Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Amazingly ignorant and ridiculous reply by Mr. Bill.

 

DF

DF why do you think Bill’s reply was ignorant and ridiculous?

He has every right to call you out. Just because you and a group of old timey scientists want to keep hanging on to a theory long since proven to be wrong on most fronts doesn’t mean science has to stop and wait on you to catch up. Face modern facts Darwin evolution is a worn out argument based on fiction. There are no fossils that prove the theory. Get over it.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Magpie:

 

Would you please point me to one peer reviewed article that refutes "old timey scientists".  Thanks.

Seriously, why waste time pulling out articles for you just because you don’t keep up.

Bill just cited one such “old timey” scientist, Charley Darwin himself.

You can wish all you want to but there is no fossil evidence that points to mankind coming from apes.

You don’t have to believe in a creator but don’t invent something to simply make a nonbeliever look correct. That makes no sense, now does it?

It's okay, because I know that there are no peer reviewed articles that dispute evolution.  What you would post would be religious pseudo-scientists and other hacks.  Evolution is the basis for all biology, and is supported by numerous scientific fields, including paleontology, and geology.  If you want to believe hack pseudo-science proposed by ultra-right wing cultist wackos, that is okay with me, just don't bring into our schools.

Notice how creationists always attack "Darwinian" evolution as if evolutionary sciences haven't advanced and surpassed Darwin's understanding in the last 200 years. Notice also how often creationists (if they ever reply to inquiries) don't even know what Evolution actually is.

quote:   Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

Notice how creationists always attack "Darwinian" evolution as if evolutionary sciences haven't advanced and surpassed Darwin's understanding in the last 200 years. Notice also how often creationists (if they ever reply to inquiries) don't even know what Evolution actually is.


Hi Robust,

 

Okay, I accept your challenge.  Please explain Darwinian Evolution for us.  I sincerely want to know what YOU believe Darwinian Evolution to be.   Notice the word believe -- as in a belief system, i.e., a religion.

 

I see the Evolution camp split into factions -- one which believes in Macro Evolution (Darwinian) -- a belief system which purports that one species evolved into a totally different species.  In other words, a fish became a dog, etc.

 

The other camp, in which I reside, sees Micro Evolution as being a form of adaptation, i.e., that plants, animals, fish, fowl, and humans have, over the millennia, adapted to environmental, dietary, and habitual conditions.   Each has changed in appearance due to the adaptation.   Skin colors adapt, body size and features adapt, etc. -- but, a human is still a human, an animal is still the same animal, a fish is still a fish, and a fowl is still a fowl.  No ape or monkey has become a human being.  No fish has become a chicken or a horse.   And, a plant is still a plant.  This adaptation is true Evolution which the Bible supports.

 

But, my Friend, I am truly interested in hearing YOUR explanation of Evolution.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

The scientific theory of biological evolution is the central organizing principle of life on earth. What we commonly call Evolution on this forum is a process that results in inheritable changes in a population of organisms (individual organisms don't evolve) via genetic material, over many generations. To biologists, the distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is utterly arbitrary. Macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution.

All species of organisms on earth have descended from a common ancestor. When scientists say that two species of apes, for example, such as humans and bonobos have evolved from a common ancestor, it means that there have been successive and inherited changes/modifications in those two populations since becoming genetically isolated from one another. To say that humans are related to bonobos does not mean that they are our ancestors or that humans evolved from bonobos. Our common human/bonobo ancestor, from which we evolved, is extinct. Every species living today is fully modern. No living species today is the ancestor to another living species.

Modern fish don't become chickens or horses, but since life evolved from the seas, today's chickens, horses and fish (and humans, giraffes, shrews, etc.) have a common and extinct ancestor that was a sea-dwelling vertebrate (like a fish) hundreds of millions of years ago. If any one reading this can't grasp this concept and how it's different from a fish becoming a horse then it's incumbent upon you to ask questions and/or do some research online or somewhere.

Darwin's research and conclusions were the beginning of our understanding and yet they have withstood heavy scientific scrutiny for over 150 years (...not 200 years) and they still manage to accommodate the latest modern findings. Nothing can top it. Why not? Because it's true. How do we know it's true? Because Darwin's central ideas have generated testable predictions that have been borne out by mountains evidence and discoveries accumulated over a wide spectrum of sciences for a very, very long time. And to this day, every new discovery and surprise finding in any of the life sciences supports and gives more validation to Darwin's theory, while continuing to extend our understanding of all life on earth.

