self-organization. We all know that oil droplets in water manage to be spherical without the benefit of natural selection and that snowflakes assume their evanescent sixfold symmetry for spare physiochemical reasons. But the sheer imponderable complexity of organisms overwhelms us as surely as it did Darwin in his time. We customarily turn to natural selection to render sensible the order we see, but I think the answer to our questions about the origins or order is broader. We already have some inkling of the kinds of spontaneous order which may bear on biological evolution, and I believe we must make the most profound assessment of such self-organization. We must look in any direction that seems profitable because whatever spontaneous may abound is available for evolution\'s continuing uses.
What makes the present stage of biological science so extraordinary is that molecular biology is driving us to the innermost reaches of the cell\'s ultimate mechanisms, complexity, and capacity to evolve. At the very same time, work in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology is revealing how far- reaching the powers of self-organization can be. These advances hold implications for the origin of life itself and for the origins of order in the ontogeny of each organism. One major theme of this book is an effort to link recent work in molecular biology with these new insights into spontaneous order in complex systems. Union of the two streams of insight promises to transform our understanding. The order inherent in the busy complexity within the cell may be largely self-organized and spontaneous rather than the consequence of natural selection alone.
Yet our task is not only to explore the sources or order which may lie available to evolution. We must also integrate such knowledge with the basic insight offered by Darwin. Natural selection, whatever our doubts in detailed cases, is surely a preeminent force in evolution. Therefore, to combine the themes of self-organization and selection, we must expand evolutionary theory so that it stands on a broader foundation and then raise a new edifice. That edifice has at least three tiers:
We must delineate the spontaneous sources of order, the self- organized properties of simple and complex systems which provide the inherent order evolution has to work with ab initio and always.
We must understand how such self-ordered properties permit, enable, and limit the efficacy of natural selection. We must see organisms in a new light, as the balance found, the collaboration achieved, when natural selection acts to further mold order which preexists. In short, we must integrate the fact that selection is not the sole source of order in organisms.
We must understand which properties of complex living systems confer on the systems their capacities to adapt. For Darwin simply assumed that the accumulation of advantageous mutations was possible, and yet the capacity to do so is not self-evident. Some systems can hardly adapt at all. Indeed, we must investigate the possibility that selection itself achieves the kinds of organisms which can adapt successfully. Therefore, we must also wonder whether there may be characteristic features so deeply requisite for the capacity to adapt in a coevolutionary process that their presence in organisms is itself a lawlike consequence of selection operating on complex coevolving systems.
While these points hardly seem contentious, it is no secret that we have, as yet, no theory which embodies them. Physics has its examples of remarkable order, but no use for natural selection. Biologists are secretly aware that selection must be working on systems which to one degree or another exhibit order by themselves. D\'Arcy Thompson (1942) told us so with eloquence years ago, but we have not troubled to think through the implications. How strange, yet therefore how inviting, that we may one day bring ourselves to see life in a new light.
The major parts of the book discuss the following topics.
The introduction, Chapter 1, outlines our contemporary view of organisms, order, and evolution. Here we have been persuaded by Monod\'s (1971) evocative phrase, "Evolution is chance caught on the wing." And we are equally persuaded by Jacob\'s (1983) view that evolution "tinkers together contraptions." Here broods our sense of organisms as ultimately accidental and evolution as an essentially historical science. In this view, the order in organisms results from selection sifting unexpected useful accidents and marshaling them into improbable forms. In this view, the great universals of biology---the genetic code, the structure of metabolism, and others---are to be seen as frozen accidents, present in all organisms only by virtue of shared descent. The quiet sense that spontaneous order is everywhere present is itself not central to this view. Hence it is not stressed, not investigated, not integrated.
The first part of the book, Chapters 2 through 6, examines the power and limits of selection when acting on complex systems exhibiting spontaneous order, explores our first examples of self-organization, and proposes that the evolutionary marriage of self-organization and selection is itself governed by law: Selection achieves and maintains complex systems poised on the boundary, or edge, between order and chaos. These systems are best able to coordinate complex tasks and evolve in a complex environment. The typical, or generic, properties of such poised systems emerge as potential ahistorical universals in biology.
None can doubt Darwin\'s main idea. If we are to consider the implications of spontaneous order, we must certainly do so in the context of natural selection, since biology without it is unthinkable. Therefore, we must understand how selection interacts with systems which have their own spontaneously ordered properties. At a minimum, we must wonder whether selection in sufficiently powerful to obviate any inherent order in life\'s building blocks. If so, the order seen might reflect selection\'s dictates alone. Thus Chapters 2 to 4 consider the character of adaptive evolution under strong natural selection on mountainous "fitness landscapes," with high mountain tops representing peaks of fitness and ridges and deep valleys representing low fitness. We shall in fact find critical limits to me power of selection: As the entities under selection become progressively more complex, selection becomes less able to avoid the typical features of those systems. Consequently, should such complex systems exhibit spontaneous order, that order can shine through not because of selection, but despite it. Some of the order in organisms may reflect not selection\'s success, but its future.
