Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ice Age Civilization


TheCosmicMind

Recommended Posts

You argue evolutionary theory very well, Arbitran. Better than many here at UM. I stick to what I know, and I am not up on all of the latest facts in the science.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dead-set on ignoring evolution. Obviously creationists and bible scientists have a stake in this argument and will go to extremes to ignore even basic scientific principles, but I don't think a lot of the posters arguing against evolution here are creationists or bible scientists. Not well informed? Absolutely, but I wonder what their motivations are.

Thank you very much. That is high praise indeed, coming from you, kmt_sesh. I'll say the same of your arguments for Egyptology.

And indeed, the motivation of certain of these anti-evolutionists is a perplexing conundrum. Because some of them aren't creationists (though several of them are). And what's worse is that it's hard to tell the difference; for instance, I have no idea whether or not Harsh86_Patel is a genuine creationist or simply an anti-evolutionist (which frankly opens up an entire new realm of argument; what on earth constitutes non-creationist anti-evolutionism, I wonder?). In any case, I hope I can be at least a bit educational for those here who are in fact willing to listen (and, with any luck, eventually get through to those who aren't...).

I have been having a nagging question, as a note, that I thought I'd ask: as an Egyptologist, what is your opinion of the god Set? What animal is he represented as? I haven't done a great deal of research on it myself, but I would be fascinated to hear your take on it. I've heard a number of hypotheses, ranging from an okapi, to an aardvark, a donkey, or an Egyptian cryptid called a salawa. I personally think it resembles an African wild dog, Lycaon pictus, or perhaps even a brown hyena, Hyaena brunnea (it is, however, endemic to southern Africa; ergo, how would it have been known of in Egypt? Trade?). In any case, I look forward to your views on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella, is one example. It's ancestors, fruit flies which fed primarily on hawthorn, diverged when apples were introduced to their environment; the apple-eating population of the flies speciated from their hawthorn-eating ancestors, and today eat almost exclusively apples, and can no longer interbreed with the hawthorn-eating variety. As for its "immediate predecessor", the question is malformed. It doesn't really work that way, although it is clear that the apple maggot is descended from the basal population of the genus Rhagoletis. That is as clear an answer as makes any sort of sense at all.

The salamanders of the genus Ensatina provide an adequate example. In the mountains surrounding California's Central Valley, there are a total of roughly twenty major populations of the salamanders, many of which can interbreed, however, on one end of the valley we find Ensatina eschscholtzii, while on the other we find Ensatina klauberi; two distinct species, diverged from a common ancestor within the collective populations of salamanders in the Central Valley of California, which are incapable of breeding.

No, I wouldn't believe it if you said that God created the universe; and yes, evolutionary biology can discuss objective proof, given that it, unlike God, has it. I'm not sure I understood your first sentence above here... if you're asking about observed speciation, again, I gave you several examples (not the best examples, but they illustrate the concept better than others).

Not sure precisely what you mean to refer to by "coding genes". If you're referring to protein-coding genes, then there is, at worst, only a 95% difference between humans and monkeys; as for chimpanzees, it's more like 98 or 99% identical. Humans diverged from chimpanzees roughly 4.1 million years ago, with gorillas having diverged from the same lineage closer to 6 million years ago, and oragutans and gibbons a long while before that. Approximately 80 genes are known to have been lost in humans through the process of inactivation since our divergence from chimpanzees, 36 of which were related to olfaction. Segmental duplication of various genes are also known to have compounded in the human line after its divergence from chimpanzees. The most important thing to note in human evolution is that shortly after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged and began to effectively speciate, the hominin (pre-human) genera which arose did so in a drastically differing environment from that which was previously inhabited by chimpanzees and humans prior to the divergence (i.e., the savanna and open grasslands as opposed to the forest). This radical change in habitat would have been the most significant factor in deciding the direction which natural selection would act upon most effectively.

Heredity does not guard against mutation. Evolution can be brought about both within the allelic expression shifts of various inherited genes, as well as the proliferation of new genes which arise through mutation (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc.).

Name one concept I have "invoked" which was based on a "wild assumption" rather than rational and objective proof.

I don't think you really understand how paleontology works. Most species which are discovered in fossil specimens did not, and are not claimed to have, descended directly from, or given rise directly to, another fossil species. Again, most species which are discovered are part of speciated lines, diverged from other lineages gradually. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence of speciation (which, incidentally, is the same thing as "evolution of one species to another", basically; you didn't need to say it twice). Which mountains of evidence am I talking about? Well, here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent

Darwin certainly didn't ever have any "Gospel". The fact that you can claim, with seriousness, that he did, only further demonstrates your ignorance of the facts about evolutionary biology. I have given several examples of speciation already, but I'll give another: the Madeira house mice, a new population group of mice, descended from the bulk population of the common house mouse, Mus musculus, speciated after its colonization of the island of Madeira in the 15th Century. It is thought that there might in fact be six distinct species or subspecies within the Madeira population of mice, each having undergone impressive Robertsonian translocations of chromosomes (in which chromosome either fuse or split; this process is among the primary differences in human and chimpanzee genomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24 pairs, due to the fusion of chromosome 2 in humans).

Yes, adaptation can be demonstrated, and has, and it is a subset of evolution. Well "just saying" isn't all I've done to show my point; have a look at all of the materials I've linked. They should be quite educational.

You keep bringing up the "probability" of humans evolving. Why would the probability of humans evolving have to be so low? And again (third time I've said it), evolution is not a set course; humans didn't have to evolve. Humans evolving need not be any more likely or unlikely than gorillas or flatworms evolving.

Is that really the best you can do? Post a fringe, creationist "debunking" of evolutionary biology as if it means something? It doesn't. Every single "point" in that cesspool of an "article" has been thoroughly refuted and debunked hundreds of times. There isn't anything "new" there. It's all just old, pathetic, long-ago-debunked crap. That you were able to consciously and honestly post it (presumably having read it) is nothing short of alarming, simply due to the appallingly poor knowledge of evolution it would require for anyone to actually believe anything written in that article.

Omg same old lies of evolution where are the fossils with half formed intermediate organs,everything evolution has stated is a lie,again you point out different species and say one evolved from another,you are the perfect candidate to state a monkey can turn into a man.Lol the cess pool of lies that you pass of as evolution will not stand for 10 more years in modern biology,soon the jokers called evolutionists sitting in high post will retire and will take this stupid doctrine to the grave along with them.

Probably you are a really old biologist from before the 70's when molecular biology,systems biology and cell biology were not so advanced and the cell was considered a simple membrane bound protoplasm,hence you still hang on this theory.I don't think Darwin would continue believing in his own theory if had the knowledge we have today of biology and life but you still want to crusade on.

I am surprised how you can decline modern established knowledge of molecular biology and systems biology as unbelievable,this is the present Grandpa and the past bull**** is long gone,arguing for genetic evolutiuon or spontaneous creation of life are like still arguing that the Earth is flat.

And about the great examples you have given me,in each case you have pointed out two different completely formed species and said one evolved from the other (like i predicted you would).I think your knowledge of the objections and glaring holes in the theory of evolution is very outdated thankfully most of the top notch researchers of evolutionary biology have accepted all the objections to the theory raised in the above article i posted (i don't care which site the information comes from as long as it is true) and are spending millions of dollars on research to try and modify the theory to better to explain these (but are still constantly failing).

What is the probability of a 100 pepetide protein to form or evolve randomly in nature?Do you realise when you talk about a multicellular organism evolving naturally what is the impossibility of the scenario.You talk about not having a teleological view and thinking of evolution of life as a chance based process,but all the shining examples of evolutionists have already declared that evolution of life cannot be explained by chance.

P.S -Sesh this is modern biology don't really on good editing as a testament to anything.All the information provided in the link i provided is cent percent true and the most modern research in biology is a testament to it.Every single thing mentioned in that link has 100's of research papers published on it (i.e. molecular biology,systems biology,epi genetics,cell biology) so do not fall for sour losers refuting perfectly valid and mainstream accepted proof.Arbitran trying to manipulate by declaring perfectly tried and tested knowledge as Fringe,but Tran this is not history where things are long gone and we have to rely on what majority of the so called scholars think,this is modern biology and each fact is experimentally verified.

And since top notch evolutionist accept these objections that are very valid,you seem to be better then all of them.If you could explain away these objections for which the evolutionist are desperately trying to find answers (not to mention spending millions of dollars) they would definately give you the Nobel price.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You argue evolutionary theory very well, Arbitran. Better than many here at UM. I stick to what I know, and I am not up on all of the latest facts in the science.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dead-set on ignoring evolution. Obviously creationists and bible scientists have a stake in this argument and will go to extremes to ignore even basic scientific principles, but I don't think a lot of the posters arguing against evolution here are creationists or bible scientists. Not well informed? Absolutely, but I wonder what their motivations are.

Sesh the evolutionist and evolutionary scientists who have spend their entire life living by the doctrine and sadly are presently occupying positions where they can decide upon who gets research grants and who doesn't have a way bigger and practical stake in this outdated and stupid doctrine,every new find in modern biology raises huge problems for this doctrine literally on a daily basis,thankfully biology has been split into many different categories and research funding in other catagories is almost completely indpendant from these evolutionary biology wing and hence the new discoveries and research from these wings refutes everything the Doctrine of evolution has to offer.Any confirmation to Darwin's theory after having all this knowledge of biology(which we have in present) is like still claiming that the world is flat.