As has been demonstrated on this forum so often, those who reject the scientific fact of Evolution always reference a severe misunderstanding (or purposeful misinformation) of what Evolution actually is. They can't deny something that is actually explainable, demonstrable and testable so instead they resort to illogical and unscientific straw-man caricatures to attack (and look ridiculous in the process).

"Is man an ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence those newfangled theories." - Benjamin Disraeli, 1864 (or Bill Gray, 2011)

"...ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin, 1871

Bill,
What a surprise! Thanks for trying to respond. It's such a rarity for you not to run and hide. I was concerned that you thought that was normal. Anyway, after reading what you typed though, I was reminded why you should probably go back to the run and hide strategy.

Also, I'm purposely posting in this already new thread you created to get away from another thread instead of the new, new one you just created to get away from this one, because I know it'll no doubt warm that control-freak heart of yours

1. The scientific theory of biological evolution is the central organizing principle of life on earth. What we commonly call Evolution on this forum is a process that results in inheritable changes in a population of organisms (individual organisms don't evolve) via genetic material, over many generations. To biologists, the distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is utterly arbitrary. Macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution.
 
Even though you chose to try to address the above, there's absolutely nothing you said that makes any sense whatsoever. You shouldn't let buffalo write for you.

2. All species of organisms on earth have descended from a common ancestor. When scientists say that two species of apes, for example, such as humans and bonobos have evolved from a common ancestor, it means that there have been successive and inherited changes/modifications in those two populations since becoming genetically isolated from one another. To say that humans are related to bonobos does not mean that they are our ancestors or that humans evolved from bonobos. Our common human/bonobo ancestor, from which we evolved, is extinct. Every species living today is fully modern. No living species today is the ancestor to another living species.

Again, even though you attempt to approach the quote above, nothing you said remotely shows any understanding of this most simple of outlines. Plus none of your response is directly related to the explanation above. You even manage to trip up on the interpretation of the definitions you try to use.

3. Modern fish don't become chickens or horses, but since life evolved from the seas, today's chickens, horses and fish (and humans, giraffes, shrews, etc.) have a common and extinct ancestor that was a sea-dwelling vertebrate (like a fish) hundreds of millions of years ago. If any one reading this can't grasp this concept and how it's different from a fish becoming a horse then it's incumbent upon you to ask questions and/or do some research online or somewhere.

Again, no direct response to the above at all, just another evasion and circumvention while showing an utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand, even though it's simply written and explained at your own request.

 

[brb]

4. Darwin's research and conclusions were the beginning of our understanding and yet they have withstood heavy scientific scrutiny for over 150 years (...not 200 years) and they still manage to accommodate the latest modern findings. Nothing can top it. Why not? Because it's true. How do we know it's true? Because Darwin's central ideas have generated testable predictions that have been borne out by mountains evidence and discoveries accumulated over a wide spectrum of sciences for a very, very long time. And to this day, every new discovery and surprise finding in any of the life sciences supports and gives more validation to Darwin's theory, while continuing to extend our understanding of all life on earth.

In "response" to the above you pull out the vanquished 'no transitional fossils' canard. All I can really say is that you are either horribly ignorant, horribly misinformed or just plain lying (or maybe a combination of two or more). You should know for the future that as poor as the known fossil record was at the time of The Origin Of Species, this claim was legit for exactly ONLY two years after publication. The discovery of Archaeopteryx lithographica in 1861 alone (I think 9 other Archeopteryx have been discovered since) put the question about fossilized proof of common descent to bed. Othniel Charles Marsh's book on the evolution of horses in 1874 is another early example of the studies of transitional fossils. Bill, your window to question transitional fossils closed exactly 150 years ago. Please note that since this is not still 1859 (not for the rest of us anyway) that common descent or Evolution doesn't rest on fossil evidence alone. Genetics, geology, developmental biology, paleoanthropology, biogeography, etc, etc. provide ample and robust evidence for Evolution and common ancestors.