Continued
-
Much of the discussion in Chapters 2 to 4 focuses on adaptation in sequence spaces, such as among possible DNA or protein sequences, where we can conceive of evolution as carrying out adaptive walks toward peaks that represent how well proteins perform specific catalytic or ligand binding tasks. Consideration of the evolution of proteins able to carry out new catalytic functions, in turn, leads to the abstract concept of a catalytic task space. Among the implications of such a space is that about 100 million roughed-in enzymes might constitute a universal enzymatic toolbox able to catalyze almost any reaction. The immune repertoire of about 100 million may already be a first example of such a universal set. This possibility is not merely abstract, for Chapter 4 leads us toward practical implications as well. It is now possible to use genetic-engineering techniques to generate extremely large number of random or quasi-random DNA sequences, hence very large numbers of random or quasi-random RNA sequences and quasi-random proteins. Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts.
Chapter 5 seeks the principles of construction in "parallel-processing" integrated systems of elements that allow the systems to adapt their behavior in a complex environment. We find two themes: First, the emergence of profound spontaneous order. Second, a bold hypothesis that the target of selection is a characteristic type of adaptive system poised between order and chaos. The unexpected spontaneous order is this: Vast interlinked networks of elements behave in three broad regimes---ordered, chaotic, and complex regime on the frontier between order and chaos. The spontaneous order of the ordered regime foretells much of the order seen in aspects of developmental biology. The bold hypothesis states construction requirements which permit complex systems to adapt optimally through accumulation of useful mutations, even in a coevolutionary context where an adaptive move by one "player" distorts the fitnesses and the fitness landscapes of the coevolving partners. Ordered systems, particularly those near the edge of chaos, have the needed properties.
In Chapter 6, we see that the same construction requirements find echos at higher levels, such as whole ecosystems. Here the problem is to understand how such systems are coupled so that members coevolve successfully and how selection itself may achieve such coupling. Again, such ecosystems can behave in three broad regimes---ordered, complex, and chaotic. Again, remarkably, coevolving systems may optimize their capacity to coevolve by mutually attaining the edge of chaos.
The second and third parts of the book discuss other major examples of powerful self-ordering. In each case, the spontaneous order appears so impressive that it would be shortsighted to ignore the possibility that much of the order we see in the biological world reflects inherent order.
In the second part, Chapters 7 to 10, I discuss the origin of life. It requires no more words than this phrase to remember that we do not now know how life may have started. Any discussion is at best a body of ideas. The central problem is this: How hard is it to obtain a self-reproducing system of complex organic molecules, capable of a metabolism coordinating the flow of small molecules and energy needed for reproduction and capable of further evolution? Contrary to all our expectations, the answer, I think, is that it may be surprisingly easy. To state it another way, I want to suggest that we can think of the origin of life as an expected emergent collective property of the modestly complex mixture of catalytic polymers, such as proteins or catalytic RNA, which catalyze one another\'s formation. I believe that the origin of life was not an enormously improbable event, but law-like and governed by new principles of self-organization in complex webs of catalysts. Such a view has many implications. Among them, the template- replicating properties of DNA and RNA are not essential to life itself (although these properties are now essential to our life). The fundamental order lies deeper, the routes to life are broader.
Further, I suspect that the same principles of self-organization apply to the emergence of a protometabolism. I suggest that the formation of a connected web of metabolic transformations arises almost inevitably in a sufficiently complex system of organicmolecules and polymer catalysts. This view implies that, from the outset, life possessed a certain inalienable holism. It also suggests that almost any metabolic web, were life to evolve again, would have a very similar statistical structure. Thus I find myself wondering if the web structure of a metabolism may reflect not the contingent consequences of this particular history of life, but some underlying ordering principles in biology.
These ideas are generalized in Chapter 10 to a new class of "random grammar" models which exhibit functional integration and transformation in coevolving systems, ranging from prebiotic chemical systems with protoorganisms to the emergence of mutualism and antagonism between simple organisms to similar features of economic and cultural systems. Grammar models are new testbeds for the locus of law in deeply historical sciences such as biology.
The third part, Chapters 11 to 14, examines the "genetic program" which controls cell differentiation during development of the adult from the fertilized ovum, and the machinery which yields ordered morphologies. The main intent is to suggest that many highly ordered features of ontogeny are not the hard-won achievements of selection, but largely the expected self- organized behaviors of these complex genetic regulatory systems.
The problem of cell differentiation, the focus of Chapters 11 to 13, is one of the two most basic issues in developmental biology. Different cell types---nerve, muscle, liver parenchymal---arise and differentiate from earlier cell types during development and, ultimately, in a human, form several hundred cell types. Each cell in a human\'s body contains essentially the same genetic instructions as all other cells. Those instructions include the structural genes coding for aobut 100 000 different proteins. Cell types differ because different subsets of genes are "active" in the different cell types. The activation and repression of genes is itself controlled by an elaborate regulatory network in which the products of some genes switch other genes on or off. More generally, expression of gene activity is controlled at a variety of levels, ranging from the gene itself to the ultimate protein product. It is this web of regulatory circuitry which orchestrates the genetic system into coherent order. That circuitry may comprise thousands of molecularly distinct interconnections. In evolution, the very circuitry is persistently "scrambled" by various kinds of mutations, as is the "logic" of the resulting developmental program.
