|
0 registered members (),
715
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78060
06/19/06 05:37
06/19/06 05:37
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
The fact is, this is null question, becuase it proceeds from the standpoint that sexual reproduction is the only way for organisms to reproduce. Clearly it's not, as many orgaims reproduce asexually, and many plants can do it both ways.
No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.
Quote:
There is no reason that an organism couldn't have developed sexual reproduction while still being able to reproduce asexaully.
What reason would an organism have to evolve sexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much more efficient?
Quote:
As far the advantages of sexual reproduction, the answer is clear: mixig the genes of two parents creates more genetically diverse organisms, and mitigates most genetic diseases, while still allowing for mutaion to create new variations.
Therefore a better question would be: how could sexual reproduction have NOT evolved?
Ok, so let's say that an asexually reproducing flatworm evolved into a sexually reproducing flat worm. So it evolves a male reproductive organ (MRO). What does it mate with? Let's say it evolves a female reproductive organ (FRO), what does it mate with?
Let's say by some miracle, one evolves male and one evolves female. What are the chances that they'll end up right by each other, as well as having the inclination to mate?
In the transition leading up to working reproductive organs, what are the chances that non-working reproductive organs are going to be useful.
There are numerous changes that must take place in order for sexual reproduction to work. The physical organs not only have to slowly evolve (what is the selective advantage in the meantime?), but they have to evolve to the right size. Then the creature has to produce 'glands' that produce the reproductive cells (two different kinds). Then the correct pathways for the reproductive cells to travel has to develop. Then the hormones must be produced that make the animal not only want to have sex, but that give it the ability to have sex. Then, the brain has to evolve to control the entire process. The correct muscles and blood pathways (or whatever controls the organs) have to be in place. And MOST important of all: the genetic code has to be rewritten to account for the fact that the creature is developing from sex cells.
That's a whole lot of baggage, when its so much easier to just reproduce asexually. Furthermore, just about none of those things are useful without the others. Third of all, the chances of this happening are astronomical, even excluding the impossibility of creative mutations.
Quote:
The fossil record is full of ancestral or transitional forms
There are no transitional forms. Evolutionists admitted this when they came up with 'punctuated equilibrium'. If there is a transitional form, I'd love to know what it is.
Homo erectus? The main reason it was thought to be below human was because of its brain size, which we later discovered was within the range of the average european (that's not meant to be an insult, aborigines also have small brains, but are no less intelligent).
Quote:
I dont understand this one at all...what does biogenesis have to do with superman?
Its a metaphor. Its meant to be a parallel to the teaching of abiogenesis as fact in schools, when there's absolutely no evidence for it. Its just as ridiculous as using science to speculate on what it would be like to be superman. There's no point in abusing science to speculate on either of them, because neither of them will ever happen.
Quote:
The fact is biogenesis has two distinct meanings. One is the simple definition of creating life from life, as occurs in the reproduction of an organism. The other is th more abstract; the theory that life can ONLY arise from other life--the contrary theory being abiogenesis; the theory that life can someitmes arise fomr non-life.
Most modern scientists believe that abiogenesis is possible. But it has little to do with the origin of the species through natural selection. This is a quesition that may or may not be ultimately resolved, and it is of philosophical or academic interest, but may play little part in our understanding of the processes of evolutiojn of already living organisms.
A silent admission that there is no evidence.
Quote:
In fact you have shown no such thing. While you may delude yourself into beliveing it, most of us are not se easliy fooled. While there are indee insertions and adiitions in the genetic code, there dont even need to be for evlotuoin to proceed. This is because even a deletion or a rearranging of the sequance can have effects on the evetual outcome... therefore any change is novel, and can have evolutionary impact.
Yeah, sickle cell anemia is a very novel change. The statement that any change is simply change is more of a reflection of your relativistic view of the world than of the actual scientific evidence.
Even in your trophy example of delta 32, it was caused by the deletion of base pairs. Its hard to imagine the deletion of data writing anything new.
Quote:
While MANY poeple who accept evolution also believe in god, this has no bearing on wether evolution is true or not, and is clearly a pedestrian arguement that should have been left at home.
That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.
Quote:
uhh... not sure how to respond here. What astronomy textbook have you been reading?
The sun really isn't a good argument. The debate isn't resolved yet.
I don't want to restate all the garbage on the escaping moon. Talk origins has a rebuttle to it, but another website goes more in depth, and resolves the problem of a changing escape velocity. The moon, at this time is leaving orbit at a rate of about 4 cm or about 1.5 inches per year.
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v4i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i5f.htm
I don't suppose you'll actually read this articles, but there's no point in me being unable to make half the argument they make.