Here's some reading material since you have a lot to learn on the subject before ever uttering the words "transitional fossils" again. Please do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with these and more:

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt
(a partial list of known transitions from the vertebrate fossil record. Concentrating exclusively on groups that left living descendants & ignoring the hundreds of other groups and side-branches that died out. Also skipping entire groups of vertebrates [most notably the dinosaurs and modern fish] in order to emphasize mammals)

PART 1 has FISHES to FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part1a.html#fish
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part1a.html#bony
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part1a.html#amph1
Transitions among amphibians
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part1a.html#amph2
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part1b.html#rept1
Transitions among reptiles
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part1b.html#rept2
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part1b.html#mamm
Transition from reptiles to first birds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part1b.html#bird

PART 2 has TRANSITIONS AMONG MAMMALS:
Primates
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.../part2a.html#primate
Bats
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...onal/part2a.html#bat
Carnivores
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2a.html#carn
Rodents
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...onal/part2a.html#rod
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...onal/part2b.html#lag
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2b.html#cond
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2b.html#ceta
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2b.html#peri
Elephants
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part2b.html#eleph
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...al/part2b.html#siren
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2c.html#arti
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nal/part2c.html#misc

and lastly...

5. As has been demonstrated on this forum so often, those who reject the scientific fact of Evolution always reference a severe misunderstanding (or purposeful misinformation) of what Evolution actually is. They can't deny something that is actually explainable, demonstrable and testable so instead they resort to illogical and unscientific straw-man caricatures to attack (and look ridiculous in the process).

In response to the above you predictably do the only thing you can do, which is to do exactly the thing I said you would do you ignore the existence of an abundance of transitional fossils from all over the world (and all the non-fossil evidence from every other type of life science) and then boldly claim that your lie, alone, falsifies all of Evolution... just pitiful. tisk tisk.

Bill, this is a topic in which you have absolutely no chance. Don't think that the others can't see it. You've unwittingly challenged an aircraft carrier and managed only to bring a paper boat to the contest. I suggest sticking to making Christians angry instead, which is your true gift to atheists. Thanks for playing my game!!!

Rob, all these links I have visited to be fair to your argument.

The only way these links can be credible to the argument is by the semantics of them.

They are not evidence of Darwin evolution from common ancestor but simply to a false idea.

As a scientist I cannot assume gaps are filled when they certainly are not. You on the other hand have an idea that everything at one time started with life-form with serial #1. That idea is real only through semantics and does not require gap evidence.

Semantics are classical in nature. We have long since left the classical world in our investigations and the new quantum world will never be unified with the classical world wherein lieth the Cause.

Originally Posted by Magpie:

Rob, all these links I have visited to be fair to your argument.

The only way these links can be credible to the argument is by the semantics of them.

They are not evidence of Darwin evolution from common ancestor but simply to a false idea.

As a scientist I cannot assume gaps are filled when they certainly are not. You on the other hand have an idea that everything at one time started with life-form with serial #1. That idea is real only through semantics and does not require gap evidence.

Semantics are classical in nature. We have long since left the classical world in our investigations and the new quantum world will never be unified with  classical world wherein lieth the Cause.

You claim to be a scientist? Really? Could you please translate the second and last two sentences into English?

 

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Magpie:

Rob, all these links I have visited to be fair to your argument.

The only way these links can be credible to the argument is by the semantics of them.

They are not evidence of Darwin evolution from common ancestor but simply to a false idea.

As a scientist I cannot assume gaps are filled when they certainly are not. You on the other hand have an idea that everything at one time started with life-form with serial #1. That idea is real only through semantics and does not require gap evidence.

Semantics are classical in nature. We have long since left the classical world in our investigations and the new quantum world will never be unified with  classical world wherein lieth the Cause.

You claim to be a scientist? Really? Could you please translate the second and last two sentences into English?

 

========================

Jimbo dear go here, read and come back if you don’t understand any idiot can use the word transitional.

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nsitional/email.html

Classical refers to what we see and touch that is explained by Newtonian physics.

The quantum world is not explained by Newtonian laws of physics. That’s what relativity is all about jimi the unified approach by Einstein to explain a quantum world he had doubts about. The mass of elementary particles [semantics] is unexplained. The LHC is looking for what else other than quarks and gluons are for instance inside the bound state of a proton. [ bound state means it has not been busted open letting the quarks and gluons escape to the outside where they don’t exist once they are outside. Now that’s

weird too]] Semantics give the idea that they are point particles. Are they? Could be. They behave like waves and particles when they actually are neither. They only have properties of waves and particles. The Graviton must be looked at by semantics. What is it/ a particle? A property of it is it’s effect is infinite or is there even such a thing as gravitational force. Current theories is that it is a constant falling into curved space-time and not a force. Gravity as a force does not explain how time slows near any object of mass. Semantics allow us to imagine the quantum world as li’l balls in orbit around one another. Well semantically they do just that. We even accelerate them head-on into one another and semantically explain the results as in billiards. Not the case. That’s classical, Newtonian. In the quantum world we do not know the classical position and momentum of a particle [semantics]. We use the term momentum referred to as mass times velocity. Semantics again. It is the time element and the energy since mass and energy are the same thing. [ E=mc^2]These classical behaviors ,when applied on a quantum level require the theories of relativity to NOT explain them as it turns out. Now that’s weird.