In Chatpers 11 to 13, I try to show that such properties as the existence of distinct cell types, the homeostatic stability of cell types, the number of cell types in an organism, the similarity in gene expression patterns in different cell types, the fact that development from the fertilized egg is organized around branching pathways of cell differentiation, and many other aspects of differentiation are all consequences of properties of self- organization so profoundly immanent in complex regulatory networks that selection cannot avoid that order. All aspects of differentiation appear to be properties of complex parallel-processing systems lying in the ordered regime. These properties may therefore reflect quasi-universal features of organisms due not to selection alone, but also to the spontaneous order of the systems on which selection has been privileged to act.
Chapter 14 treads D\'Arcy Thompson\'s ground and considers the second fundamental problem in developmental biology: morphology. The actual morphologies of organisms must also be viewed as a collaboration between the self-ordered properties of physicochemical systems together with the action of selection. Oil droplets are spherical in water because that is the lowest energy state. The membrane of a cell, a bilipid structure, forms spherical closed surfaces because that is its lowest energy state. Other aspects of spatial order in organisms reflect dissipative structures rather like whirlpools, which require a continuous flow of matter and energy to maintain the form. Thus the genome\'s capacity to generate a form must depend on very many physicochemical processes constituting a panoply of developmental mechanisms beyond the sheer capacity of the genome to coordinate the synthesis of specific RNA and protein molecules in time and space. Morphology is a marriage of underlying laws of form and the agency of selection. The task is to find the laws and hallow the marriage.
I should make it clear that there are many fundamental problems in evolution and development which I have made no attempt to discuss. Most notably, the study of evolution has focused and will continue to focus on analysis of branching phylogenies, with related debates about the tempo and mode of evolution and the roles of natural selection and drift in the evolutionary process. In the best sense, this tradition studies this history of life. My aim in this book, nowhere in opposition to the familiar tradition, is to examine some new directions in which the occurrence of spontaneous order underpins this history of life.
-
I should also stress that, while the book is finished, it is not a finished book. Some of the subjects are familiar and can be discussed with a modest sense of completion. Others, however, constitute new areas of thought and investigation. Premises and conclusions stand open to criticism. If usual, I hope they are open to improvement.
-
On that same note:
Some(not all) of the evolutionist\'s theories have no experimental background, make no predictions, and, ultimately, are untestable.
There is no way to scientifically prove evolution which is why it is a "theory". Just like Intelligent Design.
Things like the golden mean(ratio) and the complexity of life forms make the odds against life just happening as a function of chaos staggering. Impossible? No. Improbable? I believe so.
I don\'t expect many people to agree with this theory because to do so would require an almost complete paradigm shift and we know how much people hate change. I hate to be cliche but think outside the box for a little bit.
-
The main difference between self-organzing theory of life and Intelligent Design from what I\'ve read, is that SOTheory states that the formation of life from simple protines into complex and diverse creatures is a natural property of the universe.. a law.. (albiet unproven) much like gravity or reletivity. The very laws of the universe lean towards the creation of life. This bodes very well for people looking for life on other planets. Intelligen Design cannot answer "where" life came from like the SOTheory, and it uses complexity to infer that there is some higher order or power directing it.
:D
-
The basic idea behind the studies of Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Mathematically speaking impossibility is known as a 1 in 10^150 chance.(Law of small probability)
The probability of evolving one molecule of one protein is a 1 in 10^75 chance, that does not satisfy the criterion of the law of small probability (one chance in 10^150). So in theory it is possible for one molecule of protein to have been spontaneously created.
However, the simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein does satisfy the criterion(meaning it would be impossible) and even if, by some freak occurance, it did happen; they would be far from the necessary amount to create a living cell.
For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed. Take the following into account.
- All of these raw materials had to be evolved at the same time
- They could not have been more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule
- These proteins had to be stacked at the cell\'s construction site
If you take these things into account then we can make an incredibly low estimate of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. The probability is one chance in more than 10^4,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10^150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 10^4,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.
Reproduction can be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 10^4,478,296 chances to one.
A scientific breakdown on the subject of Intelligent Design.
Hopefully it is understandable.
-
That is, of course, unless Self Organizing property of life proves to be untrue. Life, in all it\'s form and splender, may be just another property of the universe.. akin to such forces such as gravity, energy, and momentum. It would be interesting to find a planet with the exact same climate and terrain as the earth, and start the process all over again to see if life arises on that planet in the same forms it did on earth of if it would be radically different.
The overview of the book which I posted was written in 1993. I\'ll see if I can find some more up to date links and see if the theory has changed over this time or has been dismissed totally by contrary evidence.
EDIT: I found this link which may be interesting to some people. It\'s basically a discussion on Koffman\'s book: At Home in the Universe. One particularly interesting factoid is that the theory of Self Organization as it pertains to life has been backed up by actual labratory results. While it is not direct proof that theory is true, results most certainly support it.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm
Oddly, the theory of Self Organization actually supports Clowd\'s claims. Well, not presicely. He believes that god formed man and animals with his own hands from dirt and dust.. all at the same time.. SO Theory states that through the chaos, there IS a higher order to our being here. We BELONG here.. we were made of the earth by the forces of the universe.. and it was not by chance.
