Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#61    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,503 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 04 May 2013 - 05:29 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Definition of "Scientific Theory":
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
Why do I get the feeling you aren't reading your own sources? Take note of the italic part.

Edit: Not sure where the confusion is, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, it has yet to be verified or disproven; the evolutionary theory is a theory, currently it is verified and not disproven.

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 May 2013 - 05:45 PM.


#62    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 26,926 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... Gorram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Make it so!

Posted 04 May 2013 - 05:32 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:
And what do you think evolution theory is?  All scientific theories are nothing more than groups of hypotheses that can be disproven. So you're right. Darwin hypothesized about abiogenesis, just as he hypothesized about evolution theory.


Definition of "Scientific Theory":
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm


Definition of "Hypothesis":
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
And part of that link includes the following:  "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing".  Surely that must be of at least equal standing as your unhealthy fascination with the phrase "theories can be disproven".  Of course they can, and no one has argued otherwise.  But in order for a theory to be disproven, it requires a lot of evidence to the contrary.  And a lot of alternative evidence that fits a better set of hypotheses.  You can't just sit back and say "it can be disproven therefore it's already wrong and not really based on science".  Everything in science can be disproven.  Who knows, maybe one day in the future Gravity will be disproven.  But at the current time, there is such an abundance of evidence to support gravity, that it would be illogical to ever discount it.  Likewise, evolution currently has an amazing abundance of evidence (if it did not, it would not be a Scientific Theory), and until such time as compelling evidence arises to provide an alternative, it is illogical to discount it.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#63    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 04 May 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Yes, Alter2Ego, you did.  And if Copasetic's latest post (post #49, on this page - LINK CLICKY) is any indication, then your ability to quote prominent evolutionists appears to be just a tad lacking.  You have either read the texts in question and intentionally misquoted them to support your view.  Or you haven't read them, and are relying on the say-so of other websites.  Either way, we here at UM have a set of behaviours we expect our members to follow.  Whether you simply copy-pasted these details from other websites, or whether you did read the original texts and misquoted them, then either way, consider the following:
ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
There is nothing lacking in my quotation from the pro-evolution scientists who admitted there is no evidence in the fossils record.  You are protesting because you are pro-evolution while insisting you are Christian.  Evolution theory is a direct contradiction of the Genesis Creation account that clearly says Jehovah created all creatures according to their kind and says nothing whatever about creatures evolving from a common ancestor.

I cited the sources for my two quotations and quoted them within context.  If anything, Copasetic's larger quotation from the same source confirms that the portion I quoted is within context and that the pro-evolution scientists rely on speculations to maintain macroevolution myth.  Notice this below from Copasetic's very first quoted source from Post 49 on Page 4 of this thread.


View PostCopasetic, on 04 May 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Quote

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979. See, also, Troy Britain's "Feedback" article at Talk.Origins Archive: June 2001 Feedback
- J. (catshark) Pieret

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Did you notice the words "I think" in Raup's quote?  That amounts to speculation aka "I don't know."


View PostCopasetic, on 04 May 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Quote

But on the previous page Raup writes:


We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.


ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Did you see that?  Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions.  Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense.  No such evidence has ever been found.  


View PostCopasetic, on 04 May 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Quote

Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:


What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [Emphasis in original]

And later on the same page:


So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.


It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Look at Raup admitting that, for the last 120 years, the fossils record does not support Darwin's claims and that the fossils record: "can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

In other words, while Raup is admitting that the fossils record does not support macroevolution myth, he manages to contradict himself by insisting evolution did indeed occur.  Now, notice what I previously quoted Raup saying, which you are now complaining that I misapplied.

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


View PostParanoid Android, on 04 May 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

Both of these come from our Terms of Service, which you agreed to abide by when you joined the forum.  In the interest of goodwill, I am leaning towards believing you took this information from a Third-party source.  In the future, then, I would ask that you quote all your relevant sources.  If a third-party website compiled a list of quotes on your behalf, simply using those quotes and attributing them to the original authors is not acceptable.  You are still utilising other people's research in presenting your own views.  That is still plagiarism, regardless of where the sources originally came from.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position.  Been there, experienced that.  Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.