Originally Posted by Magpie:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Magpie:

Rob, all these links I have visited to be fair to your argument.

The only way these links can be credible to the argument is by the semantics of them.

They are not evidence of Darwin evolution from common ancestor but simply to a false idea.

As a scientist I cannot assume gaps are filled when they certainly are not. You on the other hand have an idea that everything at one time started with life-form with serial #1. That idea is real only through semantics and does not require gap evidence.

Semantics are classical in nature. We have long since left the classical world in our investigations and the new quantum world will never be unified with  classical world wherein lieth the Cause.

You claim to be a scientist? Really? Could you please translate the second and last two sentences into English?

 

========================

Jimbo dear go here, read and come back if you don’t understand any idiot can use the word transitional.

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...nsitional/email.html

Classical refers to what we see and touch that is explained by Newtonian physics.

The quantum world is not explained by Newtonian laws of physics. That’s what relativity is all about jimi the unified approach by Einstein to explain a quantum world he had doubts about. The mass of elementary particles [semantics] is unexplained. The LHC is looking for what else other than quarks and gluons are for instance inside the bound state of a proton. [ bound state means it has not been busted open letting the quarks and gluons escape to the outside where they don’t exist once they are outside. Now that’s

weird too]] Semantics give the idea that they are point particles. Are they? Could be. They behave like waves and particles when they actually are neither. They only have properties of waves and particles. The Graviton must be looked at by semantics. What is it/ a particle? A property of it is it’s effect is infinite or is there even such a thing as gravitational force. Current theories is that it is a constant falling into curved space-time and not a force. Gravity as a force does not explain how time slows near any object of mass. Semantics allow us to imagine the quantum world as li’l balls in orbit around one another. Well semantically they do just that. We even accelerate them head-on into one another and semantically explain the results as in billiards. Not the case. That’s classical, Newtonian. In the quantum world we do not know the classical position and momentum of a particle [semantics]. We use the term momentum referred to as mass times velocity. Semantics again. It is the time element and the energy since mass and energy are the same thing. [ E=mc^2]These classical behaviors ,when applied on a quantum level require the theories of relativity to NOT explain them as it turns out. Now that’s weird.

Why is "transitional" relevant?  "Lieth"? Did you just climb out of a time machine? Einstein would be shocked to learn that mass and energy are the "same thing". What is weird is that you rally believe that you know what you are babbling about.

The equivalence is described by the famous equation:

<dl><dd>E = mc^2 \,\!</dd></dl>

where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistent and does not depend on any specific system of measurement units. For example, in many systems of natural units, the speed (scalar) of light is set equal to 1, and the formula becomes the identity E = m; hence the term "mass–energy equivalence".[ [Wiki]

 

Dummy. LOL

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Cut and paste isn't equal to understanding. LOL


==================

True jimbo very true but if I cut and paste anything rest assured I understand it.

Did you understand from the cut and paste what an idiot you are?….or did you Not understand from the cut and paste what an idiot you are?……….or will you make another post about science re-enforcing your own claim to be an idiot?…………or will you simply remain silent contemplating your role here on the forum as the self proclaimed village idiot?

While I have advised many of my fellow Christian participants that I am trying to voluntarily remove myself from the Religion Forum as basically nothing changes and there is no sense in wasting time redoing the same thing over and over I do reserve the option to respond from time to time either to explain or clarify a position I hold.  In this case my response is to A Rob's post regarding evolution.  I have stated before that my opposition to evolution is based more in evolution's glaring absences and defeciences than in my Religious beliefs.  There are examples of Religious people who believe Evolution is the vehicle of life from a singular common organism.  Since it's considered so stupid to ignore scientific "facts" as they are referred to here lets go on the assumption that A Rob's post is 100% accurate in the way transitions happen.  My opposition still remains valid based upon the following:

 