I like this theory because it pacifies both my religeous creationist tendacies and the drive for the answers to also be scientifically plausable. By making creation a property of the universe, you trace it\'s orgin back to the creation of the universe. Of course, no-one knows what caused the Big Bang... weither it be god or a natural force. That is an answer left to be revealed another day. :)
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Oddly, the theory of Self Organization actually supports Clowd\'s claims. Well, not presicely. He believes that god formed man and animals with his own hands from dirt and dust.. all at the same time.. SO Theory states that through the chaos, there IS a higher order to our being here. We BELONG here.. we were made of the earth by the forces of the universe.. and it was not by chance.
I dont believe God made man the same time as the animals, the animals were first, then man.
I believe that you get the large variety of life from breeding, just how humans have gotten different sizes and colors and looks, animals have done the same. But they remain to their kind. The fossil record shows complex life appearing in large quantities in short periods of time, not long periods.
All spieces fall in a category (kingdom, phylum, etc) there isnt one that belongs in more then 1.
EDIT: BTW the fossil record is basically complete, and no incomplete, or skeletons showing limbs forming have been found. I can elaborate in my next post if you want.
-
All spieces fall in a category (kingdom, phylum, etc) there isnt one that belongs in more then 1. - Clowd
Well, that\'s funny, because I can list two right off the top of my head.
1. Spiney Echindna
2. Duckbill Platypus
These two animals are quite unique in they are both considered mammals (Feed their young with milk they produce) and they lay eggs... something no other mammal does.. yet Insects/Fish/Reptiles/Birds do.
Heh, and lets not forget those loveable Dinosaurs who roamed the earth many millions of years ago who exibit traits found in both Reptiles and Birds.
So really, your argument should state that SOME creatures seem to spontaniously appear while others have been shown to clearly be in a transition from one kingdom, class, genus, whatever, into another.
Modern archeology has only been around for the past 200 or so years.. you can\'t possibly expect us to find missing links to all creatures in all times. The conditions must also be right to facilitate the formation of fossils... and I\'m sure there\'s been a great many species that have thrived upon this earth which have absolutely no evidence left behind due to everything from the climate they lived in to scavengers which spread the remains. More recent creatures have been discovered, and again.. if you\'d simply look in the fossil record you\'d make some remarkable discoveries. Just look at the changes proto-man took to become modern man.. from Lucy to Einstein.
BTW: You concede that you can make a new -breed- of animal by simply mating them correct? Take a Jack Russel Terrier, and breed it to be smaller, more lean, and increasingly photogenic eyes, and given enough time (several hundred thousand years), enough selective breeding, and eventually you\'ll end up with a Cat. (After all, Cats and Dogs DO share a common ancestor)
-
BTW the fossil record is basically complete - Clowd
Yes, please do elaborate.. and provide links if you\'d bothered to pull that from an actual website rather than your a$$. Reminds me of the guy who closed the patent office back in the 1920\'s because "There was nothing new for mankind to discover". :rolleyes:
-
1. Spiney Echindna
2. Duckbill Platypus
They may resemble, but they are NOT in 2 categories. Theres more to belonging in another category then just laying eggs and feeding young with milk. You also forgot forget the mass differences the two have.
Once again, you may say traits have been found, but the fossil record is complete, and there arent incomplete skeletons, or skeletons forming limbs. Its impossible for evolution to exist if there is not fossils of incomplete skeletons, organs.
Dinosaurs may have bones that resemble birds, but the point is, it cant be proven. The fossil record doesnt prove it.
You think youll end up with a cat after breeding dogs for several hundred years? No, that dont happen. The fossil record proves it dont by not showing ANY evidence of it happening.
Modern archeology has been around for 200 years and you cant expect to find everything? They found what you claim 200 million year old dinosaur bones. Im sure they would find something evolving along the timeline.
-
Theres more to belonging in another category then just laying eggs and feeding young with milk. You also forgot forget the mass differences the two have. - Clowd
And you are correct, which is why they are considered Mammals. However they are the ONLY mammals which lay eggs, a trait NOT found in any other mammal species, it\'s a staple of every other philus(?). It\'s mammilian enough to be considered a Mammal, yet is not wholly mammilian since it lays eggs. It\'s on the tail end of a transistion from one type of creature to another.
Its impossible for evolution to exist if there is not fossils of incomplete skeletons, organs. - Clowd
Incomplete skeletons are found all the time, and you will not find fossils of individual organs since they decay far to fast to leave an impression in the rock that forms around them. WTF are you even trying to say here? Nonsence...
Once again, you may say traits have been found, but the fossil record is complete, and there arent incomplete skeletons, or skeletons forming limbs. - Clowd
The fossil record is NOT complete.. not by a long shot.. and I\'ll provide a link below. As for skeletons forming limbs, what exactly are you looking for? A pre-historic 9mm movie of a creature spontaniously sprouting a fifth leg? These changes take place gradually, slowly, over time. Look at the diagrams of the bone structures found in fossilized fish compaired to animals which lived later.. and you\'ll clearly see how the bones of the fin slowly.. piece by piece.. move, grow, fuse.. and eventually form into legs. It was posted in the "Thread III" thread by shockwaves, I believe.
The fossil record proves it dont by not showing ANY evidence of it happening. - Clowd
Actually, if you\'d do a bit of actual research into the fossil record, you\'ll find that they are related... and both came from the same species of animal.