Tell me sesh which evolutionary biology site will publish their own Pet theory to be wrong?The only sites that will provide such information is creationist sites to satisy their own ulterior motives and relegion,but that doesn't mean that the objections they raise are false or wrong,you don't really have to be a supporter of any theory of creation to know that and accept that there are glaring holes and inconsistencies and extreme reliance on chance when you ascribe to the theory of evolution.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolutionist claim that life created itself,but scores of evolutionist spending millions of dollars are unable to create life with all our present knowledge and modern scintific equipment even under laboratory conditions,the crux of their theory lies in the assumption that a proto cell created itself under natural conditions on the earth prevailing at that time entirely relying on chance,but they have not been able to create the simplest of life in the Lab even now.Until the so called evolutionist create life artificially in a lab from previously non-living components,the theroy of evolution stands refuted.The onus of proof lies on the Evolutionist and not on it's detractors.

If life cannot be created in Lab conditions using all our present knowledge and modern equipments with the aid of technical people,what are the chances of life being created in an external environment by it's own accord?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Heredity does not guard against mutation. Evolution can be brought about both within the allelic expression shifts of various inherited genes, as well as the proliferation of new genes which arise through mutation (e.g., gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer, etc.). "

Arbitran you should just give up,heredity is the inheritance of existing genes and alleles from parents to offspring and has nothing to do with mutations (addition) or evolution (speciations).Our body and cells have remarkably effiecient and complex mechanism to gaurd against mutations (which are by default almost bad for us) like tumor suppressor proteins,rectifying mechanism in DNA polymerase etc if you look into the functioning of a single proharyotic (considered to be the simplest cell) bacterial cell accounting for all the details we presently have regarding its complexity then you would definately hang your gloves trying to explain these using evolution and natural selection.

"Not sure precisely what you mean to refer to by "coding genes". If you're referring to protein-coding genes, then there is, at worst, only a 95% difference between humans and monkeys; as for chimpanzees, it's more like 98 or 99% identical. Humans diverged from chimpanzees roughly 4.1 million years ago, with gorillas having diverged from the same lineage closer to 6 million years ago, and oragutans and gibbons a long while before that. Approximately 80 genes are known to have been lost in humans through the process of inactivation since our divergence from chimpanzees, 36 of which were related to olfaction. Segmental duplication of various genes are also known to have compounded in the human line after its divergence from chimpanzees. The most important thing to note in human evolution is that shortly after the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged and began to effectively speciate, the hominin (pre-human) genera which arose did so in a drastically differing environment from that which was previously inhabited by chimpanzees and humans prior to the divergence (i.e., the savanna and open grasslands as opposed to the forest). This radical change in habitat would have been the most significant factor in deciding the direction which natural selection would act upon most effectively."

Notice the second sentence of the para carefully.Here Arbitran very slyly and using technical terms smuggles in the most ridiculous concept by his own admission- "a monkey did really turn into a man" at some point of time.Are you aware that that 98 percent of our DNA which was previously considered to be 'Junk' and not coding is actually a 'Coding' part of our DNA and is actively taking part in all the processes of life.The comparison you gave of our genome with that of a Chimp is something that i would coment you for as you reitterated the same thing i said,even if there is one protein coding gene which we have andis completely missing in our so called ancestors,how do you suggest that the new gene evolved?Was it by 'random mutations' which are beneficial?What are the chances for the same.

Like i said that a genetic explaination of evolution has been long abandoned,you should probably read into the concept where evolutionists claim that small beneficial random mutations are accumulated in our genetic code (in form of duplicate genes) which suddenly spring into action and cause speciation,which though slightly better then it's predeccesor theory is equally ridiculous.Also i would like to also call on the word 'Speciation" which you use heavily through your argument,and for which i have been telling you to provide any objective proof other then pointing out two different species and saying one evolved from the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to even dignify you with a response now. I've done my best to answer all of your questions, but you're obviously beyond any help I can give you. If you want to believe all the things you've said that's alright; it's not my job to talk you out of your delusions. Your ignorance of evolutionary science is one of the most pervasive I have ever encountered; congratulations (and I've gone head-to-head with some of the most scientifically-illiterate creationists imaginable). I gave you the answers to the questions you asked, and all you could do was throw a fit and tell me that it's all lies. And you're perfectly within your rights to go on believing in your little conspiracy theory. But I'm done with you. Your trolling skills are proficient, I'll grant you, but I have more common sense than to continue to attempt to teach someone who obviously refuses to learn.

Upon reading your latest post (which you apparently wrote whilst I was writing out the above), I can only say that I am even more appalled at your utter lack of comprehension of evolution, your twisting and misunderstanding of my explanations, and your oft sheer dishonesty. I am very reserved about resorting to personal attacks, but I must be fully forthright in saying that you are, at present, from what can be gleaned from your posts, a man of both immense ignorance as well as deplorable character. You do not understand anything which I've written, very clearly, and you hide behind your use of scientific terminology (referring at times directly to processes of evolution, claiming that they instead "challenge" evolutionary theory) in a feeble attempt to mask your clear and utter lack of even the most meager of knowledge in pertinence to evolutionary biology. You very obviously have not the slightest clue about what evolutionary biology is about. I reiterate: I'm finished with you. I have more dignity than to continue trying to teach one who has no desire to know the truth. I have more valuable uses for my time.

Edited by Arbitran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is one of my biggest problems with this argument. you people say that evolution takes millions of years to occur. but the outside influences that push spieces to evolve change faster than that. in human history how many ice ages have we had how many droughts. the earth is a very dynamic place and your slow progession from one creature to another just couldn't keep up. the mastedon didn't just appear with the last ice age and just diappear because they couldn't adapt. did they? That doesn't make sense. were they hairy before the ice came? boy that was some luck. after the earth warmed back up they couldn't adapt? tough luck. whales and dolphins noses are on top of their head how the crap did that happen in the time it took for thier nose to migrate to it's current position and grow the flipper thingys what ever drove them to the water would have changed. And who told their bodies " if your nose is on top of your head you can survive in the water better" but didn't tell the seals or turtles. bats use to be little rodent like animals really? who told them to sprout wings and navigate with sonar? in the end it just sounds like a lot of hocus pocus.

what if all the animals that are on the planet now have always been here and the fossil record just shows the ones that didn't adapt and over come.

oops that's creationism and we all know that's just religion and can't possibly be true.

You are on the right track and let not lies cloud critical thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to even dignify you with a response now. I've done my best to answer all of your questions, but you're obviously beyond any help I can give you. If you want to believe all the things you've said that's alright; it's not my job to talk you out of your delusions. Your ignorance of evolutionary science is one of the most pervasive I have ever encountered; congratulations (and I've gone head-to-head with some of the most scientifically-illiterate creationists imaginable). I gave you the answers to the questions you asked, and all you could do was throw a fit and tell me that it's all lies. And you're perfectly within your rights to go on believing in your little conspiracy theory. But I'm done with you. Your trolling skills are proficient, I'll grant you, but I have more common sense than to continue to attempt to teach someone who obviously refuses to learn.

Upon reading your latest post (which you apparently wrote whilst I was writing out the above), I can only say that I am even more appalled at your utter lack of comprehension of evolution, your twisting and misunderstanding of my explanations, and your oft sheer dishonesty. I am very reserved about resorting to personal attacks, but I must be fully forthright in saying that you are, at present, from what can be gleaned from your posts, a man of both immense ignorance as well as deplorable character. You do not understand anything which I've written, very clearly, and you hide behind your use of scientific terminology (referring at times directly to processes of evolution, claiming that they instead "challenge" evolutionary theory) in a feeble attempt to mask your clear and utter lack of even the most meager of knowledge in pertinence to evolutionary biology. You very obviously have not the slightest clue about what evolutionary biology is about. I reiterate: I'm finished with you. I have more dignity than to continue trying to teach one who has no desire to know the truth. I have more valuable uses for my time.

Thanks for calling me names,it makes me affirm that i am getting to your notions of evolution.Also before you dismiss any form of knowledge or pretend to know stuff please get yourself updated.You are the first so called biologist who i have came across who calls 'Cell biology','Systems Biology' and 'Molecular biology' as a lie.You have not answered any of my questions so don't try to please yourself,all you have done through out the discussion is point out two different completely formed species and assumed one evolved from the other.Since our dialogue you initially claimed "evolution is not about random mutations" which is as stupid as one who is arguing for evolution can get,though you did later rectify it.Then you claimed "evolution is just a fancy word for herditary" which literally would make any biologist of any worth roll on the floor and laugh,hereditary is a process which takes place within the same species and doesn't give rise to new species.You deplored and questioned my knowledge for stating "A monkey turned into a man" according to the theory of evolution and then cleverly stated the same saying "human ancestors diverged from chimps xyz years ago".At the end when i asked you "Can any person create life in the Lab using whatever means possible from non-living things(and hence disprove the 'Law of Biogenesis',the assumption on which the entire concept of evolution is based 'spontaneous appearance of life'. " i guess you know i am right and hence you hung your gloves and started calling me names.Though i helped you by suggesting newer concepts of evolutionary biology to support the lies of evolution like 'saltation' 'mutations in duplicate genes which lead to speciation''punctuated equilibrium' ......you yourself dismissed all of them as 'not accepted by majority'.Which majority are you talking about,is it about the mindless parrots who claim to have read a few outdated text books and think it is the word of God.When you insinuated that i was using technical terms,let me tell you i was trying to keep it as 'lay' as i could.