In short, the earth-moon system is much younger than 4.6 billion years old.
Quote:
Lizards didnt turn into mammals. Please please learn some of the BASIC science here before attempting to argue against the theory.
Excuse my use of the word lizard. Reptiles evolved into mammals, supposedly. But it really changes nothing.
You can disagree but then why do all of these people seem to agree?
http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~neman/mammal%20evolution/Evolution.html
http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm
Eh, I was going to find a whole list of websites, but its not worth the energy. Reptiles supposedly became mammals, but that's besides the point. Apparently breasts appeared out of nowhere. That's the point. You can't explain this logically and without evoking supserstition (and irrational belief in chance).
Quote:
However, this is an old trick question, "what came first: the chicken or the egg?".
The answer is your word for chicken has not been defined, so there is no answer. This applies to many of your points, like the probblem of haert evolution, eye evolution, sex, etc, etc. ad infinitum. It comes from a basic lack of understanding of how logic, language, and abstract thinking deal with concrete things in the real world.
Yeah, this is a really complicated way of saying, "I don't really know how it could have been possible."
Quote:
Evolutionary theory--and science in general--is really about liberating man from ignorance, superstition, and fear of the dark unknown, based on the only tools we have; the ability to observe the world, and draw conclusions from that.
There you go, redefining things like a typical evolutionists. Science isn't about liberating man form the unknown. Its about making the unknown the known. About explaining the natural world. You make it seem like science is some kind of savior, its not, its just observation and testing. Although, it is nice to see you admit that you deify science.
Quote:
You are still young, and obviously bright and curious. But I must tell you there comes a time when you simply cannot answer all questions with "common-sense" logic, or "common knoweledge" that your parents or church leader may teach you.
I don't have questions that a theologian cannot answer. I have questions that humanists can't answer.
Quote:
You are best advised to seek to the opinions of experts who have actually studied these things at length. Learn the facts, dont just recycle factoids from propaganda, or rehash ancient arguements that have long since been been dealt with.
A lot of what I study is from prominent scientists who happen to believe in some form of creation. Their credentials are extensive, and they are the experts who have actually studied these things at length.
Quote:
There is a lot out there in the world that is far more interesting than worrying about whether God kept your family together
I'm not worried about kept my family together. Its readily apparent. I don't have to give it more than ten second's thought.
Quote:
what happens to you after you die.
I don't know, I'm gonna be dead for a pretty long time. If salvation is real, I can't imagine anything more important than helping as many people receive salvation as I can before I die, and then receiving that salvation myself.
Quote:
Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.
Ah, yes. The accusation that I "Sit around in my dreary home brooding." That I don't accept reality, and that I only interpret the world around me based on what I want it to be, or that I only believe what I'm comforable being told.
This is the most arrogant thing you've said yet, if only because you seemed to try and hide it in behind mock friendliness.
To take this to its logical conclusion you must then believe that you are much better than me because you, "aren't sitting around in your dreary home brooding, you went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be."
You're so much better than me, Matt. I'm just a simple leftover from the middle ages. Thank you for saving me from myself. 
edit: I might be mistaking what you're saying. In which case, I'm grateful that you don't mean to attack me.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/19/06 06:02.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78062
06/19/06 11:34
06/19/06 11:34
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.
Quote:
No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.
You're a funny guy you know. Because what does reality prove in this respect?
Quote:
That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.
It has nothing to do with 'not wanting to believe in God', it's the FACT that there's absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a God, infact the bible is more than questionable in a lot of respects, like pointed out so many times. It's not more than logical for me to simply not believe in a human concept like 'God'.
Quote:
I'm not worried about kept my family together. Its readily apparent. I don't have to give it more than ten second's thought.
Yeah, because if you would think about it longer than ten seconds you might come to the more logical conclusion that there is no evidence for any interaction or influence of God on your family. Since there are plenty of examples of families who are perfectly fine, without believing in any God ...
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78063
06/19/06 20:42
06/19/06 20:42
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Not to respond ot evryhting, but just note that that Bob Picket website has many factual errors, such as
Ok, but reptiles evolved into mammals. That's the general belief that evolutionsits have. Whether he got a classification wrong or not, he got that much right.
Quote:
No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.
You're a funny guy you know. Because what does reality prove in this respect?
Are you doing this on purpose? The question was how sexual reproduction could evolve. Someone said that my ignorance was based on thinking that ALL animals sexually reproduce. I said that I knew not all animals sexually reproduce, and that its irrelevant because the fact that some animals sexually reproduce shows that it had to have evolved (if it wasn't created).