Modern archeology has been around for 200 years and you cant expect to find everything? They found what you claim 200 million year old dinosaur bones. Im sure they would find something evolving along the timeline. - Clowd
No you can\'t, and the link below explains exactly why.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/completeness.html
Oh, and may I ask.. where is your souce? You have STILL yet to provide even one, save the bible, and you won\'t even reveal which verision you\'re pulling this "truth" from.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
Oh, and may I ask.. where is your souce? You have STILL yet to provide even one, save the bible, and you won\'t even reveal which verision you\'re pulling this "truth" from.
Save the bible from what?
As for fossil record:
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of plaeonbiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that…the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, and will never be replaced.*
*Bold added
I believe as birds breed, some may change in color or small changes in physical charcastics, but remain to its kind. Humans have different sizes of lips, colors of hair skin, but are humans.
-
Save the bible from what? - Clowd
Pffftt... Bwahahahah.. that\'s some funneh shiznits. Thanks for the laugh... I needed it after watching this perfectly interesting and respectable scientific thread get washed down the tubes by your blathering which, in fact, adressess NONE of our above posts.
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of plaeonbiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that…the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, and will never be replaced.
Again, this sounds exactly like what the guy who closed the patent office in the 1920\'s said. An ameture inventor himself, he stated that mankind has reached the end of his inventfulness, and that there was nothing new to discover. So much for computers, jet engines, space travel, genetics, and oh so much more. New discoveries are made all the time, and if you\'d actually (once again) study the fossil record you\'d see these new entries with your own eyes. I would like to know exactly when Mr. Nilsson made this statement.. so that I can pull up a the fossilised remains of a recently discovered creature and prove to you what everyone else already knows... that it\'s nonsence.
Of course, you won\'t. ;)
I believe as birds breed, some may change in color or small changes in physical charcastics, but remain to its kind. - Clowd
Minor changes compound over time. Differences in breeds are merely the most obvious and short term example of how evolution works. Compound these slight differences over many thousands of years, and you will have a new creature. This is HOW evolution works son.
-
You cant prove evolution, and the fossil record is against it. Whats left?
EDIT: Incomplete skeletons have been found? Please elaborate
-
You cant prove evolution, and the fossil record is against it. Whats left? - Clowd
Oh come on Clowd.. is that all? Really, I expected much more nonsence from you to rip apart. Pitty. While it\'s true that the mechanics of evolution are still a bit clouded in mystery, the evidence for it by far greatly outweighs evidence for creationism, as illustrated by the myrid of links and diagrams the members of this board have posted.
Creationism is the easy out.. an answer for lazy people.. It\'s "Oh, I don\'t know.. I don\'t wanna spend all that time figuring it out.. let\'s jus say God did it and walk away." Every single gap or hole in science has at one time been attributed to "God\'s" doing.. and one by one those gaps are being filled in. Not just with Evolution, but Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Psychiatry, even Socialology. I\'m not sure, but I don\'t think anyone has attributed God to unsolvable problems in mathematics yet. Religeon is constantly having to bend it\'s view of the bible to fit scientific discoveries. That\'s not a great track record. Remember, you do NOT have the upperhand here Clowd.
Also, just how is the fossil record against evolution? It clearly shows the progress of change in the skeletal structures many different creatures... including man. Not ALL of the creatures who ever lived on earth left fossils behind, and of those that did, not all of their fossils have been discovered. As a creationist, you (once again) take the easy way out and instead of look for answers just throw your hands in the air and "It\'s gods doing".
Hmm.. what\'s next.. will you be trying to explain how a computer works to a friend or colluigue and come upon a question you can\'t answer and just attribute it all to magic? :p
So what\'s left? Good question. What\'s left, is to study.. observe.. test.. and formulate new ideas from your results in which you further study.. obeserve.. test. Even if you could somehow "prove" Darwinism wrong, that does not validate Creationism. It simply proves Darwinism wrong.. nothing more.. nothing less.
-
Your a mad man, the fossil record shows thousands of species of COMPLETE COMPLEX creatures appearing SUDDENLY. NOTHING HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL TRANSITION. THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SHOW GRADUAL TRANSITION.
I NEVER TOOK THE EASY WAY OUT, I HAVE YET TO SAY: GOD DID IT THAT WAY. I HAVE USED THE FOSSIL RECORD AND THATS ALL. YOU CANT DENY THAT.
THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION
Only anti-God people believe in God not controlling the creation of the universe. Your by yourself if you think there is a creator, but he didnt create the universe, the big bang did.... :rolleyes:
-
EDIT: Incomplete skeletons have been found? Please elaborate - Clowd
An Incomplete Skeleton is simply a skeleton with some bones missing. When Chanda Levy\'s remains were discovered, not all of her bones were recovered. What they found was an incomplete skeleton which (thankfully) included a skull they could run dental matches on.
Acheologists almost never find complete skeletons. Out of all the Stegosaurus bones collected over the years, there is only 1 complete skeleton that we know of in existance. (As stated by the link about how incomplete the fossil record really still is) Those complete skeletons you see at museums are mostly incomplete skeletons with some of their bones fabricated by men to give a more complete view of the creature to the casual observer.
If this wasn\'t the answer you wanted, perhaps you should learn to ask right questions. :p
-
....ok....incomplete skeletons mean you see fossils with half a leg, and fossils that date later with a full leg. that has never been found.