Allelic gene flows and recombination cause 'variation' in a limited way and not speciation or evolution,please check out the study they did on Drosophila and do yourself a favour.

Conclusion - you have only studied outdated evolutionary biology and have a lot of textbook knowledge about falsified case studies of proevolution concepts.Your approach to evolution is of repetation of 150 year old outdated concepts in utter ignorance of all other branches of biological knowledge 'cell biology,systems biology,molecular biology,epigenetic etc' and modern biological knowledge.It is not me who can learn from you but probably you need to learn about a lot of new things yourself before you can claim to answer any questions about evolutionary biology.I have seen way better arguments from proponents of evolution of which you touched on none.

P.S.-since you blanket and ask people to blanket any information from creationist sites:

http://scienceagains...info/v16i6f.htm

http://scienceagains...info/topics.htm

Thanks for nothing and hope we can still be friends.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During my first college degree I minored in anthropology, which included large doses of evolution. It's not that I'm unfamiliar with the science, I'm just not that interested in it. Although I have to admit those college studies were many years ago, and as my interests took me in other directions and I never kept up with the advances in evolutionary theory, I'm sure my understanding of it is outdated. This is also why I tend not to comment much on evolution debates.

But the salient points in my previous posts do not involve evolution. Yes, the evolution of modern humans is directly related to the topic, but the advent of socio-political civilizations is not. Had nothing changed since the Bronze Age and mankind would still be experiencing the same life conditions for tens of thousands of years, it's altogether possible humans would've been subjected to evolutionary changes. But that's not the case. Advances in all fields of sciences from medicine to biology have negated potential evolutionary changes from the Bronze Age—a timespan representing the blink of an eye as far as evolution is concerned.

If one can disprove evolution then it would spell doom for our known understatnding of advent of civilization Also Sesh when you say that advances in technology have prevented potential evolutionary changes it is a very logical statement but only to people who don't believe in basic tenets of evolution and the continous "random mutations" it insinuates and heavily relies on.Since continous and beneficial 'random mutations' would be impossible to avoid (if it even exists) irrespective of our lifestyles.Since there has been no observable evolutionary changes in Humans since last 250000 years,evolutionists have very little proof to protect their pet theory.

P.S- few years back i was a hardcore believer of evolution but then due to huge amounts of contradictions and falsification and inconsistencies i encountered in the theory it changed my entire perspective of life and history.So great and far reaching is the impact of this 'theory of evolution' which has been blinding us since last 150 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omg same old lies of evolution where are the fossils with half formed intermediate organs,everything evolution has stated is a lie,again you point out different species and say one evolved from another,you are the perfect candidate to state a monkey can turn into a man.Lol the cess pool of lies that you pass of as evolution will not stand for 10 more years in modern biology,soon the jokers called evolutionists sitting in high post will retire and will take this stupid doctrine to the grave along with them.

Probably you are a really old biologist from before the 70's when molecular biology,systems biology and cell biology were not so advanced and the cell was considered a simple membrane bound protoplasm,hence you still hang on this theory.I don't think Darwin would continue believing in his own theory if had the knowledge we have today of biology and life but you still want to crusade on.

If a bee is half a bee, must ipso facto half not be.

You don't need new organs to have detectable linear genetic progression between ends of a species ring. If you must have a physical example though, the progression from ambulocetus through to modern whales will do nicely, prior objections to the contrary not withstanding.

Arbitran you should just give up,heredity is the inheritance of existing genes and alleles from parents to offspring and has nothing to do with mutations (addition) or evolution (speciations).Our body and cells have remarkably effiecient and complex mechanism to gaurd against mutations (which are by default almost bad for us) like tumor suppressor proteins,rectifying mechanism in DNA polymerase etc if you look into the functioning of a single proharyotic (considered to be the simplest cell) bacterial cell accounting for all the details we presently have regarding its complexity then you would definately hang your gloves trying to explain these using evolution and natural selection.

Oh this is hilarious. You're arguing against something so basic they use it for high school class experiments. Astonishingly, mutant fruit flies don't all automatically drop dead or end up in tiny cancer wards in the lab. I don't know who came up with that but it sounds like it was caged from Tyrell's talk with Roy Batty from Bladebunner.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a bee is half a bee, must ipso facto half not be.

You don't need new organs to have detectable linear genetic progression between ends of a species ring. If you must have a physical example though, the progression from ambulocetus through to modern whales will do nicely, prior objections to the contrary not withstanding.

Oh this is hilarious. You're arguing against something so basic they use it for high school class experiments. Astonishingly, mutant fruit flies don't all automatically drop dead or end up in tiny cancer wards in the lab. I don't know who came up with that but it sounds like it was caged from Tyrell's talk with Roy Batty from Bladebunner.

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much. That is high praise indeed, coming from you, kmt_sesh. I'll say the same of your arguments for Egyptology.

And indeed, the motivation of certain of these anti-evolutionists is a perplexing conundrum. Because some of them aren't creationists (though several of them are). And what's worse is that it's hard to tell the difference; for instance, I have no idea whether or not Harsh86_Patel is a genuine creationist or simply an anti-evolutionist (which frankly opens up an entire new realm of argument; what on earth constitutes non-creationist anti-evolutionism, I wonder?). In any case, I hope I can be at least a bit educational for those here who are in fact willing to listen (and, with any luck, eventually get through to those who aren't...).

I have been having a nagging question, as a note, that I thought I'd ask: as an Egyptologist, what is your opinion of the god Set? What animal is he represented as? I haven't done a great deal of research on it myself, but I would be fascinated to hear your take on it. I've heard a number of hypotheses, ranging from an okapi, to an aardvark, a donkey, or an Egyptian cryptid called a salawa. I personally think it resembles an African wild dog, Lycaon pictus, or perhaps even a brown hyena, Hyaena brunnea (it is, however, endemic to southern Africa; ergo, how would it have been known of in Egypt? Trade?). In any case, I look forward to your views on the matter.

Perhaps you should copyright "non-creationist anti-evolutionism," Arbitran. Call it NCAE? I'm one of those who likes to know the why and how people think what they think, so it still leaves me wondering, if an anti-evolutionist isn't a creationist, what is his or her replacement for evolution? Are such people motivated merely by the desire not to side with science, but are satisfied to leave the questions unanswered? To me this smacks of intellectual sloth. It's back to the motivations of creationists, who are content to leave it with "Because God says so" and explore no further. Think what life would be like if everyone felt that way: we'd still be mired in the ignorance and filth of the Dark Ages.

I don't get it. If people don't believe in evolution but at the same time are not espousing religious bias, what is their motivation and what do they believe? Personally I dislike people who doubt for the sake of doubting but cannot offer anything suitable as an explanation.

As for Set, first, let me stress that I'm not an Egyptologist. I don't want to wear titles that don't belong to me. But it's a good question, and one with which Egyptologists have wrestled for a very long time. The problem is, the ancient Egyptians themselves seem to have left us no written record of the animal forms with which they identified Set. They depicted the god in this strange way and left it at that. One can clearly see some kind of canid aspect in Set's form, but a firmer identification may not be possible. The best Egyptological explanation I've come across for Set is a direct reflection of his personality or character as a deity: chaos. Set might not be represented by just one animal form but by a combination of several disparate forms, reflecting his chaotic nature. That's the explanation I tend to favor.

Carry on the evolutionary fight, as maddening as it can be. As you well know, some people will refuse to to accept the science, while others simply do not understand the science and feel no motivation to educate themselves. Nevertheless, others who happen along these pages might see your argument and the light will click—and you will have helped them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.

They're also still mutants. It's only a matter of time before they develop eye beams and weather control.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically you are talking about 'spontaneous evolution'.There is presently a big movement going on in the US to ban teaching evolution in public schools,never said the drosophila fall dead but no matter how many mutations you induce they continue to be drosophila at the end of the day.

This "ban" is largely restricted to mostly southern states, in what we call the Bible Belt, and sadly the efforts continue but are not as avid as they used to be. But the salient point is, it was brought to court and the "intelligent design" faction failed. The judge ruled against them. "Intelligent design" is merely a softer and more covert term for creationism.

Even in most of these situations, the fight is not so much to ban evolution as it is to have creationism taught side by side with it. The bible scientists have been fighting for equal footing. In the end, however, regardless of what you want to call it—creationism, bible science, intelligent design—it is not based on science and therefore does not stand equal to evolution. Creationism is a subject for comparative religions, not for scientific inquiry.

I will admit, much to my own disgust as an American, that a poll conducted some years ago found that the majority of Americans still favor the biblical explanation over evolution. This is especially disconcerting given that the United States is one of the world leaders in scientific research. I suppose it's an unfortunate summation that many adults lack common sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably should add, There's nothing in there that could be intimated as saying spontaneous. It's still a matter of heritability and accumulation of mutations over multiple generations. OTOH, you and I both know you're indirectly quoting the "death or cancer" creationist party line.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, fine, well done; you've riled me up enough that I'll bother to argue with you some more, because the quality of your information is so appallingly poor that I have to say something​.

Thanks for calling me names,it makes me affirm that i am getting to your notions of evolution.

You wish.

Also before you dismiss any form of knowledge or pretend to know stuff please get yourself updated.You are the first so called biologist who i have came across who calls 'Cell biology','Systems Biology' and 'Molecular biology' as a lie.

Except that I don't. Where you got that idea I haven't the slightest clue... We haven't even discussed much of cellular, system, or molecular biological facets yet, apart from all that I had to explain about cell death earlier...

