abelcainsbrother wrote:I have responded to you and the points you've made. I explained what I agree with and what I don't agree with but it is not me sticking my finger in my ears, it is you.
Well you’ve really got me here, abelcainsbrother. I honestly don’t think we’re speaking the same language. Your definitions of ‘responded’ and ‘evidence’ are clearly quite different from mine.
All you have done is explained some of the reasons you accept evolution, but unlike I, you offer no evidence.
That’s what I mean. The reasons I accept evolution
are the evidence.
MY EVIDENCE 1) Within a species, there is a clear relationship between the difference in any two organisms DNA and the time when they shared a common ancestor. This is evidence. It is easy to observe and measure. Two brothers have very similar DNA, distant cousins have less similar DNA. Why do you not think this is evidence?
From this single piece of evidence I build a hypothesis. I generalise the statement: “Within a species, there is a relationship between the difference in any two organisms' DNA and the time when they shared a common ancestor” by deleting the first three words, so: “There is a relationship between the difference in any two organisms' DNA and the time when they shared a common ancestor”. This is not evidence. It is not proof. It is a hypothesis. However, from this hypothesis, I can make a prediction. If the prediction is verified, my hypothesis is strengthened. If the prediction is falsified, my hypothesis is weakened. My prediction is that the fossil record will show that from before the time predicted by the difference in DNA in two organisms, there will be found fossils which do not resemble the two organisms themselves, but do have characteristics common to them both; that from after that time will only be found fossils that belong to one or the other.
MY EVIDENCE 2) The fossil record shows that at various times in the past, organisms existed which had similarities to modern organisms of different species, which themselves do not appear to have existed at that time. This is evidence. It is easy to observe and measure. Prosimian fossils resemble modern primates, including humans, quite closely. Modern species of primates have left no fossils of the same age. Why do you not think this is evidence?
This second piece of evidence is exactly in line with my prediction, and therefore my hypothesis is strengthened. If there is anything wrong with what I have just written, please point it out it detail. This you have persistently failed to do. You either dismiss the whole argument as “no evidence”, or you move straight on to something else. That’s what I mean by a “fingers-in-ears La-la-la” attitude.
I give evidence for what I believe and have given you evidence when you've asked for it
Indeed you did, eventually.
YOUR EVIDENCE 1) A glass with ice frozen to the bottom can have water poured on top without dislodging the ice. This is evidence. It is easy to observe and measure. I have observed it. I accept it without reservation.
From this evidence you have built a hypothesis. From “a glass” you extrapolate “a continent”. From “ice frozen to the bottom” you extrapolate “500m of glacier on top”. From “water poured on top” you extrapolate “global inundation.” So we get: “A continent covered with 500m of glacier can be inundated with water without dislodging the ice.” Fair enough. Now what prediction can we make from this hypothesis? Continents will be found that are covered with ice which has itself been covered with water in the past. How will be able to tell that they have been covered with water? The water will have left sediment in a layer on the ice.
YOUR EVIDENCE 2) Ice-cores from glaciers contain layers of dust. This is evidence. It is easy to observe and measure. But this time - I don’t accept that the evidence supports your hypothesis. Why not? Because the dust has all the characteristics of wind-borne dust, and none of the characteristics of marine sediment. This too is easy to observe and measure. Sadly, I cannot find that your hypothesis is supported by this evidence. Is there any more?
Let’s start again.
YOUR NEW EVIDENCE 1) Zircon crystals, which have been formed in the presence of liquid water, are dated to 4200 million years ago. This is evidence. It is not easy to observe and measure, but has been done. I accept it without reservation.
From this you build the hypothesis: Water covered the earth 4200 million years ago. Well, no, you don’t, do you? You jump straight to: There was a global flood which destroyed all living things. A bit of a non sequitur, if you ask me. Still, never mind. Can we make any predictions? Maybe: There will be found a layer of marine sediment laid down in a short time which covers the whole world (except, perhaps, where it has subsequently been eroded away).
YOUR NEW EVIDENCE 2) There are extensive cretaceous chalk deposits in various places all over the world. Indeed there are. This is evidence. It is easy to observe and measure. I have observed it. I accept it without reservation. But once again - I don’t accept that the evidence supports your hypothesis. Why not? Because the chalk layer does not extend over most of the ancient continental crust, and because the chalk has the characteristics of having been formed from deposition taking thousands of years, not a short time. Sadly, I cannot find that your hypothesis is supported by this evidence. Is there any more?