-
THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT SHOW GRADUAL TRANSITION. - Clowd
There are links and diagrams in the "Thread III" thread which prove otherwise. Either combat this with a link or source which discounts this proof, or concede defeat.
I NEVER TOOK THE EASY WAY OUT, I HAVE YET TO SAY: GOD DID IT THAT WAY. - Clowd
Umm.. what exactly do you think creationism IS Clowd? You say the bible says that god created man. Either he jus poofed man into existance or man evolved. Since you don\'t believe in evolution, you certainly must be saying god poofed us into existance. Or do you believe that God didn\'t create man at all?
THE FOSSIL RECORD DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION - Clowd
For the sake of argument, lets say you\'re right. It dosen\'t prove creationism either. :p Gee, now what are you left with?
Your by yourself if you think there is a creator, but he didnt create the universe, the big bang did.... - Clowd
Until it\'s proven contrary, I prefer to believe that God created the laws of the universe. The laws of the universe, as things unfolded, eventually lead to our creation. Weither this was intentional or we are merely god\'s "illegitimate" children.. I don\'t know. However, that is simply my personal belief, and I have stuck to debating scientific facts and theories since they are MY beliefs and mine alone.
....ok....incomplete skeletons mean you see fossils with half a leg, and fossils that date later with a full leg. that has never been found. - Clowd
They have been, and in fact, there\'s a living example probably slithering through your back yard right now. Yes, Snakes. While not all snakes have exibited "proto" legs to my knowlage, many variety such as the reticulating python have small "nubs" along their sides which serve no observable purpose. They are remenants of legs, which have yet to dissapear completely.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
They have been, and in fact, there\'s a living example probably slithering through your back yard right now. Yes, Snakes. While not all snakes have exibited "proto" legs to my knowlage, many variety such as the reticulating python have small "nubs" along their sides which serve no observable purpose. They are remenants of legs, which have yet to dissapear completely.
the fossil record doesnt prove creation? what about fully developed complex creatures appearing suddenly? its not SOLID UNDENIABLE proof that creation exists, but it points to it.
im sorry, until an incomplete skeleton is found, evolution of creatures is theory.
you say God poofed us into existance. If he can create a cell from materials on the earth, why not a creature? What does he use? His energy. Ive explained it several times on this baord how he made the universe.
btw, evolution is a theory, and it remains one because it cant be proven
-
the fossil record doesnt prove creation? what about fully developed complex creatures appearing suddenly? its not SOLID UNDENIABLE proof that creation exists, but it points to it. - Clowd
No, it doesn\'t. A gap is merely a lack of evidence, it\'s not evidence to the contrary. Speaking of gaps, what do you make of the one which has been filled in concerning man\'s own evolution from proto-human form to modern man?
im sorry, until an incomplete skeleton is found, evolution of creatures is theory. - Clowd
So go kill a python, boil it\'s flesh off, an look at it\'s skeleton. Those nubs ARE the remenants of legs which it\'s ancestors had. Right there is your "proto" leg, yet you refuse to belive it.
you say God poofed us into existance. If he can create a cell from materials on the earth, why not a creature? What does he use? His energy. Ive explained it several times on this baord how he made the universe. - Clowd
First off, I never said God poofed us into existance. That was an example, a base of reference to illistrate your flawed logic. As far as "If he can create a cell, why not a creatre", refer to my first and third posts in this thread. There is your answer to that question.
btw, evolution is a theory, and it remains one because it cant be proven
Unfortunately for your argument it has quite a gread deal more sustancial evidence supporting it than Creationism. Evolution makes corollations with existing evidence. Creationism corollates with nothing aside from a dusty old book and insufficent answers to certain questions. Evolution may or may not be proven though the accumulation of facts and studies. Creation has no evidence in it\'s favor, just scant evidence against evolution.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
btw, evolution is a theory, and it remains one because it cant be proven
Yeah, keep telling yourself that - the more you repeat it, the closer it gets to being true. :laughing:
*Clowd is NOT a moron. Clowd it NOT a moron.*
No, didn\'t work. You\'re still a moron.
Inbetween the chantings you could read this quote taken from Scientific American:
Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock\'s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Yeah, keep telling yourself that - the more you repeat it, the closer it gets to being true. :laughing:
*Clowd is NOT a moron. Clowd it NOT a moron.*
No, didn\'t work. You\'re still a moron.
Inbetween the chantings you could read this quote taken from Scientific American:
Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock\'s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Cant we debate without flaming?
Where is bossieman? Any scientist will tell you evolution is a theory. Samwise the only thing you are proving by saying that is how blindly you follow evolution. Who can blame you, the way they talk about it seems like they are taking it for a fact.
The only thing that quotes says is "whales had this, creatures like this made the transition" but it has no proof to back it up. Evolution only can say "it looks like". How do you prove Archaeopteryx changed into a bird? Simple, you cant. It just \'looks\' that way according to evolutionists. Until You get more proof other then \'it looks like\' its a theory.
To put it in another way, evolution doesnt have a foundation. The fossil record doesnt prove it, in fact it dissaproves of it.
Its probably even safe to say that it is sheer imagination.
-
Clowd. Find some damn info to back up your posts. You have no idea how misinformed some of your posts are.