You have not answered any of my questions so don't try to please yourself,all you have done through out the discussion is point out two different completely formed species and assumed one evolved from the other.Since our dialogue you initially claimed "evolution is not about random mutations" which is as stupid as one who is arguing for evolution can get,though you did later rectify it.

That's because evolution is not about purely random mutation, you're just leaving out one of the most vital aspects: natural selection. Natural selection is a filter and magnifier of mutation, steering it a direction which will be beneficial for the organism in question. And it is no "assumption" whatsoever, the species I've listed for you: that you assume that yourself only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to do any research, and just jumped to your own, baseless conclusions. Again...

Then you claimed "evolution is just a fancy word for herditary" which literally would make any biologist of any worth roll on the floor and laugh,hereditary is a process which takes place within the same species and doesn't give rise to new species.

Interesting, because given I am a biologist, and work with other biologists on a regular basis, I beg to differ. Heredity can indeed give rise to new species, and, again, is among the driving forces of the evolutionary process.

You deplored and questioned my knowledge for stating "A monkey turned into a man" according to the theory of evolution and then cleverly stated the same saying "human ancestors diverged from chimps xyz years ago".

You misunderstand. Again. You were claiming that somehow a monkey "transformed" into a man one day; which didn't happen, and will never happen. Groups evolve, not individuals, as I've said before. Hominin human ancestors did diverge from chimpanzees 4.1 million years ago, as both fossil and molecular evidence demonstrate overwhelmingly. That you misunderstand and deny that fact is irrelevant.

At the end when i asked you "Can any person create life in the Lab using whatever means possible from non-living things(and hence disprove the 'Law of Biogenesis',the assumption on which the entire concept of evolution is based 'spontaneous appearance of life'. "

You're clearly just reading from a creationist website. The "spontaneous appearance of life" and abiogenesis are two different things. The "SAOL" ("spontaneous appearance of life") hypothesis is an antiquated one from the 19th Century, which claimed that life on earth diversified from worms and maggots, which were thought to "spontaneously arise" out of mud. This was later disproved. The concept of abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, since evolution is about the diversity and development of life, not its origin) which exists today is completely unrelated, and well supported by fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence. Yes, in the lab, numerous experiments have taken place over the past century which demonstrate conclusively that amino acids and proto-proteins can form organically.

i guess you know i am right and hence you hung your gloves and started calling me names.

You wish. Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off. You're certainly not right; I considered ending he conversation, again, because you refuse to learn. But I'll keep trying... as foolish as it is to try and teach someone who refuses education.

Though i helped you by suggesting newer concepts of evolutionary biology to support the lies of evolution like 'saltation' 'mutations in duplicate genes which lead to speciation''punctuated equilibrium' ......you yourself dismissed all of them as 'not accepted by majority'.

That's because saltation is not a majority view in biology. Punctuated equilibrium is more reasonable, but still not substantiated effectively enough to have a majority subscription. And mutations in duplicate genes are one among numerous factors which can result in the process of speciation over time. I didn't dismiss any of them; saltation is improbable and unsubstantiated; punctuated equilibrium is better, but still not majority; and mutation in gene duplication is an irrefutable fact.

Which majority are you talking about,is it about the mindless parrots who claim to have read a few outdated text books and think it is the word of God.When you insinuated that i was using technical terms,let me tell you i was trying to keep it as 'lay' as i could.

The majority I refer to is the bulk of the biological community; none of whom are "mindless parrots" (ironically, you yourself would better fit that description, given you're just spouting long-ago debunked creationist arguments, not any original ones). And you can pretend that you are using "technical terms"; it's clear that you're just borrowing from fringe sites that happen to have access to Wikipedia.

Allelic gene flows and recombination cause 'variation' in a limited way and not speciation or evolution,please check out the study they did on Drosophila and do yourself a favour.

You give no evidence of this whatsoever, and you are 100% incorrect. You have given no case to substantiate that there are "limits" to allelic gene flow and evolution. All evidence demonstrates that it is among the primary driving forces of evolution. Do yourself a favor, and read a remedial science textbook.

Conclusion - you have only studied outdated evolutionary biology and have a lot of textbook knowledge about falsified case studies of proevolution concepts.Your approach to evolution is of repetation of 150 year old outdated concepts in utter ignorance of all other branches of biological knowledge 'cell biology,systems biology,molecular biology,epigenetic etc' and modern biological knowledge.

Intriguing you think so, because everything you've so far only demonstrates your own ignorance of modern biology. You have given not a single refutation of any of the information I have presented.

It is not me who can learn from you but probably you need to learn about a lot of new things yourself before you can claim to answer any questions about evolutionary biology.I have seen way better arguments from proponents of evolution of which you touched on none.

Interesting. Your trolling skills are no less potent than ever, but fortunately I can see through them now. You're just trying to rile me up by telling me I haven't studied. Honestly, when you spend years studying to become a biologist, dedicate years studying marine species, observe African ecology and animal behavior, participate in studies of evolutionary epigenetics and the fossilized structure of theropodan crania, and any number of other things, then maybe we could talk about evolutionary science on equal ground. You need to prove yourself, son. And so far all you've proven is your own monstrous ignorance of evolutionary biology.

P.S.-since you blanket and ask people to blanket any information from creationist sites:

http://scienceagains...info/v16i6f.htm

http://scienceagains...info/topics.htm

Thanks for nothing and hope we can still be friends.

We haven't been friends to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Harsh..enough of the Harsh dealings.

Let me ask you one thing -what are your educational qualifications?

for example - I am an Electrical Engineer. I have a B.E in Electrical & Electronics Engineering.

Indian Culture, Civilizations, Mythology etc are my hobbies but what i know best is Electrical Engineering.

If someone comes to discuss /debate or argue about Electrical Engineering, i know my footing, i can argue till eternity because i know my subject.

But when it comes to discussion of Indian Mythology or civilization, since its my hobby only, i may be wrong sometimes and when i am wrong i will correct myself.

Like me, Arbitran is a Professional in his field. He learned Biology and is a Biologist - having spent long years studying, working in the field.

Do you think a layman like or me can argue successfully with a person who knows his science??

When you came on UM, i thought that you were another layman like me who would love to discuss with an analytical mind, but i realised later that you have hidden agendas.

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

Period!

Never argue with a Person who knows his sciences!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

...

Both counts are obvious to everyone participating in this discussion. Painfully so, but how exactly does that work? Is it a rigid belief in Hindu creationism similar to how Christians spin their creationism?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should copyright "non-creationist anti-evolutionism," Arbitran. Call it NCAE? I'm one of those who likes to know the why and how people think what they think, so it still leaves me wondering, if an anti-evolutionist isn't a creationist, what is his or her replacement for evolution? Are such people motivated merely by the desire not to side with science, but are satisfied to leave the questions unanswered? To me this smacks of intellectual sloth. It's back to the motivations of creationists, who are content to leave it with "Because God says so" and explore no further. Think what life would be like if everyone felt that way: we'd still be mired in the ignorance and filth of the Dark Ages.

I don't get it. If people don't believe in evolution but at the same time are not espousing religious bias, what is their motivation and what do they believe? Personally I dislike people who doubt for the sake of doubting but cannot offer anything suitable as an explanation.

As for Set, first, let me stress that I'm not an Egyptologist. I don't want to wear titles that don't belong to me. But it's a good question, and one with which Egyptologists have wrestled for a very long time. The problem is, the ancient Egyptians themselves seem to have left us no written record of the animal forms with which they identified Set. They depicted the god in this strange way and left it at that. One can clearly see some kind of canid aspect in Set's form, but a firmer identification may not be possible. The best Egyptological explanation I've come across for Set is a direct reflection of his personality or character as a deity: chaos. Set might not be represented by just one animal form but by a combination of several disparate forms, reflecting his chaotic nature. That's the explanation I tend to favor.

Carry on the evolutionary fight, as maddening as it can be. As you well know, some people will refuse to to accept the science, while others simply do not understand the science and feel no motivation to educate themselves. Nevertheless, others who happen along these pages might see your argument and the light will click—and you will have helped them.

Sesh 'evolution' is not science,it merely a consensus build by forceful means and underhand tactics and not on the firm foundation of obejctive proof (which is an absolute requirement when it comes to science).Heralding an outdated and falsified concept as still correct and stating it as fact is intellectual laziness,unless you accept that your existing doctrine is wrong how/why will you look for a new one.And when the question of a valid alternative comes,i rather not tell lies if i am unaware of the truth.Like i said assumptions should be stated as assumptions and not as facts.

I love and believe in science which is objective,experimentally verifiable and sensible.Stupid theories and stories using scientific terms is not science it is fiction.Try finding one argument or critic of Organic chemistry,Laws of motion etc you won't find any since these are actual scientific laws or deductions which have experimentally verifiable,observable and reproducable proof.If you wan't to turn science into a matter of faith then might as well look towards something that requires faith.

Let me give you an anology you can better relate to,if people would claim that something like great pyramid but only 10000000 more complex(still a understatement) could be created by chance and random geological events over how ever long a period of time,without the burden of objective proof or reproducing anything of that sort,would you believe it?This is what evolutionist want modern biologist to believe.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love and believe in science which is objective,experimentally verifiable and sensible.Stupid theories and stories using scientific terms is not science it is fiction.Try finding one argument or critic of Organic chemistry,Laws of motion etc you won't find any since these are actual scientific laws or deductions which have experimentally verifiable,observable and reproducable proof.If you wan't to turn science into a matter of faith then might as well look towards something that requires faith.