Quote:
That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.
It has nothing to do with 'not wanting to believe in God', it's the FACT that there's absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a God, infact the bible is more than questionable in a lot of respects, like pointed out so many times. It's not more than logical for me to simply not believe in a human concept like 'God'.
Evolution not being true doesn't prove God. It just proves that our origin can't be explained by evolution. But whatever, not really an important point to make. Its just a personal belief of mine. I even admitted it was an argument from emotion.
Quote:
Yeah, because if you would think about it longer than ten seconds you might come to the more logical conclusion that there is no evidence for any interaction or influence of God on your family. Since there are plenty of examples of families who are perfectly fine, without believing in any God ...
If you want to start your own topic on this you can. I'm not going to discuss this any further here, because I think the topic of this thread is more important than whether or not God has had an influence on my family. Its faith anyway, there isn't much to discuss scientifically, so I don't get what good it would do.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78064
06/19/06 23:00
06/19/06 23:00
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Are you doing this on purpose? The question was how sexual reproduction could evolve. Someone said that my ignorance was based on thinking that ALL animals sexually reproduce. I said that I knew not all animals sexually reproduce, and that its irrelevant because the fact that some animals sexually reproduce shows that it had to have evolved.
On purpose, well no not really. But your response is evidence that you do know how it works in reality. The part between the brackets that followed shouldn't be there and you know it.
Quote:
Evolution not being true doesn't prove God.
Nor did you disprove evolution, so this is quite irrelevant.
OT: I think I will take some time off replying to the posts here in Hilbert's hotel.
I think it's clear that you have a problem with science because it offends your belief, not because you don't see the evidence that's out there. You don't belief in moral relativism, because you think the bible should be the only moral truth, which it's obviously not. You don't wish to see the transitional fossils because you hope there are none. And I could go on and on, and off course you will say I'm off topic, which is fine. To be honest with you a debate with you is futile, btw I'm still waiting for all the scientific evidence in favor of a creator and god.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78065
06/20/06 03:38
06/20/06 03:38
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong. However, that doesnt mean we should stop trying. To get back to topic, lets take a look at the evolutiom of mammals from early reptiles. The main branch-off from the reptile line occured around 280-210 m.y.a. with the emergence of the synapsids. The cynodonts are the group of synsapsids that are likely to be closest to modern mammals. So as you can see, this divergence occured a vastly long time ago, before the dinosaurs even appeared. Synapsidds and cynodont didnt have mammary glands however. Before mammary glands could devlop, skin glands needed to develop. Reptile skin doesnt have such glands, at least not like mammal skin glands. Mammary glands are just specialzed skin glands, that likely devloped from sweat glands at the hair follicle area. To see what primitive mammary glands may have looked like one can look at the monotremes, like platypus. "The platypus female doesn't have nipples, but there is a region whre milk ducts come together and secrete milk onto hairs from which the young then lick or suck the milk. Nipples probably first emerged with Marsupials." http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~neman/mammal%20evolution/index.htmlSo, you can see how evolution proceeds by modifying existing features to serve new purposes. breasts didnt just appear one day like magic.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78066
06/20/06 06:16
06/20/06 06:16
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,541
Berlin
EX Citer
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,541
Berlin
|
What about from reptile to bird? "The" piece (of course it´s only one of the many pieces) between bird and reptiles was found in germany. Today are still birds with claws on the wings alive which they use to climb. Such birds are still living today in some jungle, but I don´t know which. http://www.altmuehltal.de/moernsheim/museum/urvogel.htm
:L
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: EX Citer]
#78067
06/20/06 07:13
06/20/06 07:13
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong.
HAahahahahaha you crack me up!!!!
matt matt, you are the perfect example of a evolution nut, so caught up in your own theories.
Quote:
The main branch-off from the reptile line occured around 280-210 m.y.a. with the emergence of the synapsids.
hu? where do you get this? Oh wait. from the almighty fossil record. no? from some evolutionists who forgot to add "according to speculation" infront of every fact they claim? In any case, whahahahahahahaha!!!!!
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78069
06/20/06 18:29
06/20/06 18:29
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
Well.. I for one think darwinist evolution is a stinky load.. Fossils dont really prove relation ot us anymore than monkey skeletons do. I find it to be a crock more or less on the basis that such a radical tranformation from fish to mammalian complex organism would take much longer than a few billion years, and would require much more radical shifts in climate for much longer periods of time than we've had. What the scientific community have backing this fish to man balogna.. is educated guesses.. guesses that all began with a 16th century vagrant's observations of lizards and reptiles.. not us.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
|