Well maybe there is, but I won’t labour the point. If you want to present a sensible argument for or against evolution, global floods or anything else, that’s the way to do it. But you never do. You never have. Why not try? Why not go through my statements above one by one and don’t just say ‘they’re wrong’, but point out
where they are wrong.
but you don't [give evidence] instead you just find reasons to explain the evidence I give away,while you just explain what you believe about evolution but do not offer evidence.
I find it difficult to accuse you of the appalling dishonesty implied by these words, so will charitably assume that our definitions of ‘evidence’, ‘reasons’ and ‘explain’ are completely different.
I think that you know you must assume and speculate that little changes lead to big changes just like Charles Darwin did,but offer no evidence to back it up,you just choose to accept it anyway regardless of evidence.
I find it difficult to accuse you of the appalling dishonesty implied by these words, so will charitably assume that our definitions of ‘assume’, ‘evidence’ and ‘accept’ are completely different.
You act like I have no right to tell scientists how long they can have to demonstrate life evolves after 150 years of trying to and failing,
Yes I do. What gives you the right to dictate the time-scheme of something of which you have no knowledge and do not even think exists at all? You have no right to do any such thing. What impertinence.
yet continuing to push evolution as true science,when it is'nt as I have pointed out.
Don’t you see that this is not an argument, it is mere denial? A discussion should consist of more than "I'm right; you're wrong" retaliations, don't you think?
If you choose to accept something regardless of the evidence then evidence won't be as important to you,but evidence is important to me.
I find it difficult to accuse you of the appalling dishonesty implied by these words, so will charitably assume that our definitions of ‘regardless’, ‘evidence’ and ‘important’ are completely different.
abelcainsbrother wrote:This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.
You are making a fundamental mistake here, but fair enough, at least this time it might be an honest one. You do not understand the word ‘transitional’ as used in this context. Would you like me to explain it to you? If you watch a clip of the Transformers films, you can see, say, a dump-truck changing into a robot. Between the dump-truck state and the robot state, there is a continuous series of intermediate states, partly dump-truck and partly robot, during which the transformer looks like nothing much, and is good for nothing much either. These states can be called transitional. However, this is nothing whatever like evolutionary transition. In evolution, one group of fully formed organisms generates more fully formed organisms, and they generate other fully formed organisms, and so on. In each generation, all the fully formed organisms are slightly different from each other, and from their parents. If their environment is fairly static, the parents will be adapted fairly well to it, and the less like their parents the offspring, the less likely they are to enjoy reproductive success. All the organisms will remain pretty much the same. But if the environment is changing, or if some of the organisms find themselves in a different environment, a slightly warmer pool, or a slightly rockier terrain or a slightly more acidic atmosphere, then some of the new organisms will be better adapted to that new environment than either their parents or others of their generation, and will enjoy better reproductive success. At each stage, all the organisms are fully formed, and all getting better adapted to a differing environment. No organism is at any time changing from one kind into another. There are no half-fish half-birds. They are all fully formed. As Audie suggests, if any of them were not fully formed they would be unlikely to enjoy reproductive success, so there wouldn't be many fossils of them to be found.
So what do we mean by 'transitional', when in fact not a single organism has ever been transitional? Evolutionarily speaking, we look at an entire history and arbitrarily picking two points, refer to all the organisms that lived between as 'transitional'. If we pick, say, fish and birds, then we can refer to the intermediate generations as transitional, but it is equally fair to pick the blue-green algae of billions of years ago and ourselves, and then everything that ever lived between us along the generational line is transitional. Indeed, we cannot see into the future, but there's a logical possibility that homo sapiens is a transitional species between homo habilis and homo futuris.
This is the problem when Darwin was pushing this evolution theory in "the origin of species" he wondered why fossils do not show transition,he knew they didn't,but he insisted anyway that transitional fossils would be found,he even said we would have grounds to reject his theory if they were not found and yet they never were found,instead evolutionists just made them into transitional fossils using evolution imagination and now they are considered transitional fossils based on their chart,but you're right,none show transition.My point stands that fossils don't help evolution because none show transition or any evidence they are evolving despite the fabricated chart.