That is a complete contradiction to everything that you have debated here.

So, you mean to say that the Evolutionary Biology that Arbitran has studied is all humbug?

Know the science, Lear the Science, before you can debate on it.

When it doesn't suit your belief or agenda, you call it humbug.

When you yourself cant verify or substantiate your pet theories, you call the accepted sciences as hogwash.

Way to go, Kid!! But you are going the wrong way, only!

through out your posts the only links you have given, pertaining to evolution/devolution are links to your guru cremo, or silly creationist sites. have you ever lined to any peer reviewed papers/journals?

No. you wouldn't because, if you linked to them , all your silly notions will fly in the wind.

What Arbitran called you was right - you are indeed a troll with an agenda!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine, fine, well done; you've riled me up enough that I'll bother to argue with you some more, because the quality of your information is so appallingly poor that I have to say something​.

You wish.

Except that I don't. Where you got that idea I haven't the slightest clue... We haven't even discussed much of cellular, system, or molecular biological facets yet, apart from all that I had to explain about cell death earlier...

That's because evolution is not about purely random mutation, you're just leaving out one of the most vital aspects: natural selection. Natural selection is a filter and magnifier of mutation, steering it a direction which will be beneficial for the organism in question. And it is no "assumption" whatsoever, the species I've listed for you: that you assume that yourself only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to do any research, and just jumped to your own, baseless conclusions. Again...

Interesting, because given I am a biologist, and work with other biologists on a regular basis, I beg to differ. Heredity can indeed give rise to new species, and, again, is among the driving forces of the evolutionary process.

You misunderstand. Again. You were claiming that somehow a monkey "transformed" into a man one day; which didn't happen, and will never happen. Groups evolve, not individuals, as I've said before. Hominin human ancestors did diverge from chimpanzees 4.1 million years ago, as both fossil and molecular evidence demonstrate overwhelmingly. That you misunderstand and deny that fact is irrelevant.

You're clearly just reading from a creationist website. The "spontaneous appearance of life" and abiogenesis are two different things. The "SAOL" ("spontaneous appearance of life") hypothesis is an antiquated one from the 19th Century, which claimed that life on earth diversified from worms and maggots, which were thought to "spontaneously arise" out of mud. This was later disproved. The concept of abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way, since evolution is about the diversity and development of life, not its origin) which exists today is completely unrelated, and well supported by fossil, molecular, and experimental evidence. Yes, in the lab, numerous experiments have taken place over the past century which demonstrate conclusively that amino acids and proto-proteins can form organically.

You wish. Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off. You're certainly not right; I considered ending he conversation, again, because you refuse to learn. But I'll keep trying... as foolish as it is to try and teach someone who refuses education.

That's because saltation is not a majority view in biology. Punctuated equilibrium is more reasonable, but still not substantiated effectively enough to have a majority subscription. And mutations in duplicate genes are one among numerous factors which can result in the process of speciation over time. I didn't dismiss any of them; saltation is improbable and unsubstantiated; punctuated equilibrium is better, but still not majority; and mutation in gene duplication is an irrefutable fact.

The majority I refer to is the bulk of the biological community; none of whom are "mindless parrots" (ironically, you yourself would better fit that description, given you're just spouting long-ago debunked creationist arguments, not any original ones). And you can pretend that you are using "technical terms"; it's clear that you're just borrowing from fringe sites that happen to have access to Wikipedia.

You give no evidence of this whatsoever, and you are 100% incorrect. You have given no case to substantiate that there are "limits" to allelic gene flow and evolution. All evidence demonstrates that it is among the primary driving forces of evolution. Do yourself a favor, and read a remedial science textbook.

Intriguing you think so, because everything you've so far only demonstrates your own ignorance of modern biology. You have given not a single refutation of any of the information I have presented.

Interesting. Your trolling skills are no less potent than ever, but fortunately I can see through them now. You're just trying to rile me up by telling me I haven't studied. Honestly, when you spend years studying to become a biologist, dedicate years studying marine species, observe African ecology and animal behavior, participate in studies of evolutionary epigenetics and the fossilized structure of theropodan crania, and any number of other things, then maybe we could talk about evolutionary science on equal ground. You need to prove yourself, son. And so far all you've proven is your own monstrous ignorance of evolutionary biology.

We haven't been friends to start with.

Oh so you have some fight left.Since my editing skills are not as good as yours i will use the old point system to reply to your objections.Don't read my last point if you are a emotional person and if you get emotionally offended easily,and if you do just know that i am only stating it in the spirit of our discussion.

First let me state that there are some merits in the modern theory of evolution which is thought provoking and slightly digestable,i never rejected the theory completely until you started stating it as a scientific fact,which is the biggest insult to a person who really admires the objectivity of science.

1.Yes i agree we have not been discussing much of cell biology,systems biology etc as you have been constantly trying to avoid the same.I brought it up on numerous occasions but you fail to reply even once,trying to only talk about falsified pro macroevolution case studies which rely on wild assumptions (so and so species evolved from this simpler species without any intermediates with half formed organs).Because of your constant ignorance of the same i assumed you don't have a clue of what i am talking about.

2.My friend 'Abiogenesis' (i.e life assembled itself from non-living things on itself randomly) mind you for which there is no proof or reproducability still and 'random beneficial mutations' (which is as good as believing that a short circuit in your computer is going to make it better) are the first two pillars of theory of evolution,'Natural selection' comes into play only after a beneficial mutation has manifested itself which can only happen after life has first evolved.In either scenario 'random beneficial mutation' is the main and only agent to drive evolution by bringing into existence Mutants after which natural selection can take place,so if you are an evolutionist of any salt you cannot refute or understate the importance of 'random beneficial mutations' to the theory of evolution.Probably you feel 'natural selection' and as you say 'heredity' is more important since you have probably focused your 'studies' on these.

3.http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Heredity.I will not bother explaining to you the meaning or heredity again or how it cannot give rise to new species a)because it is concerned with transfer of genetic material from parents to offsprings b)it requires organism of the same species to reproduce and cause the transfer in the first place.I will also help you by telling you that what you actually mean is genetic recombination at the time of meiosis and zygote formation which can give rise to 'variation' and not entirely new species.

4.Now we come to the infamous 'a monkey turned into a man some day' is not what i am saying,it is what the traditional evolutionist insinuate and you shouldn't have a problem in openly accepting it.Since there is absolutely no fossils or living transitional species showing half formed organs or any sort of 'intermediates' hence modern evolutionist have concocted the 'beneficial mutation accumulate in duplicate genes' and spontaneously manifest themselves after enough 'beneficial mutations accumulate' .This new theory of spontaneous evolution has been denied by you so no point in discussing it's merits and demerits.Again i would like to bring to your notice theres is no objective proof of 'transitional species or organism' and it is only a assumption.

5.About the divergence of man from monkey (mind you i am assuming evolution is true in the first place) refer to the link i posted on the same and you will be able to see the genetic studies that have actually time and again destroyed that notion,and how geneticist who reached the conclusion had to remodify their basic mutation rate assumptions just to fit in the traditional evolutionist time line(poor people are being funded by senseless evolutionists and pseudoscientists so they have to murder their own experimental observations just to confer with the direction of money).But i can understand if the information in the link is too difficult for you to understand or you have not read it.

6.( I am going to love discusiing this point)Now when you talk of abiogensis and peptide chain formation,this is the first time you have broached on anything to do with 'molecular biology',my hearty congratulations.

I will start with the basic first "proteins and amino acids can form organically" (i.e organically=living systems) is beyond contestation,but what you probably meant "proteins and amino acid can form naturally and spontaneously" is what you meant.

If you suggest that (which is if you consider yourself a evolutionist) that you do not confer with 'abiogenesis' then you are defacto a creationist or something else.Since if a evolutionist can't explain where the first life came from (and at the same time make lame attempts of stating lame experiments to try to prove abiogenesis) then what do they ascribe to?How did life come into existance?

Now when you talk about amino acids and proteins can form under natural environments,that is possible no doubt but what are the chances of a self replicating simple life to evolve in completely natural and spontaneous circumstances.You are refering to the famous Urey and Miller experiment,now tell me what is the chance of a single 20 polypeptide protein chain to form coherently (i am assuming you know that if even one amino acid position or type is changed potentially the entire protein becomes useless),i will tell you it goes in one in millions of trillions.Complex protein in its 3d conformation is a whole differnt ball game.This is the reason i have been constantly asking you the probability of 'random beneficial mutations).Most evolutionist realised this and gave up relying purely on chance and ultimately concoted the theory of 'uncatalysed replicating systems'.

Now fact still remains that there is no objective proof that can be reproduced even in the lab with technicians monitoring the process where simple life is created.Another faith based assumption called upon by evolutionist and stated as fact.

I dont quite understand what you mean by molecular proof (lol XD).

7.Now we come to your allegation of me rufusing to learn.I feel you only learn what you have read in outdated text books.I will not ascribe to faith based nonsense as science,if you are reffering to that as learning.

8.Now we come to the discussion of 'Saltation' and 'Punctuated' equilibrium'.In your comments regarding the same do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof.I don't like talking about majority views when i talk about science but i prefer to rely on objective proof.There is no denying that mutations in duplicate genes happen but what are the chances of a 'series of beneficial mutations happening in duplicate genes' in the perfect order to give rise to a new species let alone a new beneficial physical character (it is very important to discuss the probability of the same to decide wether a event is plausible or not).The truth of the matter is that without relying on the theory of "beneficial mutations in duplicate genes",the theory of evolution is dismissed as a fairytale by modern genetics,epigenetics.