"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

#64    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 26,926 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... Gorram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Make it so!

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:35 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position.  Been there, experienced that.
I am remaining entirely neutral in this debate, Alter2Ego (I have my opinions, but I do not let my opinions get in the way of my job).  I was going to reply generally to the content of the rest of your post.  Instead I'll focus on this and point out that even when my personal opinions differ i do remain impartial.  Do you think my Christian beliefs have stopped me from moderating people I happen to agree with on many things?  You know what, don't answer that, I don't need to prove my neutrality to anyone.  If you have issue with me, contact the site administrator (my employer, if you will - Saru).


View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.
I have my opinion, but I am remaining neutral.  Don't play the victim, Alter2Ego, it doesn't suit.  If this is the sensitivity you display to a simple request to provide sources, then perhaps it is true that you won't be staying at this website very long.  But that will be your decision to leave, not ours.  As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to stay here as long as you like, provided you post within the site rules.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 04 May 2013 - 06:48 PM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#65    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,503 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:40 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Did you see that?  Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions.  Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense.  No such evidence has ever been found.  
Where did Darwin make such a prediction?

Posted Image

Edited by Rlyeh, 04 May 2013 - 06:53 PM.


#66    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Medford Oregon

  • Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'-Shawshank Redemption/Life is a buffet and most poor suckers are starving to death-Auntie Mame

Posted 04 May 2013 - 07:55 PM

If the population of the world consisted of more Native peoples would we be debating on which Turtle the world actually sits on? I guess in reading the umpteenth evolutionary debate thread I keep asking myself that question, why does Christianity think it has THE only alternative that should be included in any debate on evolution. If you bring the fantastical into a scientific debate then shouldn't all fantastical creation stories then be given equal time? (Funny how Christians usually say no on this..hmm?)

“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance …or change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, it’s ALL on purpose” – Stephen King, The Stand

#67    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 05 May 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:
There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world.  The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature.  For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND.  Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents.  That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution."  In reality, the animal did not evolve at all.  It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.
There is something in plants called polyploidy.  Grasses do this a lot.  Something goes awry in meiosis and the chromosome number does not halve.  Meaning that a germ cell has a full complement of chromosomes.  When this germ cell is fertilized by another polyploid germ cell, the result is a seed with double the number of chromosomes it should have.  This plant can reproduce with other polyploids, but not with any plant of its parent's generation.  It is, by definition, a new species.  Thus, we have a complete new species in one generation with no intermediate "missing links."  It is both a new species and a new "kind."  The polyploids go on to accumulate new traits so they differ in ways other than just being polyploids.  This has allowed grasses to evolve very fast.

One way they evolved is to acquire silicon nodules in their leaves.  These are extremely hard and abrasive and wear down the teeth of grazers very rapidly.  A response to this change in their environment produced harder enamel on horse teeth - we have the fossil record of those changes.

BTW:  If a group of organisms have variations, then they are NOT "the exact same species."  That's what evolution is about.  If I make a mistake when copying something, then the copy is not the same as the original.
Doug

P.S.:  Here's another problem with "kinds:"

The leopard frog is found in a broad horse-shoe shaped arc with one end in Appalachia, the center in Saskatchewan and the other end in the Rocky Mountains.  Frogs from opposite ends of this arc cannot interbreed; thus, they are different species, or "kinds."  But frogs from any two adjacent puddles CAN interbreed; thus, the entire arc is one species or "kind."

In fact, we don't need fossils to show that one species evolves into another.  The leopard frog not only accomplished this, but all the intermediate "variations" are still alive!
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 05 May 2013 - 06:59 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#68    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:49 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
There is nothing lacking in my quotation from the pro-evolution scientists who admitted there is no evidence in the fossils record.  You are protesting because you are pro-evolution while insisting you are Christian.  Evolution theory is a direct contradiction of the Genesis Creation account that clearly says Jehovah created all creatures according to their kind and says nothing whatever about creatures evolving from a common ancestor.