First of all we live on an Earth that is beneficial to and reinforces the development of life.  If all life evolved from this primordial pool of organisms and evolution is an unintelligent, unguided process, then the exact same processes and transitions should be occurring, across the board and scope of life, today just as they did eon's ago.  We have the base organism's (most simplistic) as well as an environment that fosters life and growth, so since evolution is an unguided and unintelligent process it should be assumed and expected that the same process replicates itself over and over as long as there is sufficient reinforcement for life to continue.  The hypothesis of all the various species of life from most basic to however complex should be an existing and present road map for all to follow and examine.  Instead what we are expected to believe is that the map is there in extinct fossils many of which are jumps in time, and we are expected to just accept that they all fit together.  Evolution in and of itself (being an unintelligent process) decided that various stages of completion had occurred so therefore replication of those transitions no longer needed to occur even though the base elements were still there and the environment that could foster their growth was still present.

 

A Rob you presented a quite detailed list of transitionary steps but all stages of life and transitions from single to complex species of all the various life forms (plant, bacteria, mammal, amphibian, bird etc)  each of it's own but missing is the interspecies and extra-species transitions still happening today as it did eon's ago in time.   If Evolution is a non-directed and non-intelligent process then there can be no way to know transitions have occurred and therefore can stop as you still have the most base organisms who long to be more complex and thrive in life.  It is this missing evidence that I believe most glaring speaks to evolution's inadequacies at explaining life.  

 

What Evolution does do though is provide anyone that seeks to explain life as an unintelligent accident without direction a process by which they can cling to in order to attempt to explain how we became who we are without a God or deity to direct it.   Evolution is a process that Science can test and examine therefore is accepted without reservation by those who cannot conceive of, or envision, a realm apart from the physical realm that we are a part of.  A realm or source where life could have originated from which is beyond the ability of science or any other physical process to test or explain.  It is the acceptance of the possibility, also, that the source and process of life and life forms come from a process which is beyond human comprehension and understanding.

 

If you are going to defend Evolution then please explain how some non-intelligent and non-directed process determines that transitions have occurred and therefore can cease or are no longer valid and necessary to continue on?  How is it that we can find the base organisms and single celled entities and have the, to date, finished products yet somehow the process roadmap or schematics of life has to be constructed from fossils of long past entities that were once a part of the process and now are no longer necessary or present?  I believe that Evolution is it's own worst enemy once one starts asking critical questions about the process and attempting to piece together development of cross species transitions.     This is but one of the problems I have with evolution as an explanation for how lIfe became and developed.

Originally Posted by gbrk:

  My opposition still remains valid based upon the following:

 

First of all we live on an Earth that is beneficial to and reinforces the development of life.  If all life evolved from this primordial pool of organisms and evolution is an unintelligent, unguided process, then the exact same processes and transitions should be occurring, across the board and scope of life, today just as they did eon's ago. 

__________

This assumes that nothing else changes, ever.  And that is simply not the case.  Conditions on Earth now are far different than when life first formed, were different before life first formed, and have undergone vast changes since then.

 

Since your base assumption is fallacious, whatever else you wrote won't stand up.

Although yes things in many places have changed there are places, enough places, still as they were that my objection holds valid.  There are places in the Rain Forrest where they are still finding and classifying new species.  They have even, not too long ago, found a new tribe of humans just discovered.  Then you have the sea floor where most of the area of this earth resides and that has not changed that much.  In fact there are many more life forms there than above the oceans If what the Science Channel can be trusted.  No if evolution is valid there should be ample living, existing evidence to verify it as fact and not theory.
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by gbrk:

  My opposition still remains valid based upon the following:

 

First of all we live on an Earth that is beneficial to and reinforces the development of life.  If all life evolved from this primordial pool of organisms and evolution is an unintelligent, unguided process, then the exact same processes and transitions should be occurring, across the board and scope of life, today just as they did eon's ago. 

__________

This assumes that nothing else changes, ever.  And that is simply not the case.  Conditions on Earth now are far different than when life first formed, were different before life first formed, and have undergone vast changes since then.

 

Since your base assumption is fallacious, whatever else you wrote won't stand up.

=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=

Crusty, you are assuming yourself that things have changed.

You don’t know that to be the case now do you?

That’s the very reason I suggest you need to be comfortable with the 6k package w/instructions.