You say 'saltation' is false but then where are the intermediate species or organisms when one species gets converted to another(half formed organs etc).Is there any objective proof of these intermediate species?If you say 'saltation' is wrong then there is no proof to explain intermediate stages of 'speciation' and if you agree with 'saltation' then you shouldn't have a problem when someone say 'a monkey turned into the man'.

9.When i say mindless parrot i mean a person who has studied and gobbled up text books without thinking or updating their knowledge and just keep repeating what they have learnt and expect people to believe it.'Mindless parrots' have nothing to do with science and scientific research and reasoning based on objective scientific proof,they are just slaves of a doctrine they have byhearted.It is sad that you are so oblivious to your native intelligence and other feilds of science.If you don't like facts written in the links i have posted please go and refer to 'the cell' and other widely accepted textbooks (of which you are certainly a fan of and cross verify all the information).I have studied these subjects that are talked about in these links and the premise they have used for their arguments against evolution is hard scientic observations.Mind you i read the material in this link at the same time i posted them and all the points i put forward before are of my own accord.

10.I am not claiming that i am 100% correct about anything because i harbor a scientific spirit,even the people who discoverd the 'higgs boson' recently didn't say they are 100% correct (they gave their result as 99.999% or 6 sigma level of accuracy).So please if you truely have any scientific spirit learn to think in terms of probabilites when you are dealing with theories (without objective proof) and not absolutes.If you don't allow dissent to any idea when you are thinking critically then you are no better then relegious nut jobs who ask for only reliance on faith.

When you talk of evidence i already told you that the onus lies on the person who proposes or believes a particular doctrine,but i have given you ample evidence to point out the holes in your great doctrine.I have not suggested any alternative as Sesh correctly pointed out.

When you talk about allelic gene flow as a agent of variation,you very well know the experiments which have proved their limits,no where a new species has been created.Mutations,beneficial or bad are almost naturally supressed and wiped off.

11.When you list your achievements am i supposed to bow down and worship everything you say?Probably all the things you mentioned about your career, after this debate it seems that you trolled through out your life as a biologist since you have problems stating and understanding simple biological terms.Did you participate in evolutionary epigenetics by sleeping of in the last row?Now i don't mean to be too rude but i did give you in my last post that you probably have studied particular case studies probably under heavy guidance from evolutionist zealots (no different from relegious zealots).Here in your last point you have finally waved the white flag by doing what most outdated scientists do i.e. wave their degrees and achievements.You can be proud about your achievements but know that a man of science should have enough humility to acknowledge that no matter how much he has studied or learnt,he still is only a student.

And most of the things you mentioned as a part of you experiences are probably based on observable facts with objective proof (i.e ecology etc) so you should stick to what you actually know and not theorize.

P.S- Believe in true science and not fairy tales based on assumptions paraded as science.Evolution is not science,it is at best a fanciful theory,there is no objective proof that it is true.Evolution cannot be stated as hard fact as of now or in all probabilities ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a complete contradiction to everything that you have debated here. So, you mean to say that the Evolutionary Biology that Arbitran has studied is all humbug? Know the science, Lear the Science, before you can debate on it. When it doesn't suit your belief or agenda, you call it humbug. When you yourself cant verify or substantiate your pet theories, you call the accepted sciences as hogwash. Way to go, Kid!! But you are going the wrong way, only! through out your posts the only links you have given, pertaining to evolution/devolution are links to your guru cremo, or silly creationist sites. have you ever lined to any peer reviewed papers/journals? No. you wouldn't because, if you linked to them , all your silly notions will fly in the wind. What Arbitran called you was right - you are indeed a troll with an agenda!!
This is exactly what i am talking about,evolution is science and science is evolution for people like you.Though i won't hold it against you since i don't think you have a clue about what i am talking about.Every argument i have given is based on scientific fact and not assumptions like i stated before.

Also if you want to know if i have a guru or any agenda you can ask me directly and i am honest enough to tell you so,don't be prejudiced in your outlook.Should i feel that you defend Arbitran since he is your guru and relative or probably something else?Like i reitterated before science is not about acceptance or consensus unlike history,it is about objective,unprejudiced proof and reproducible proof.If you want peer reviewed proof of any of the premises or scientific facts that i have used in the debate,you can get them anywhere on the net or in textbooks so please do so,prove any of the facts of the science of biology that i have stated to be wrong.

P.S.-what agenda do you have in posting the above comment,are you adding value to the discussion in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Harsh..enough of the Harsh dealings.

Let me ask you one thing -what are your educational qualifications?

for example - I am an Electrical Engineer. I have a B.E in Electrical & Electronics Engineering.

Indian Culture, Civilizations, Mythology etc are my hobbies but what i know best is Electrical Engineering.

If someone comes to discuss /debate or argue about Electrical Engineering, i know my footing, i can argue till eternity because i know my subject.

But when it comes to discussion of Indian Mythology or civilization, since its my hobby only, i may be wrong sometimes and when i am wrong i will correct myself.

Like me, Arbitran is a Professional in his field. He learned Biology and is a Biologist - having spent long years studying, working in the field.

Do you think a layman like or me can argue successfully with a person who knows his science??

When you came on UM, i thought that you were another layman like me who would love to discuss with an analytical mind, but i realised later that you have hidden agendas.

You are a Hindu Nationalist. You are a creationist.

Period!

Never argue with a Person who knows his sciences!!

I am a biotechnologist,and i have already told you that in my course of studying biology i found glaring holes in the theory of evolution.I converted from a believer to a skeptic of this theory,with all the subsequent ramifications of the same.Unlike creationist my beliefs against evolution didn't come into existence because of any relegion but subsequently i have looked into all types of relegions as a matter of interest.Since my relatively recent education in biotechnology (which involves a study of probably all feilds of biology and their integration with technology) hence i have a working knowledge of quite a few feilds in the spectrum of biological studies.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=231545&st=0&p=4408457entry4408457

This is a link which will probably give you a little idea of what my thoughts on God and relegions are (it is a satire).

I cannot demonstrate creation or a creator hence i cannot yet bring myself to believe that there is one.

I prefer to question any information before accepting it,no matter who said it.

Even if i was a creationist or hindu nationalist why should i hide it?

My agenda when i post on UM is only to explore a few ideas that i have and probably pick up some amounts of knowledge.

Since you are a engineer let me ask you that if someone tells you to believe that random natural processes can give rise to a supercomputer (which is still a understatement when compared to human beings)over billions of years without giving you any 'objective proof' of the same other then showing you a washing machine,hair drier,toaster,television,486 computer and telling you that one morphed into another of it's own accord and ultimately gave you a supercomputer.If you belive it is possible with human help then tell me what are the chances of it happening on its own and randomly?.

This is just a crude anology.

I am quite certain that in this particular debate i definitely know what i am talking about,unlike many other topics where i still have relatively little knowledge about.I try to keep an open mind and a hollistic approach to everything i take interest in.

I dislike the characteristic in people who think they know everything about anything.

P.S.-i love to discuss/debate things with people who have an analytical mind since that provides a wonderful opurtunity for me improve my thought process and concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First let me state that there are some merits in the modern theory of evolution which is thought provoking and slightly digestable,i never rejected the theory completely until you started stating it as a scientific fact,which is the biggest insult to a person who really admires the objectivity of science.

1.Yes i agree we have not been discussing much of cell biology,systems biology etc as you have been constantly trying to avoid the same.I brought it up on numerous occasions but you fail to reply even once,trying to only talk about falsified pro macroevolution case studies which rely on wild assumptions (so and so species evolved from this simpler species without any intermediates with half formed organs).Because of your constant ignorance of the same i assumed you don't have a clue of what i am talking about.

Calling a fact a fact is an insult to the objectivity of science? I can it a triumph of science, that it has managed to give us a model of biology which is the most conclusively proven theory in the history of mankind (by sheer quantity of evidence).

Since when does the fact that they never came up suggest that I've been "constantly trying to avoid" them? I don't recall any questions you've asked me which I haven't answered; I could be wrong, but please cite them specifically if you feel I've missed something. And "macro-evolution" (not a real scientific term, firstly), relies on very few, if any, assumptions. Science in general, tends not to rely on assumption.

2.My friend 'Abiogenesis' (i.e life assembled itself from non-living things on itself randomly) mind you for which there is no proof or reproducability still and 'random beneficial mutations' (which is as good as believing that a short circuit in your computer is going to make it better) are the first two pillars of theory of evolution,'Natural selection' comes into play only after a beneficial mutation has manifested itself which can only happen after life has first evolved.In either scenario 'random beneficial mutation' is the main and only agent to drive evolution by bringing into existence Mutants after which natural selection can take place,so if you are an evolutionist of any salt you cannot refute or understate the importance of 'random beneficial mutations' to the theory of evolution.Probably you feel 'natural selection' and as you say 'heredity' is more important since you have probably focused your 'studies' on these.

You used the same words over and over there without saying much with any coherence... To counter your (rather laboured) "short circuit" analogy, you speak of mutation as if it implies that it will be a harmful occurrence (as the "short circuit in a computer" metaphor suggests). To use a computer, again, as an analogy, think of this sort of beneficial mutation more like some sort of code (I'm not very good with computers... so this might not make much sense... but bear with me) which allows the computer to process (or any given thing) slightly better than other computers. Now, there is no really effective analogy for natural selection in computers at the moment; although artificial selection, yes (computer models which operate more effectively are selected and extrapolated upon, while less efficient ones are more likely to become obsolete).