You aren\'t a moron for believing in creationism. No one is saying that. It\'s the crap you\'re posting, and the way no one can get even the simplest of things through to you (such as evolution has nothing to do with how life began), that makes you seem like a complete moron.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Any scientist will tell you evolution is a theory.
Yes, evolution IS a theory - a scientific theory. I\'ll explain later.
Samwise the only thing you are proving by saying that is how blindly you follow evolution. [/B]
You mean the way you follow religion, except I have something to back it up with? If I\'m not completly mistaken you have yet to provide a single source (except some obscure Swedish scientist you claim said so and so). Other than that you have provided ZERO backup on your opinion.
Its probably even safe to say that it is sheer imagination. [/B]
Right. Another words comes to mind, what is it.... that\'s right: Creationism.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Clowd. Find some damn info to back up your posts. You have no idea how misinformed some of your posts are.
You aren\'t a moron for believing in creationism. No one is saying that. It\'s the crap you\'re posting, and the way no one can get even the simplest of things through to you (such as evolution has nothing to do with how life began), that makes you seem like a complete moron.
You can stop the childish name calling now.
Half the world doesnt believe in evolution. They are morons? The theory cant even be proved. WHy believe in it? In fact there is evidence pointing against it.
-
Why do you think half of the world doesn\'t believe in evolution?
And once again, I said you ARE NOT a moron for believing in creation. You ARE a moron for the crap you post in here, and how you don\'t listen. This is a perfect example.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Clowd. Find some damn info to back up your posts. You have no idea how misinformed some of your posts are.
You aren\'t a moron for believing in creationism. No one is saying that. It\'s the crap you\'re posting, and the way no one can get even the simplest of things through to you (such as evolution has nothing to do with how life began), that makes you seem like a complete moron.
You can stop the childish name calling now.
Misinformed posts? Enlighten me, please
Half the world doesnt believe in evolution. They are morons? The theory cant even be proved. WHy believe in it? In fact there is evidence pointing against it.
Samwise I have nothing to back creation up with? Ever heard of a post called Origin of life Part1?
All this proves is just how confused all you are. You dont even know what to believe. Some say no, God, some say God but believe in evolution, some believe in asteroids, and some are dumbfounded
Im the only one who believes in something, from how the universe was made to now.
-
BTW Clowd, did you ever think about the fact that scientists of today might not be able to see the whole truth about everything? Science evolves all the time (no pun intented). Just look a few hundred years back - people thought the Earth was round, they didn\'t know of DNA, bacteria and thusands of other things. Today we have much more and better knowledge - but by no means have we learned and discovered everything there is to learn. In 200 years we\'ll know SO much more than we do now. So just because we might not be able to prove something 100%, doesn\'t mean it\'s in fact not correct on some level we just can\'t understand yet.
Im the only one who believes in something, from how the universe was made to now.
[/b]Congratulations, that automatically makes your opinion true. :rolleyes:
Samwise I have nothing to back creation up with? Ever heard of a post called Origin of life Part1?
[/b]No, actually I haven\'t looked at it yet.
EDIT: As I glanced through your theories one post got my attention:
And can we repeat ourselves any more. No one is debating you on how life was created!! It\'s about how life has evolved.
[/b]Ok, to make this as easy to reply to for you as possible, I\'ll make an multiple answer quiz. Just reply A, B, C or D for your answer.
A: Yes, I understand that when we discuss evolution, we\'re not talking about origin of life.
B: No, I don\'t understand the difference but won\'t admit it.
C: Yes, I understand the difference but I keep on bickering about it because I\'m obviously not very intelligent.
D: No, I don\'t understand the difference and is therefore somewhat excused (to the extent being a moron qualifies as an excuse).
Choose one.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
You can stop the childish name calling now.
Misinformed posts? Enlighten me, please
Half the world doesnt believe in evolution. They are morons? The theory cant even be proved. WHy believe in it? In fact there is evidence pointing against it.
Samwise I have nothing to back creation up with? Ever heard of a post called Origin of life Part1?
All this proves is just how confused all you are. You dont even know what to believe. Some say no, God, some say God but believe in evolution, some believe in asteroids, and some are dumbfounded
Im the only one who believes in something, from how the universe was made to now.
Every post where you related evolution to how life began was misinformed. That\'s just a starting point too.
And I don\'t believe that half the world doesn\'t believe in evolution. Where did you get that from?
And post some god damn sources to back up your facts. Without them, your facts are meaningless (as if they wouldn\'t be anyway)
-
Originally posted by Samwise
BTW Clowd, did you ever think about the fact that scientists of today might not be able to see the whole truth about everything? Science evolves all the time (no pun intented). Just look a few hundred years back - people thought the Earth was round, they didn\'t know of DNA, bacteria and thusands of other things. Today we have much more and better knowledge - but by no means have we learned and discovered everything there is to learn. In 200 years we\'ll know SO much more than we do now. So just because we might not be able to prove something 100%, doesn\'t mean it\'s in fact not correct on some level we just can\'t understand yet.
Ok, to make this as easy to reply to for you as possible, I\'ll make an multiple answer quiz. Just reply A, B, C or D for your answer.
A: Yes, I understand that when we discuss evolution, we\'re not talking about origin of life.
B: No, I don\'t understand the difference but won\'t admit it.
C: Yes, I understand the difference but I keep on bickering about it because I\'m obviously not very intelligent.