Originally Posted by gbrk:

While I have advised many of my fellow Christian participants that I am trying to voluntarily remove myself from the Religion Forum as basically nothing changes and there is no sense in wasting time redoing the same thing over and over I do reserve the option to respond from time to time either to explain or clarify a position I hold.  In this case my response is to A Rob's post regarding evolution.  I have stated before that my opposition to evolution is based more in evolution's glaring absences and defeciences than in my Religious beliefs.  There are examples of Religious people who believe Evolution is the vehicle of life from a singular common organism.  Since it's considered so stupid to ignore scientific "facts" as they are referred to here lets go on the assumption that A Rob's post is 100% accurate in the way transitions happen.  My opposition still remains valid based upon the following:

 

First of all we live on an Earth that is beneficial to and reinforces the development of life.  If all life evolved from this primordial pool of organisms and evolution is an unintelligent, unguided process, then the exact same processes and transitions should be occurring, across the board and scope of life, today just as they did eon's ago.  We have the base organism's (most simplistic) as well as an environment that fosters life and growth, so since evolution is an unguided and unintelligent process it should be assumed and expected that the same process replicates itself over and over as long as there is sufficient reinforcement for life to continue.  The hypothesis of all the various species of life from most basic to however complex should be an existing and present road map for all to follow and examine.  Instead what we are expected to believe is that the map is there in extinct fossils many of which are jumps in time, and we are expected to just accept that they all fit together.  Evolution in and of itself (being an unintelligent process) decided that various stages of completion had occurred so therefore replication of those transitions no longer needed to occur even though the base elements were still there and the environment that could foster their growth was still present.

 

A Rob you presented a quite detailed list of transitionary steps but all stages of life and transitions from single to complex species of all the various life forms (plant, bacteria, mammal, amphibian, bird etc)  each of it's own but missing is the interspecies and extra-species transitions still happening today as it did eon's ago in time.   If Evolution is a non-directed and non-intelligent process then there can be no way to know transitions have occurred and therefore can stop as you still have the most base organisms who long to be more complex and thrive in life.  It is this missing evidence that I believe most glaring speaks to evolution's inadequacies at explaining life.  

 

What Evolution does do though is provide anyone that seeks to explain life as an unintelligent accident without direction a process by which they can cling to in order to attempt to explain how we became who we are without a God or deity to direct it.   Evolution is a process that Science can test and examine therefore is accepted without reservation by those who cannot conceive of, or envision, a realm apart from the physical realm that we are a part of.  A realm or source where life could have originated from which is beyond the ability of science or any other physical process to test or explain.  It is the acceptance of the possibility, also, that the source and process of life and life forms come from a process which is beyond human comprehension and understanding.

 

If you are going to defend Evolution then please explain how some non-intelligent and non-directed process determines that transitions have occurred and therefore can cease or are no longer valid and necessary to continue on?  How is it that we can find the base organisms and single celled entities and have the, to date, finished products yet somehow the process roadmap or schematics of life has to be constructed from fossils of long past entities that were once a part of the process and now are no longer necessary or present?  I believe that Evolution is it's own worst enemy once one starts asking critical questions about the process and attempting to piece together development of cross species transitions.     This is but one of the problems I have with evolution as an explanation for how lIfe became and developed.

Reading any modern biology book, something that you, obviously, have not done, will answer all of your questions. Evolution by natural selection is established scientific fact, and there is nothing that you can do about it other than foolishly deny it.

Originally Posted by Magpie:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Amazingly ignorant and ridiculous reply by Mr. Bill.

 

DF

DF why do you think Bill’s reply was ignorant and ridiculous?

He has every right to call you out. Just because you and a group of old timey scientists want to keep hanging on to a theory long since proven to be wrong on most fronts doesn’t mean science has to stop and wait on you to catch up. Face modern facts Darwin evolution is a worn out argument based on fiction. There are no fossils that prove the theory. Get over it.

Maggie,

 

Did you read Bill's comment?  Here it is, again, for your edification.

 


Yes, Deep,

 

You declare, "Evolution is a fact!"   By this, of course, you mean Darwinian Evolution, i.e., macro evolution -- not adaptation, i.e., micro evolution.

 

And, when questioned about the validity of this statement -- what do we get?  "Because it is what I believe!!  And, it is what Charley Darwin wrote over 150 years ago.  So, it must be true!"

 

Duh!  Even Darwin stated that if scientist cannot find the "Missing Link" fossil -- Darwinian Evolution was breathing its last, rasping breath.  RIP Darwinian Evoltuion!

