Evolution vs Design

[Tiggs]

Your first source provides a prime example of what I mean. You dont address how where the domesticated version came from, the processes used to domesticate it, or how some current domesticated plants have no wild forms.

Domestication comes from selection over time. Some current domesticated plants have no wild forms because they've become extinct in the wild. Kind of simple, really.

Seems the words assumption, hypothesis, etc are used quite a bit in something that supposedly black-and-white. I find it interesting that they give no explanation on how they randomly created this new domesticated form from the wild form in that small span of time and the process involved. Seems as arbitrarily deduced as you claim my sources are. Combine this together and the scientific method tells you this is simply a theory/hypothesis and not a proven science, but I'll move on to your next example.

All Science takes the form of Hypothesis. If you're looking for absolutes, try Maths. I'm glad you find it interesting, even if it is now apparent that you are unwilling to personally admit that human domestication of plants occurred, regardless of the scientific evidence presented.

Your second example is very poor, of how people were consuming a already domesticated version of a plant? That doesnt even relate or disprove what you were supposedly addressing but ok, if that line of argument makes sense to you fine. What does the consuption of an already domesticated version of a plant have to do with small size of wild versions? Would have been a strong argument had you posted example of a wild version of a plant being consumed by humans and not animals, but I digress.

Maybe you should try reading it again.

"Our data indicate that routine processing of a selected group of wild cereals, combined with effective methods of cooking ground seeds, were practiced at least 12,000 years before their domestication in southwest Asia."

So. That would be wild cereals being processed and cooked at least 12,000 years before their domestication.

Which, I think you'll find, is my point.

Look forward to your next post, both of these were pretty poor examples. I guess if you keep repeating yourself long enough you think you'll makes sense or will disprove something, so far its not working.

This is pretty much my last post on the topic. Based on your answers to my last post, I think the neutral readers of this thread will have now seen more than enough to be able to draw their own conclusions.

[Astute One]

What if God created life, ie. DNA, then God died.

Would we ever know God existed? Never for sure.

How do we know Picasso existed? Well, we see his painting, but that's not proof, is it?

His work is the evidence, but evidence of what. Someone can say Joe the Plumber painted that painting, and Picasso never existed.

It's the chicken-egg delima, and there will never be proof either way.

[Agent. Mulder]

the evolution of domesticated animels and plants are controlled evolution, guess what by intellengence. we control the evolution of domesticated animels. they didnt get that way by random evolution. does natural evolution take place yes. are the great great great grandparents of mammals lizards no.

as an example of controlled evolution, the plant corn would never under natural evolution developed an ear, that was all man. and today we are working on making it a tree,

ummm, i stated that its from us. well, we may have unwillingly, and unknowingly. but over time it was from us, although we didnt know it was happening. but it was never, and hasnt been, Random.

and actually, mammals did come from the reptiles.

you cant say something is 'controlled' evolution, when the people at the time had no idea they were actually changing them.

[Mr. Miyagi]

*snip*

Look Mr, your nothing new, especially on these forums. Just another circle-talker and bandwagon rider, avoiding my facts and twisting words. Firstly I never said anything about God doing anything, just intelligence being behind the design (you could think it was little green men, God, deity of your choosing, or some super bacteria for all i care), you can take that as you wish and spin it however you like means little to me fact still remains. I have did searches on here and havent found information I posted, which had nothing to do with a starchild or anything that is not confirmed through the scientific record. If you had no desire to engage in this line of conversation then why did you post in this thread and attempt to join the discussion to begin with, makes exactly zero sense, but cant say I'm suprised seems to be alot of that on these forums. I cant lose the debate until someone with some sense, and that actually knows how to debate subject matter instead of turning it into a personal thing and flaming, then by all means beat me lol. I never posted/misspelled "strait A biology" just forgot in in-between two words, but not like a bandwagoner like yourself would even do his own research/reading to find that out. Seems you've commented on alot besides 'only thing I found need to comment on was you passing off another's knowledge as your own", which I never did and apologized for not posting my sources but seems thats the best comeback people can come up with, its quite sad.

By all means keep up the trolling your pretty good at it

Circle talker? Provide evidence of me doing this. I stand by my point. Creationism is argued on here ad nauseum. You are just like the many that came before you and the many that will come after you. I have no desire to engage in the conversation and told you why. If my reason is not good enough for you, thats just too bad. I'm sorry. You can acuse me of being a bandwagoner, circle talker etc... all you want. Without evidence of me doing so, it boils down to your opinion of me, which I can do nothing, and am not interested in doing anything, about.