D: No, I don\'t understand the difference and is therefore somewhat excused (to the extent being a moron qualifies as an excuse).
Choose one. [/B]
*Remembers to 2-4 days ago when debate started. Didnt you ask me to prove creation?
How did this switch to evolution? You gave up there not be a creator?
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Didnt you ask me to prove creation?
And I\'m still waiting - and that means I can wait for an eternity. You can never proove creation. You can speculate yes and it can even be your opinion - but proof? No. Besides, the thread is called "science\'s argument against evolution" - isn\'t it about evolution in one way or another then?
You gave up there not be a creator? [/B]
Say what? I couldn\'t decipher that. Must be holy language or something.
PS. You still didn\'t choose A-D.
-
Originally posted by Samwise
Say what? I couldn\'t decipher that. Must be holy language or something.
PS. You still didn\'t choose A-D.
The origin of spontaneous life is all about evolving, thus its evolution. The amino acids grows and changes into living things. Thats evolution.
P.S. Lets try to keep this thread in hand, so we can have reasonable debates.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
P.S. Lets try to keep this thread in hand, so we can have reasonable debates.
Wow. Just wow
And evolution, once again, has nothing to do with how life was formed. Some theories on the formation of life may use evolution, but the theory of evolution itself does not connect to any theory on the origin of life.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Wow. Just wow
And evolution, once again, has nothing to do with how life was formed. Some theories on the formation of life may use evolution, but the theory of evolution itself does not connect to any theory on the origin of life.
Wow. Just wow
Evolution is a broad term, you should know that.
-
Ok Clowd, just a one word answer here. Does evolution suggest anything about the origin of life?
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Ok Clowd, just a one word answer here. Does evolution suggest anything about the origin of life?
Again, evolution is a broad term. It can be used for the origin of life depending on what you think caused life. If you think amino acids were created in the primitive atmosphere, It is the truth that they EVOLVED into cells and EVOLVED into whatever next, egg or chicken I dont know
-
No, that really isn\'t true. The actual theory of evolution suggests NOTHING about the origin of life. Other theories on the origin of life may use evolution, but the fact is that evolution does not suggest a thing about the origin of life. If you don\'t realise that, then you are arguing from an ignorant place indeed.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
No, that really isn\'t true. The actual theory of evolution suggests NOTHING about the origin of life. Other theories on the origin of life may use evolution, but the fact is that evolution does not suggest a thing about the origin of life. If you don\'t realise that, then you are arguing from an ignorant place indeed.
You dont know darwinism, do you...
-
Actually, I do.
But Clowd, please listen to this. Don\'t think I\'m saying this to attack you or anything, I\'m just giving you some honest advice.
When you reply by making an assumption about someone, like saying they know little on a subject, or something to that effect, that is what annoys people.
Also, you have to learn that there are some touchy topics. Religion is one of them. Don\'t treat them how you would a normal video game topic or something.
-
Quick question to those that say Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
How are you proposing that life began then? If evolution did in fact exist wouldn\'t there be some aspect of "the survival of the fittest" at the onset of life?
-
Well, I could very well believe that god created a set of simple life forms, and they evolved from there. I could also say that life just always existed, and never had a real start to it. We have just been continually evolving forever. There are endless possibilities really.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
The origin of spontaneous life is all about evolving, thus its evolution. The amino acids grows and changes into living things. Thats evolution.
P.S. Lets try to keep this thread in hand, so we can have reasonable debates.
That\'s creation (not religious way). Not evolution. Evolution is how we change over time (EDIT: I\'m an idiot. Why did I say we? I meant all living things change) Example. Our brains are getting bigger. Why do you think in the coarse of 100,000 years (the date of the oldest modern man (mm). MM is probably older but we still need to find him.), we have became more technologically advanced? Why do you think Neandertals just mysteriously disapeared. MM was much smarter, they could talk (Neandertals couldn\'t. They didn\'t have the language gene which enabled them to talk) and coordinate attacks if they were involved in war. Why do you think our appendix is of no use anymore? We don\'t live in the wild so it is evolving away. We don\'t need to digest the cellulose like we used to. Thus it is of no use so it is evolving.
-
Zzzzzz zzzz zzz zzzzzzz zzzzz zzzzzzz zzz zz.
-
Originally posted by Jaye_Bennington
Zzzzzz zzzz zzz zzzzzzz zzzzz zzzzzzz zzz zz.
Was that to my post?
-
Originally posted by Titan
Was that to my post?
NO, just the subject in general. ;)
-
shockwaves i took your advice. pm me if you want to ask questions
-
Thanks man. I think I\'m about evolution/creationed out for now, but if I have anything in the future to ask, I\'ll let ya know.
-
Originally posted by Jaye_Bennington
NO, just the subject in general. ;)
Now can you explain to me why I am wasting my time argueing with this child?
-
Originally posted by Titan
Now can you explain to me why I am wasting my time argueing with this child?
No.
-
I can\'t explain it either.
-
*Cries at the ruins of what was once a potentially beautifully debated and interesting thread*
Did anyone past page 1 (as I KNOW Clowd didn\'t) even bother to read the theories of Intillegent Design, Self Organization, or the links with Shadwhawk posted? Is anyone even still interested in debating these originally posted theories or is this nonsence just going to keep continuing??