Your point only shows that you do not understand Darwin's problem. He speculated that birds evolved from reptiles, but could not easily imagine, and certainly had no fossil evidence for, the series of environments that might lead to the succession of fully formed beautifully adapted generations of animals that eventually resulted in birds. As we began to understand that feathers were probably as related to thermal insulation as they were to flight, it made sense that the global cooling that occurred towards the end of the era of the dinosaurs might favour those individuals in any generation whose metabolism kept them warm, which thereby began to enjoy better reproductive success than they had in the past when such extravagance was unnecessary. Successive generations found that skin deformities that had hitherto hindered reproductive successive, but increased thermal insulation, were now favourable characteristics, and warm blooded dinosaurs with feathers were now the fully formed beautifully adapted occupants of this ecological niche. Archaeopteryx typifies this kind of transition. It is not half-reptile half-bird, struggling to switch from one environment to another, it was fully formed and beautifully adapted to the environment in which it lived. Sadly, its environment has changed, mostly due to the arrival other, even better adapted species; otherwise, it could still be among us today, like the coelocanth.
Yes,if evolution is true there should've been numerous transitional fossils found throughout the layers of strata,but they were not found as Darwin predicted,in other words there should be fossils showing clear transition between one kind of creature and another.
No. You don't understand transition. See above.
Darwin was wrong and I think he knew it but he was trying to beat Lamarck to the punch when it comes to presenting evolution,he wanted the credit.If it had not been Charles Darwin,it would have been Lamarck that had pushed evolution. Darwin came up with a better theory to present evolution and it became very popular.
Wrong on many counts, but suffice it to say that experiments easily proved Lamark's ideas wrong (recent interesting epigenetic experiments notwithstanding), while no evidence has discredited Darwin.
bippy123 wrote:And why wouldn't we be seeing lots of these failed mutations on the fossil record if evolution was truly blind.
The definition of success and failure, biologically, is in reproductive success. Organisms with unsuccessful modifications fail to reproduce well, so it is hardly surprising that there aren't many of them. And as any individual is almost identical to its parents, it is impossible to tell whether any particular fossil is an example of a 'failed mutation' or not. So the answer to your question is that we do see lots of these 'failed mutations'. They just look exactly like all those with successful mutations.
As I said before ID isn't anti evolution, it's just anti Darwinian evolution . I believe as Behe believes, namely that these mutations are blind and random.
Surely not. Behe thinks these mutations are
not blind and random. Was that a typo? Actually, since The Edge of Evolution is now several years old, and Behe has been refining his position continuously, I'm not at all sure that observationally speaking it is possible to distinguish between his version of ID and ordinary evolutionary theory.
abelcainsbrother wrote:Science is not self-correcting like you claim,if they were they would not push theories as true science without evidence to back it up,like with evolution. They circle the wagons and defend evolution promoting it as true science when it is'nt even close to be proven. Scientists are not being honest about evolution because if they were they would admit it is not true science. You need to take the time on your own and look at the evidence yourself,if you don't believe me. I'm not anti-science I just expect good science. Go through the evidence yourself and see that the only think they have proven is the bible true when it tells us God created life to breed and produce after its kind. Look at the many examples of evidence in evolution science and see this demonstrated over and over whether it is micro or macro evolution. Like I have said before,it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution,I'd reject it even if I was an atheist. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me,you'll see.
Sorry, abelcainsbrother, but this is wrong in almost every respect, as has been amply demonstrated, at length, not least in the rest of my post above. However, where it is most wrong is in your claim: "it really has nothing at all to do with my faith in God that I reject evolution, I'd reject it even if I was an atheist." That isn't true at all. Your entire philosophy is rooted in unimpeachable faith in your own personal, somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the Bible. I quite admire you for that, in spite of the irrational jumble of para-scientific assertions and desperate grasping of hopeful straws that it leads you into, so for you to deny it is rather disappointing. You stick to your guns, say I.
neo-x wrote:Funny, I took a couple of years to really dig into evolution and found out how true it was. I sincerely believe now that you reject evolution because you don't understand it...at all. I also think that you have never studied anything serious regarding evolution because your dismissals of it arise from common myths among anti/evolution circles. You never give a technical reason only from ignorance of the facts. It's sad actually. You don't know what you are missing out.