 

So, Deep, my Friend -- no matter how much you huff and puff, no matter how many signs your leader, Dawkins, puts on the side of buses -- Darwinian Evolution is dead,  Or as we uneducated Southerners, whom you love to demean, would say, "Old Charley's theory is ded -- D  E  D  -- ded!  So, we'uns might as well bury it with that old ded dawg out yonder!"

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

------------------------------------------

 

Bill is deliberately ignorant, or dishonest, choose one, on the issue of evolution.  All evolution is "micro" evolution.  Dogs don't give birth to cats.

 

Then he says I'm dogmatic about evolution.  I am not.  If a better theory comes along to explain biodiversity, I'm all ears.  So far, none has, and evolution has been demonstrated and proven countless times.  Bill can only understand dogma.  It's not a competition of dogmas, it's reason and science against superstition.

 

Creationists use the "missing link" red herring to a toxic level.  Every time an intermediate form is demonstrated, it creates two more "missing links".  This level of thinking and exposure to science was outdated over 100 years ago.  It's silly, and puerile.

 

Now, Bill is almost close to a significant point when he says that Darwin is dead.  He really is.  Gone for years.  And Darwin knew nothing about genetics, DNA, random mutations thereof, but his theory of Natural Selection was spot-on.  He surmised, correctly, that for whatever reason, species experienced random changes, and that some of them were beneficial, most of them were not.  It was the beginning of an extraordinary scientific leap in knowledge, one that benefits the world immeasurably every day in the fields of medicine, agriculture, and ranching, to name but a few.  Someone had to notice the way things are, and that person was Darwin.  Darwin was right.

 

Now, my dear Maggie, we both know Bill is beyond help.  He is terminally afflicted with religious poisoning.  Are you so afflicted?  Are you so bound up in your dogmatic, religious, superstitious explanation of life that you cannot see the natural truth?  I say this as a person who has an understanding of that point of view, and has rejected it in the light of knowledge and reason.

 

Bill is lost.  Are you?  The truth of evolution will persevere because of its merits, and it does not need Bill's nor your permission.  The dogma of Creationism will eventually fail, as surely as Zeus and Mithra no longer hold sway, and for the same reason.

 

Now, let's discuss your post.  You accuse evolutionary biologists of being "old timey" scientists?  First, there is nothing more "old timey" than a religious explanation for nature.  Second, evolution is a demonstrable fact, in the fossil records and in the genetic record.  Please, please expose yourself to the current state of the art of science before you embarrass yourself further.  If you honestly want some exposure to science, PM me.  I can direct you to information that you will find interesting, if challenging.

 

My dear Maggie, the Bible does not explain the world.  It is a story book written by ancient Jews and Greeks who know nothing about Nature.  It was influenced by even more ancient cultures such as the Babylonians and Egyptians, and they knew squat about nature.  The Bible is demonstrably wrong in great consistency.

 

Bill has gone over the edge in his religious lunacy.  Shall you, as well?  Do you have the courage to accept my challenge and review some basic reason and science?

 

Christianity is essentially flawed.  It's basic premise is flawed.  PM me and ask me what I mean.

 

Hoping to hear from you in earnest academic fashion,

 

DF

gbrk,
Your replies are often evidence for what doesn't happen to a person when presented with explanations about the world while wearing religious blinders. A lot of what you asked, supposed and misunderstood were already answered, rejected and explained before you decided to type another dragging post. Before your next post you should appreciate that you have a profound lack of understanding about even the basics of Evolution (or science or history for that matter, as demonstrated by your posts in response to this and other non-theistic subjects). I believe your narrow religious viewpoint is to blame for what you still don't know as an adult. The information is readily available to remedy that, but you have to be curious enough to learn. Your proud opposition to Evolution is just based on the glaring gaps in your own knowledge. If you were well-informed, at least you could make an educated assessment of these things in response, but you're not there yet.

 

As I said before, Evolution is predictive, explainable, testable and verifiable. Nothing else exists as a complete explanation of how the biological world works. Nothing. If you disagree, please tell me the predictions "Intelligent Design" makes, the explanations it provides and show me how they can be tested and verified.

 

If you can't do that, at least show me how ID has helped to defeat deadly diseases or maybe list some other life-saving medical advances that it's responsible for. Our scientific understanding of Evolution has made these things and more possible. How has ID contributed in the real world?

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×