I hope I have further clarified my position for you.

Thank you for reading.

Have fun.

[Agent. Mulder]

the best evolution does is tell us how we got to where we are. it doesnt tell us how it all started. life, the solar system or the universe you choose.

obviously. it never says anything about how it started.

thats the big bang and abiogenesis.

[Emma_Acid]

I think the main flaw here is simply that the issues pointed out by NeoSavant, even if they weren't currently addressed in evolutionary theory (which they are), don't then automatically point to God as the answer.

"We don't know the reason behind this, therefore God must have done it" is worryingly Medieval in its logic.

[digitalartist]

Still waiting for NeoSavant to show how an egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal (Platypus) supports design.

[danielost]

ummm, i stated that its from us. well, we may have unwillingly, and unknowingly. but over time it was from us, although we didnt know it was happening. but it was never, and hasnt been, Random.

and actually, mammals did come from the reptiles.

you cant say something is 'controlled' evolution, when the people at the time had no idea they were actually changing them.

actually you can. our ancesters knew what triats they wanted in a life form, and knew you bread for them. proable through trial and error.

[Agent. Mulder]

actually you can. our ancesters knew what triats they wanted in a life form, and knew you bread for them. proable through trial and error.

oh ok. youre talking after they were domesticated, and when we started to breed them for what we wanted.

[ninjadude]

Firstly, it's very unlikely that he (or anyone else) will take your word for it at all, so unfortunately you're most probably just wasting your breath by saying so.

Unless I'm mistaken, Matt is a biologist. His words are usually very wise, well thought out, to the point and depend on his experience as a biologist. But you're right, also, if one is predisposed to ignore facts and science, then those people will remain ignorant.

[Jack_of_Blades]

the whole point of evolution is randomness,

No the point of evolution is NOT randomness. Dan I implore that you researce evolution just a tiny bit before

making statements like that.

but they tried to show the randomness of evolution through domestic animal and plants. but those life forms were changed through mans interference and man breeding for the type of traits he wanted in said animals and plants. thus the ear of corn was born

You will find that many things man has domesticated don't preform as well in nature. Also domestication is a form of

evolution all animals and plants are being acted upon by other animals and plants.

as an example of controlled evolution, the plant corn would never under natural evolution developed an ear, that was all man. and today we are working on making it a tree,

That is natural evolution! Man eating/raising the strains of corn that it prefered has resulted

in corn as we know it.

they didnt get that way by random evolution. does natural evolution take place yes. are the great great great grandparents of mammals lizards no.

Dan's belief in bold.

I believe in adaptation of a organism to its environment, not evolution.

*facepalm*

What if God created life, ie. DNA, then God died.

Would we ever know God existed? Never for sure.

How do we know Picasso existed? Well, we see his painting, but that's not proof, is it?

His work is the evidence, but evidence of what. Someone can say Joe the Plumber painted that painting, and Picasso never existed.

It's the chicken-egg delima, and there will never be proof either way.

Disagree (partially) Astute. We know that the painting has been painted and we can observe how it was painted.

It is irrelevant to me if there is an intelligent painter behind it or not.

[ninjadude]

What if God created life, ie. DNA, then God died. Would we ever know God existed? Never for sure.

It's the chicken-egg delima, and there will never be proof either way.

1) Evolution is not about the origin of life.

2) Science does not "prove" anything.

[danielost]

No the point of evolution is NOT randomness. Dan I implore that you researce evolution just a tiny bit before

making statements like that.

You will find that many things man has domesticated don't preform as well in nature. Also domestication is a form of

evolution all animals and plants are being acted upon by other animals and plants.

That is natural evolution! Man eating/raising the strains of corn that it prefered has resulted

in corn as we know it.

Dan's belief in bold.

*facepalm*

Disagree (partially) Astute. We know that the painting has been painted and we can observe how it was painted.

It is irrelevant to me if there is an intelligent painter behind it or not.

the whole point of evolution is to survive change. since you guys say that id is not involved. then evolution has to grope around in the dark to find something that works. thus the whole point of evolution is to try as many random variations until something works of course more than one thing might work.

[Jack_of_Blades]

the whole point of evolution is to survive change. since you guys say that id is not involved. then evolution has to grope around in the dark to find something that works. thus the whole point of evolution is to try as many random variations until something works of course more than one thing might work.

I never said that ID isn't involved. I simply said it is irrelevant. Again that is not quite how evolution works, Dan.

[danielost]

I never said that ID isn't involved. I simply said it is irrelevant. Again that is not quite how evolution works, Dan.

then your saying it gets the right thing to survive right away and that would be id. cant have it both way. it is either random or id.