I'm afraid you're right. I couldn't agree with you more.
abelcainsbrother wrote:Yeah,I know and I've went through some of your evolution thread. I'd like to know what evidence convinced you to accept it without having to assume and speculate about it.
Try reading my post! You'll be amazed!
The church has really had nothing to really counter it
The church? What church? Do you belong to a church? Is it a church with only one person in it?
I have had plenty of people tell me I don't understand it,but I do.
Not based on anything you've said on this forum.
I used to go into a lion's den of atheists on a forum to be challenged and I do know about evolution.
Not based on anything you've said on this forum.
I tested the Gap Theory out against evolution too,so I know how effective it can be
Not based on anything you've said on this forum.
These atheists know all about science.
So do these Christians.
abelcainsbrother wrote:I explain in an easy to understand way why I reject evolution. The evolutionists on here don't get technical about it,and so I don't.
That's wholly dishonest. Evolutionists don't need to get technical. The theory of evolution is extraordinarily simple. But please, if Gap Theory relies on technical, don't shy away from producing it. We can do technical too!
Let's get into the evidence and you'll see in every example of evidence you'll see only kinds producing after their kind,like I have explained. [...] salamanders [...]dogs [...] roses,it's the same thing [...] it is assumed that it can evolve into a different creature,given enough time,like dinosaurs evolving into birds [...] Where is the evidence life evolves? Viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,dogs remain dogs,roses remain roses,salamanders remain salamanders so how can we believe life evolves when the only thing being demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction within each species?
Oh, really, abelcainsbrother, we had all this, and we've given you the evidence. We've explained why we think what we think over and over again, and you're just... yes... sticking your fingers in your ears and saying La-la-la.
They need evidence that actually demonstrates a dinosaur could evolve into a bird,but all they have done is prove there is variation in reproduction and this in Noway would lead us to believe a dinosaur could evolve into a bird.
Norway? Scandinavia? Oh, my mistake - Noway. Right. I can see; I can understand exactly how not attempting to follow any evolutionary ideas, indeed, not even reading any judging by most of your comments, does not lead you "to believe a dinosaur could evolve into a bird." And that's fine. If I ignored everything people said to me I probably wouldn't believe heavier-than-air flying machines were possible either.
Everything else they teach and explain about how life evolves has no evidence behind it and it is just preaching what they believe,but without evidence.
No. Please. Not again. It's worse than the water torture...
abelcainsbrother wrote:They also confuse adaptation too and act like because life can adapt it can evolve. But there is no evidence because even when life is able to adapt,it still remains the same kind of life. Like Eskimos who adapted to live in the extreme cold,their bodies have adapted to it,but they have not evolved and have remained humans
Hooray!! Something new! Eskimos are still humans. Splendid. Just give them another half million years in reproductive isolation and then see what happens. I bet I'm right....
or like bacteria that grows and thrives in Chernobyl,it actually thrives in it,yet it remains bacteria which shows natural selection is a myth too.
Is it possible that you think bacteria are all a single species? You really ought to find out more about them.
Here is something else I noticed about evolution is scientists choose when it is important when life cannot breed even when they already know not all life can breed within a species. Yet when it comes to life evolving it is evolving when it can no longer breed. Try breeding a Great Dain with a Chihuahua and they cannot breed,they don't evolve because of it either.You still get a dog based on what they can breed with.Or like with a tiger and a lion,it is rare,but they can actually breed,but it still produces a cat.No matter whether it can or cannot breed we still get normal variation in reproduction. So how can anybody assume life will evolve if/when it can no longer breed? It is a myth not backed up by evidence we all can see and observe.
No... yawn... it's been a long, long day.... bless you, abelcainsbrother...
stu wrote:Have any of the atheists/evolutionists here read The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe?
A pretty damning look at the limits of evolution, and also a nail in the coffin of evolution.
Yes, of course. And all the comments on Amazon, and Behe's replies, and his lectures. Have you? Have you noticed how much of evolution Behe now accepts, compared to his original stance years ago, and how little difference there is between his particular brand of ID and conventional evolutionary theory? Have you seen his backtracking on some his various 'facts' in response to subsequent research? Particularly concerning protein-binding sites? Would you like to quote exactly where he produces a nail for the evolutionary coffin?
The truth that you are just like your masters Dawkins, Myers and co. that have no credibility when they critique work that they haven't even read.