3.http://www.biology-o...ionary/Heredity.I will not bother explaining to you the meaning or heredity again or how it cannot give rise to new species a)because it is concerned with transfer of genetic material from parents to offsprings b)it requires organism of the same species to reproduce and cause the transfer in the first place.I will also help you by telling you that what you actually mean is genetic recombination at the time of meiosis and zygote formation which can give rise to 'variation' and not entirely new species.

Yes, I do mean heredity when I say heredity. I know very well what it means. But that does not make it any different than what I've said already. Do you honestly think that you have a species reproducing over and over, and then, one day, there's one which is born which is labeled: "new species"? It doesn't work like that. Fortunately, evolution doesn't correspond to the pathetic counterfeit which creationists like to peddle to those who haven't actually studied the actual science. Life is a continuum of organisms, and things like "species", "genera", etc., are simply names we give groups of interbreeding organisms to help classify them and study them more efficiently. Speciation is a prolonged process, with breeding between increasingly-disparate lineages becoming gradually less and less likely to yield viable offspring, until viability in breeding is lost entirely, and the groups are labeled as different species. If one were to look at the big picture, every organism on this planet is descended from the same line, no matter the species, no matter the genus, no matter the appearance, no matter the shape, no matter the colour. But interbreeding is a tricky thing, and only organisms which are of sufficiently compatible genomic material are capable of successfully yielding offspring. For example, the tiger and the lion are two distinct species, however they are capable of interbreeding, and at times producing a hybrid creature (called either a liger or a tigon, depending on the genders of the respective parents). Both the lion and the tiger are members of the genus Panthera: the lion is Panthera leo, the tiger is Panthera tigris. They are two distinct species, yet are capable of breeding; this is because, while they are indeed disparate, their point of divergence from their common ancestor (which was also the common ancestor of leopards, etc.) was recent enough that their genomes are still of a degree of compatibility which can produce offspring. The horse and the donkey do the same in the their production of the mule, or the donkey and the zebra, in their production of the zonkey. Species which are closely related enough are still capable of interbreeding, but at some point down the line, the lineages will inevitably become to distant for these sorts of hybrids to arise (you can't mate a shark with a slug, for example; their last common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago).

4.Now we come to the infamous 'a monkey turned into a man some day' is not what i am saying,it is what the traditional evolutionist insinuate and you shouldn't have a problem in openly accepting it.Since there is absolutely no fossils or living transitional species showing half formed organs or any sort of 'intermediates' hence modern evolutionist have concocted the 'beneficial mutation accumulate in duplicate genes' and spontaneously manifest themselves after enough 'beneficial mutations accumulate' .This new theory of spontaneous evolution has been denied by you so no point in discussing it's merits and demerits.Again i would like to bring to your notice theres is no objective proof of 'transitional species or organism' and it is only a assumption.

You see, your claims of what evolutionary scientists "insinuate" couldn't mean much less to me. That you utterly misunderstand the science isn't their fault in the slightest. And I know for a fact that evolutionary biology has never insinuated what you suggest it does. Your idiotic notions of "half-formed organs" is frankly the most asinine thing I think I've ever heard. I explained to you the development of the human eye, and you never once made any reference to the need for there to be "in-betweens", as it were. Why would you think it would be different for anything else? There is in fact overwhelming evidence for transitional forms in fossil, as well as a few extant taxa; that you ignore them is your own problem, not mine, given I've already given you a list of them.

5.About the divergence of man from monkey (mind you i am assuming evolution is true in the first place) refer to the link i posted on the same and you will be able to see the genetic studies that have actually time and again destroyed that notion,and how geneticist who reached the conclusion had to remodify their basic mutation rate assumptions just to fit in the traditional evolutionist time line(poor people are being funded by senseless evolutionists and pseudoscientists so they have to murder their own experimental observations just to confer with the direction of money).But i can understand if the information in the link is too difficult for you to understand or you have not read it.

Your link was bull****, but yes, I did bother to read it. Your little conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid. To be quite honest, I would love if it were all evolutionary biologists funding research! I'd get loads more done... Funding is difficult to come by, sorry to say, and that applies just as well (sometimes even more so...) to we "evolutionists" (also not a scientific term). And no, modern genetic studies have not discredited evolution, I'm glad to say; on the contrary, they have helped to confirm it beyond any shadow of a (scientific) doubt.

6.( I am going to love discusiing this point)Now when you talk of abiogensis and peptide chain formation,this is the first time you have broached on anything to do with 'molecular biology',my hearty congratulations.

I will start with the basic first "proteins and amino acids can form organically" (i.e organically=living systems) is beyond contestation,but what you probably meant "proteins and amino acid can form naturally and spontaneously" is what you meant.

If you suggest that (which is if you consider yourself a evolutionist) that you do not confer with 'abiogenesis' then you are defacto a creationist or something else.Since if a evolutionist can't explain where the first life came from (and at the same time make lame attempts of stating lame experiments to try to prove abiogenesis) then what do they ascribe to?How did life come into existance?

Perhaps we take a look at my dictionary's definitions of "organically"?

organic |ôrˈganik| adj.

  • Chemistry | of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts)

  • denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art. | characterized by continuous or natural development

I said that evolutionary biology doesn't comment on life's origin, because it doesn't. That doesn't mean that other branches of biology, ones which I have experience in, don't.

Now when you talk about amino acids and proteins can form under natural environments,that is possible no doubt but what are the chances of a self replicating simple life to evolve in completely natural and spontaneous circumstances.You are refering to the famous Urey and Miller experiment,now tell me what is the chance of a single 20 polypeptide protein chain to form coherently (i am assuming you know that if even one amino acid position or type is changed potentially the entire protein becomes useless),i will tell you it goes in one in millions of trillions.

Do you happen to know the odds of all of the photons of light needed to illuminate the Earth traveling all the way from the sun and coming over the horizon every morning is? Roughly in the millions of trillions...

Honestly, probabilities really don't help your case when you're trying to talk about things that are real and in an open system. If we were all in a closed system and simply hypothetical ideas, then perhaps you'd have a point, but the universe seldom corresponds to what we'd expect it to do, simply based on probability (part of why science actually bothers studying and experimenting, rather than just crunching numbers all day). And sure, maybe I was referring to the Urey-Miller experiment... maybe I wasn't. Given there are more than twenty other major experiments which have demonstrated and elaborated on the same principles, I can only presume that your knowledge of abiogenesis research only extends into the 1950s...

Complex protein in its 3d conformation is a whole differnt ball game.This is the reason i have been constantly asking you the probability of 'random beneficial mutations).Most evolutionist realised this and gave up relying purely on chance and ultimately concoted the theory of 'uncatalysed replicating systems'.

Now fact still remains that there is no objective proof that can be reproduced even in the lab with technicians monitoring the process where simple life is created.Another faith based assumption called upon by evolutionist and stated as fact.

I dont quite understand what you mean by molecular proof (lol XD).

Sure, we haven't created life in the lab yet... give us a break... I mean, we've been working on it for a little more than fifty years. Our planet had billions to work with. Care to crunch the numbers on that? (Rhetorical; I frankly couldn't care less, as I've said, about the "probability"; it has very little real-world application here.)

7.Now we come to your allegation of me rufusing to learn.I feel you only learn what you have read in outdated text books.I will not ascribe to faith based nonsense as science,if you are reffering to that as learning.

I honestly haven't read through a biology textbook in years, I can admit that. Fortunately I don't have to. I have other means of gleaning information about biology: scientific papers, studies, observations, experimentation, or, as a last resort, the internet. And I do applaud your acceptance of science and rejection of faith-based nonsense. In that case though, you should have no quarrel whatsoever with me, given that evolutionary biology, again, is the single most-overwhelmingly-supported scientific fact which mankind has ever conceived of. You'd have a more tenable case trying to argue against Einstein than Darwin.

8.Now we come to the discussion of 'Saltation' and 'Punctuated' equilibrium'.In your comments regarding the same do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof.I don't like talking about majority views when i talk about science but i prefer to rely on objective proof.There is no denying that mutations in duplicate genes happen but what are the chances of a 'series of beneficial mutations happening in duplicate genes' in the perfect order to give rise to a new species let alone a new beneficial physical character (it is very important to discuss the probability of the same to decide wether a event is plausible or not).The truth of the matter is that without relying on the theory of "beneficial mutations in duplicate genes",the theory of evolution is dismissed as a fairytale by modern genetics,epigenetics.

When you say "do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof", you almost seem to say it as though by "do you realise", you're suggesting that there is something factual about your statement, that I should accept... Only too bad... I happen to know better than that. It doesn't matter how many times you say "evolution has no objective proof"; that doesn't make that statement any less vacuous and false than the previous time you said it. I've provided you with proofs; again, your ignorance of them has no bearings whatsoever on their veracity. The theory of evolution certainly isn't "dismissed as a fairy tale by modern genetics,epigenetics". What an utter crock. You'd have been more accurate if you said something along the lines of: "geology is dismissed as a fairy tale by modern rocks"...

You say 'saltation' is false but then where are the intermediate species or organisms when one species gets converted to another(half formed organs etc).Is there any objective proof of these intermediate species?If you say 'saltation' is wrong then there is no proof to explain intermediate stages of 'speciation' and if you agree with 'saltation' then you shouldn't have a problem when someone say 'a monkey turned into the man'.