I asked you to define kind in some kind of meaningful way. Please go ahead and do that now.

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

I cited the sources for my two quotations and quoted them within context.  If anything, Copasetic's larger quotation from the same source confirms that the portion I quoted is within context and that the pro-evolution scientists rely on speculations to maintain macroevolution myth.  Notice this below from Copasetic's very first quoted source from Post 49 on Page 4 of this thread.

No you didn't. You actually didn't quote anything in context and if you think that your short snippet of a quote accurately describes what Raup was saying you've failed miserably to read what he was writing. Like PA pointed out its pretty simple; you've talked yourself into quite the conundrum.

Why? Because you've either quote mined Raup and are trying to misrepresent what he says; in which case you are dishonest or you've just copied your "citation" from someone (I mean lets be honest, that is par for the course for creationists) who quote mined Raup. and that means not only did you plagiarizer, but you're too academically lazy to check the actual context for yourself.

So lets talk context here. This quote is from the late 70's. Earlier in the decade a new hypothesis, at the time, had been put forward to explain some evolutionary change: punctuated equilibrium. Quick time out here:

Remember a scientific theory explains a fact. There is the fact of biological evolution; that allele frequencies change across generations for breeding populations. Then there are theories which explain that fact like: natural selection, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium etc.

So in the late 70's you find many a quote of biologists arguing about, not whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred. That is all Raup is doing here. He is making the argument that natural selection (an explanation for the biological fact of evolution) doesn't explain all evolution in the fossil record (it doesn't). Like I pointed out before, we don't hold ancient scientists as infallible, science always goes forward and is often revised. Which is what was happening here.


View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Did you notice the words "I think" in Raup's quote?  That amounts to speculation aka "I don't know."

Unless English isn't your first language, your dishonesty here is incredible. That really could be your only excuse here (English being a second language that is). Raup said "I think its safe to say", he isn't speculating or saying I don't know. You can't honestly be this thick can you? That is an idiom that means the speaker is extremely confident, as confident as you can be actually, about whatever it is they are saying......

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Did you see that?  Raup is admitting that the fossils record aka "the evidence we find in the geologic record" is not compatible with what they would like it to be and what they are finding in the fossils does not line up with Darwin's false predictions.  Darwin predicted that future generations of paleontologists would find evidence of a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution) and evidence of a squirrel on its way to a bat (macroevolution), besides other nonsense.  No such evidence has ever been found.  

See above


View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
Look at Raup admitting that, for the last 120 years, the fossils record does not support Darwin's claims and that the fossils record: "can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

In other words, while Raup is admitting that the fossils record does not support macroevolution myth, he manages to contradict himself by insisting evolution did indeed occur.


See above

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Now, notice what I previously quoted Raup saying, which you are now complaining that I misapplied.

Uhhh,,,,because you did....


View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

ALTER2EGO -to- PARANOID ANDROID:
I know from experience that when moderators stop being neutral because they have a stake in the debate, they will intervene on the side they are on and will then proceed to harass and/or ban those that are debunking their favored position.  Been there, experienced that.  Since you obviously are taking sides in this debate--because you have decided to put evolution theory ahead of the Genesis creation account--while you allow Copasetic to present portions of the same writings of Raup and allow Copasetic to misapply what Raup is saying while at the same time you single me out for warnings on the open forum, I am done with this thread permanently.

I think PA has been more than fair to you. He simply reminded you of the website rules, if you call that having a stake in the debate you are deluded.

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Something tells me I will not be staying at this website very long.


Oh well, no big loss there. Creationists incapable of discussion and only capable of quoting other creationists are a dime a dozen.

You acted like you wanted to discuss the evidence for and "against" evolution. I'm giving you that opportunity. I asked you to define kind. You haven't done that, so go ahead and do so now.

I also provided you some awesome evidence for evolution: biogeography. You haven't said a word. Could that be because its more evidence creationists have to simply ignore and have no writings about how to address? Here is a bona fide guess for you: I'm guess yes, you have no one to copy a response from so you will simply ignore it. Come on now, make me a psychic!