[Agent. Mulder]

then your saying it gets the right thing to survive right away and that would be id. cant have it both way. it is either random or id.

its either Random, or Intelligent design?

really daniel?

[danielost]

its either Random, or Intelligent design?

really daniel?

yes according to the limits that the evolutionist have put on it it is.

personnally i think god created life and gave it the ability to evolve to changing climate.

[Copasetic]

yes according to the limits that the evolutionist have put on it it is.

personnally i think god created life and gave it the ability to evolve to changing climate.

Daniel, I know I've explained this to you before-The very definition of natural selection is non-random, differential survival is NOT A RANDOM PROCESS.

[danielost]

Daniel, I know I've explained this to you before-The very definition of natural selection is non-random, differential survival is NOT A RANDOM PROCESS.

then your stating that evolution is choosing the right changes to survive. that would be id.

[Copasetic]

then your stating that evolution is choosing the right changes to survive. that would be id.

No, that's not what I'm stating. How can evolution choose anything? It has no cerebral cortex to make such a choice.

[danielost]

No, that's not what I'm stating. How can evolution choose anything? It has no cerebral cortex to make such a choice.

so tell me if evolution does not make a choose and it isnt random what is it????

[Copasetic]

so tell me if evolution does not make a choose and it isnt random what is it????

I've told you many times before Daniel, I'm not sure why this time it would be any different.

Natural Selection;

1. Variation

2. Heredity

3. Limited resources cause extinction of some variants

4. Differential survival and reproduction

Guess which one of those makes it a non-random (while still being non-intelligently guided) process.

[danielost]

I've told you many times before Daniel, I'm not sure why this time it would be any different.

Natural Selection;

1. Variation

2. Heredity

3. Limited resources cause extinction of some variants

4. Differential survival and reproduction

Guess which one of those makes it a non-random (while still being non-intelligently guided) process.

all of them make it random. even if all chooses are made it is still random. evolution without id has to try all variations to get the one or two or however many chooses there are for a said species to survive. however if id is involved then the genetic code is predisposed to come up with the one or two chances of survival without doing them all.

[Copasetic]

all of them make it random. even if all chooses are made it is still random. evolution without id has to try all variations to get the one or two or however many chooses there are for a said species to survive. however if id is involved then the genetic code is predisposed to come up with the one or two chances of survival without doing them all.

Mutation is random Daniel, it can happen to any gene, thus creating a new variant of said gene-We call this an allele.

If you consider all the different genes in an organism's genome and its set of alleles, some genotypes will be better at surviving and reproducing than others. That isn't random. Meaning statistically, those variants are more likely to reproduce.

Just as in the case with breeding dogs, certain dogs are more likely to reproduce because of human breeders.

In nature, the 'choice' to breed is whether an organism can survive to do so. If a variant isn't well off in its environment it will die before being able to pass on its genes. This is no different than a human breeder choosing not to breed a dog with funny ears or too long of a tail (etc). The only difference is the human breeder doesn't necessarily cull those not 'fit' enough to breed. Nature does.

Populations are thousands and (often) millions of individuals, constantly reproducing and constantly providing more variations for selection to act upon.

Consider this Daniel,

There are so many E. Coli in the world, that despite having a mutation rate of 10^-8 per base pair, per generation, every spot in their genome can have a mutant every day!

[danielost]

Mutation is random Daniel, it can happen to any gene, thus creating a new variant of said gene-We call this an allele.

If you consider all the different genes in an organism's genome and its set of alleles, some genotypes will be better at surviving and reproducing than others. That isn't random. Meaning statistically, those variants are more likely to reproduce.

Just as in the case with breeding dogs, certain dogs are more likely to reproduce because of human breeders.

In nature, the 'choice' to breed is whether an organism can survive to do so. If a variant isn't well off in its environment it will die before being able to pass on its genes. This is no different than a human breeder choosing not to breed a dog with funny ears or too long of a tail (etc). The only difference is the human breeder doesn't necessarily cull those not 'fit' enough to breed. Nature does.

Populations are thousands and (often) millions of individuals, constantly reproducing and constantly providing more variations for selection to act upon.

Consider this Daniel,

There are so many E. Coli in the world, that despite having a mutation rate of 10^-8 per base pair, per generation, every spot in their genome can have a mutant every day!

and those creatures with the genes that wont help it survive will die out. it is those genes that make it random. unless as i said id is involved then the gene code will change to the right gene code to survival no randomnese at all. in a random event can you get the best result on the first try yes but not usually.