I didn't say that saltation was false, I said that it was unlikely, and that I don't personally subscribe to the idea; nor do the majority of biologists. Again, your silly notions of "half-formed organs" and species being "converted" into different ones is just laughable (and do not say in your next post that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not; you're simply returning to the same things I've refuted and explained over and over again). Even if I agreed with saltation, I still probably wouldn't say that a "monkey turned into a man", because that sort of change would be incredibly massive; far beyond even the most extreme claims of saltation by proponents. Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier, when discussing the chimpanzee-human divergence. It isn't as if a chimpanzee turned into a hominin; until that point, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees were the same species. It was after the speciation that the direct ancestors of humans and modern chimpanzees arose, and then went on the yield the respective species (us, and chimps).

9.When i say mindless parrot i mean a person who has studied and gobbled up text books without thinking or updating their knowledge and just keep repeating what they have learnt and expect people to believe it.'Mindless parrots' have nothing to do with science and scientific research and reasoning based on objective scientific proof,they are just slaves of a doctrine they have byhearted.It is sad that you are so oblivious to your native intelligence and other feilds of science.If you don't like facts written in the links i have posted please go and refer to 'the cell' and other widely accepted textbooks (of which you are certainly a fan of and cross verify all the information).I have studied these subjects that are talked about in these links and the premise they have used for their arguments against evolution is hard scientic observations.Mind you i read the material in this link at the same time i posted them and all the points i put forward before are of my own accord.

I'll admit that my comprehension of knowledge in other fields is a bit shakier than in my specialty, biology, however we do happen to be talking about evolution; ergo, my field. Again, I haven't read a science textbook in any sort of entirety for years, though I am quite aware of the fact that the textbooks I read at university on the subject were mistaken or imprecise on some points (a few of which I have personally aided in clarifying). The links you provided do not give anything of the sort of a genuine scientific case against evolution (or else perhaps they might have bothered to actually understand evolution first); they're just the same old pathetic cases that have been made, and debunked, countless times. And honestly, if you're really so confident that evolution is wrong, and you're onto something, then you shouldn't be afraid to publish an actual scientific paper and have your "case" studied by peer review; rather than just hiding behind the pathetic fringe sites peddling their pseudoscientific garbage. I'm 100% serious: if you're so convinced that you can disprove evolutionary biology, then by all means, step forward and claim your Nobel prize. If not, then kindly sod off about it, and admit you have no case at all.

10.I am not claiming that i am 100% correct about anything because i harbor a scientific spirit,even the people who discoverd the 'higgs boson' recently didn't say they are 100% correct (they gave their result as 99.999% or 6 sigma level of accuracy).So please if you truely have any scientific spirit learn to think in terms of probabilites when you are dealing with theories (without objective proof) and not absolutes.If you don't allow dissent to any idea when you are thinking critically then you are no better then relegious nut jobs who ask for only reliance on faith.

When you talk of evidence i already told you that the onus lies on the person who proposes or believes a particular doctrine,but i have given you ample evidence to point out the holes in your great doctrine.I have not suggested any alternative as Sesh correctly pointed out.

When you talk about allelic gene flow as a agent of variation,you very well know the experiments which have proved their limits,no where a new species has been created.Mutations,beneficial or bad are almost naturally supressed and wiped off.

Of course I am open to evolution being challenged; when did I ever say otherwise? That you feel that your particular "challenge" presents even the most meager of threats to the fortitude of evolutionary biology is almost tragic. Of course I don't ask for reliance on faith, given I've provided solid links substantiating most of the points I've made on the previous pages; and the evidence for evolution is available, thanks to the internet, to anyone and everyone who has a mind to have a look. That you evidently haven't doesn't concern me. And "ample evidence to point out the holes"? Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off once more... You haven't given one single shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence, let alone evidence which would "poke holes" in the most robust scientific theory of all time. You say that I "very well know" the experiments which "prove" limits in allelic gene flow; I don't. Just saying "you very well know" doesn't cut it. Please link to a single experiment which has demonstrated this (I'll be very keen on seeing it). Also, provide substantiation for your bald assertion that "mutations, beneficial or bad, are almost naturally suppressed or wiped off". Because without evidence your empty assertions are just a waste of space on a computer screen.

11.When you list your achievements am i supposed to bow down and worship everything you say?Probably all the things you mentioned about your career, after this debate it seems that you trolled through out your life as a biologist since you have problems stating and understanding simple biological terms.Did you participate in evolutionary epigenetics by sleeping of in the last row?Now i don't mean to be too rude but i did give you in my last post that you probably have studied particular case studies probably under heavy guidance from evolutionist zealots (no different from relegious zealots).Here in your last point you have finally waved the white flag by doing what most outdated scientists do i.e. wave their degrees and achievements.You can be proud about your achievements but know that a man of science should have enough humility to acknowledge that no matter how much he has studied or learnt,he still is only a student.

And most of the things you mentioned as a part of you experiences are probably based on observable facts with objective proof (i.e ecology etc) so you should stick to what you actually know and not theorize.

No, listing my particular accomplishments was by no means intended to make you "worship" me. It's interesting that you claim that I have difficulty "stating and understanding simple biological terms". Name one please? I dare you. Intriguing that you refer to ecology, specifically, as being based on "objective proof", whilst claiming simultaneously that evolutionary biology isn't. You do realize that a great deal of all work in ecology, in all biology in general, is known through the framework of evolutionary science, right? Evolution is to biology what the periodic table is to chemistry, or that rocks are to geology. It only makes sense under the framework of the scientific model. And all I was trying to do with mentioning my activities was to note that I have dedicated my life to this field; your knowledge of biology, on the other hand, is of such a quality that I can only presume it was acquired over a weekend of skimming fringe creationist websites. In other words, no "waving" of my activities was intended; only a reminder of just who you're dealing with (since you seem to regularly forget, and insist that I "don't understand science"...).

P.S- Believe in true science and not fairy tales based on assumptions paraded as science.Evolution is not science,it is at best a fanciful theory,there is no objective proof that it is true.Evolution cannot be stated as hard fact as of now or in all probabilities ever.

Again, I applaud your denial of fairy tale in place of science. But evolution is indeed science, is indeed a theory, and there is indeed objective proof of its veracity, which has been demonstrated time and again. Evolution can, and ought, be stated as hard fact, given that it is a scientific fact. I'm sorry that this truth doesn't seem to properly correspond to your little world of "evolutionist" conspiracies and pseudoscience, but that really doesn't concern me. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't you dare try and tell me that it's true unless you can back it up (which, again, you haven't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a biotechnologist,and i have already told you that in my course of studying biology i found glaring holes in the theory of evolution.I converted from a believer to a skeptic of this theory,with all the subsequent ramifications of the same.Unlike creationist my beliefs against evolution didn't come into existence because of any relegion but subsequently i have looked into all types of relegions as a matter of interest.Since my relatively recent education in biotechnology (which involves a study of probably all feilds of biology and their integration with technology) hence i have a working knowledge of quite a few feilds in the spectrum of biological studies.

http://www.unexplain...7

This is a link which will probably give you a little idea of what my thoughts on God and relegions are (it is a satire).

I cannot demonstrate creation or a creator hence i cannot yet bring myself to believe that there is one.

I prefer to question any information before accepting it,no matter who said it.

Even if i was a creationist or hindu nationalist why should i hide it?

My agenda when i post on UM is only to explore a few ideas that i have and probably pick up some amounts of knowledge.

Since you are a engineer let me ask you that if someone tells you to believe that random natural processes can give rise to a supercomputer (which is still a understatement when compared to human beings)over billions of years without giving you any 'objective proof' of the same other then showing you a washing machine,hair drier,toaster,television,486 computer and telling you that one morphed into another of it's own accord and ultimately gave you a supercomputer.If you belive it is possible with human help then tell me what are the chances of it happening on its own and randomly?.

This is just a crude anology.

I am quite certain that in this particular debate i definitely know what i am talking about,unlike many other topics where i still have relatively little knowledge about.I try to keep an open mind and a hollistic approach to everything i take interest in.

I dislike the characteristic in people who think they know everything about anything.

P.S.-i love to discuss/debate things with people who have an analytical mind since that provides a wonderful opurtunity for me improve my thought process and concepts.

You have just radically altered my perception of biotechnologists... If you can claim to have the prefix "bio-" in your occupational title, then I should have expected an actually knowledge of biology (again, I'll grant you that your understanding of molecular and cellular terminology is impressive, but your knowledge of evolutionary biology is staggeringly poor). Every single thing you've stated about evolution has so far been pathetic creationist rehash; I should have thought that an alleged biotechnologist would, if he were genuinely attempting to "poke holes" in evolutionary theory, oh, I don't know... come up with his own "proofs"? Because honestly, all you've done so far is rewrap old creationist arguments which have been debunked long ago; well, that, and parade your own glaring lack of education in evolutionary biology. I can only presume that you are likely not an authentic biotechnologist, and are likely simply pretending to be one in order to give some attempt at elevating your status to one which might be more credible in this debate. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but given your displayed, deplorably exiguous comprehension of even the most remedial of topics with pertinence to evolutionary biology (or most biology in general), I remain highly skeptical of your claim. I should think that a genuine biotechnologist would be well-versed enough in biology to know how comically-stupid the "monkey transformed into a human" argument is; but then, maybe you could have made it through sheer luck? Or deceit perhaps? In any case, I reiterate: the idea that a claimed "biotechnologist" could have such an appalling lack of comprehension of evolutionary biology is very, very hard to believe...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.