#69    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:12 PM

Evolution is creation, I don`nt  see the problem people are having. Earth is like one big egg,organisms hitting the earth in a meteor, mixed with the elements of Mother earth creating life, that contintue to change from the adaption to the enviorment,a intelligent design that survives.


#70    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,382 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:42 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 04 May 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

Hahaha prions are a mentos in a 7 up bottle, and viroids have pretty complex sets of RNA. Non of that explained complexity. E coli, can and does starve in many places especially dead people but that's not what I was talking about was it? ;)

I never said inteligence is Required. I only suggested that because you want to explain away things from a certain philosophical point of view Does not  mean its right. A prudent precaution. I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as  one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think. ;)


Prions are misfolded proteins and viroids are a single strand of naked RNA.  You obviously missed what I was saying to you about something being discovered in a lab not being proof that intelligence was needed for whatever it was to occur.  I am not sure why you threw in the last part at all.


#71    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,276 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:39 AM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 04 May 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven.


Not quite.  The important part of this particular sentence is not that a theory can be disproven, but rather that what gives any scientific theory the tremendous credibility it has is that it has yet to be disproven.

In other words, falsifiability isn't just a requirement of scientific theories, and it isn't a free pass to claim the theory isn't credible or valid.  It is nothing more than a set of conditions that must be filled in order for that theory to be invalid.  If you cannot falsify the theory, you can't refer to it as not being credible or invalid.

Quote

Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record.

That's a curious statement to make.  Pretty much the sole support the fossil record provides for the general theory of evolution is for "macroevolution" (to use a convenient, if non-existent, term).  It certainly doesn't provide support for the actual, specific, theories of evolution currently in existence; The evidence for evolution itself, as opposed to the effects of evolution, are found in the science of genetics, not in fossils.


#72    KayEl

KayEl

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:30 PM

Ultimately, evolution do not claim to explain how life began, but it does and have proven how life, after it started, evolved into other forms.
Evolution makes perfect sense, as traits that favor an animal's survival get passed on.
Look at dogs, in their case, humans determine which traits are favorable to passed down on and we have all these different breeds.
In the wild, it is the environment, the ecological niche the animal trying to exploit and also luck, the determining factors.
This doesn't always mean the animal evolved to a "better" form as there are many instances where a species that have become so specialized that the moment its environment changes, it becomes extinct.

This is such a simple concept that I wonder why so many people can't grasp it.


#73    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 08 May 2013 - 02:44 PM

We could resolve this entire problem by respelling "god:"  N-A-T-U-R-E.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#74    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:54 AM

I apologise if I've somehow misunderstood the intent of this topic, but I must speak out very strongly against the idea—again, hopefully I'm not mistaken as to what was being said here—that macroevolution (incidentally, not a term used seriously in my field: I'm an evolutionary biologist), or the premise that natural selection can lead to speciation (the general idea of 'macroevolution' used by creationists), is a 'myth'. Again, I apologise if I've misunderstood the premise intended to be conveyed in this topic, but I had to say something presuming that I understood what was said. 'Macroevolution' is—apart from being a non-scientific term—an entirely valid concept, which is very simply 'microevolution' when drawn out over many, many generations, culminating in the accumulation of the significant genetic differences which is referred to as 'speciation': or, the compounding of such differences in genetic material that an individual is sufficiently departed genetically from its ancestors that it is incapable of viable reproduction with its parental lineages, or, in other words, a new species (mind you, this invariably occurs in groups, not in mere individuals). There are, however, invariably, intermediate groups which represent a middle ground between one species and another: examples being donkeys and horses, which can reproduce and create mules, however mules are infertile and cannot reproduce themselves. Horses and donkeys represent two species which were once one, but which are now in the final days leading up to a total departure, at which time they will be insufficiently related even to produce mules. I hope that clears up a thing or two.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#75    shrooma

shrooma

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,985 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:02 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 08 May 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

We could resolve this entire problem by respelling "god:"  N-A-T-U-R-E.
Doug
.
the pagans bet you to that one doug!!
:-)

"Get off your knees, the party's over."
.
-How do you sleep-
The Stone Roses.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users