|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > The Official Evolution vs Creation thread for 24 and PMH. |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"If you're proposing another mechanism" Whether or not I can propose another mechanism really isn't the main issue. Not being able to propose another mechanism cannot serve as validation of a mechanism that has been demonstrated to be highly improbable. Last edited on 02:13 pm by pmh1nic |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: to get from ameba to man cannot be the product of mutations, or mutations and happenstance (natural selection). We didn't go from amoeba to man, we went from primate to man. Amoeba and organisms like it would be traced back to simpler organisms/primitive aquatic-based life, such as crustaceans and so forth. Remember, it would have taken a LONG time for that aquatic life to get like something resembling fish. It is VERY easy to see how aquatic life exploited land as a niche, for breeding, feeding, and even walking between bodies of water. Anyone with half a brain can look at even existing species that are in-between sea and land use, and see how they are like land-fishes/reptiles. You seem to have a very hard time understanding that microevolution happens and macro is just a lot of micros over time. We already know the mechanism exists for variants to produce very different variants, and then that variant produce its own set of very different variants, and so on. After millions of years, and thousands of microevolutionary variants of variants, it is easy to see how you wouldn't even recognize the newest variant from the original pack - i.e. a different species that stopped being able to mate with the original time long long ago. If the microevolution we KNOW and can see happening is valid, then so are long strings of that adding up to more macro changes over time. You have failed to produce one single bit of evidence that many micros can't keep stringing along, exploiting niches and adapting further. ALL the evidence points to it. The only thing that doesn't really point to what I have been posting is religious BS. That's the truth.
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "If you're proposing another mechanism" Of course you can't propose another mechanism - all the science points to and supports micro evolutionary changes strung together to make larger ones. You have to go into fantasy speculation land via the Bible or some other archaic and ignorant source for other mechanisms.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24hournut You're wrong and/or misguided on two counts: "We didn't go from amoeba to man, we went from primate to man. Amoeba and organisms like it would be traced back to simpler organisms/primitive aquatic-based life, such as crustaceans and so forth." The same process you are claiming gets us from ape to man is the same process evolutionist claim gets us from ameba to man. The problem with both is that mutations and happenstance cannot bridge the genetic gap in either case. "Of course you can't propose another mechanism - all the science points to and supports micro evolutionary changes strung together to make larger ones." All science does NOT point to mutation and happenstance as the process by which advance life forms came into existence. In fact some of the science demonstrates that this could NOT be the mechanism. The argument that another mechanism is required to disprove the theory is evidence of a mind closed the science that runs counter to this theory. You're so sold on this theory that no matter what physical obstacle are thrown it the way of this theory you cling to it by the shear force of faith.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian What direct observations are we talking about here? The kind of probability exercises you've mentioned before (e.g., Spetner, Hoyle) aren't direct observations. They're calculations. And the problem with calculations in general is that they rely on models. If you get the model wrong, the calculations aren't worth the paper they're written on. IOW, calculating the odds of a single piece of DNA spontaneously coming together from nothing tells you nothing about the probability of evolution (microevolution or macroevolution), because the model itself is wrong. pmh1nic wrote: "This is the problem: The only mechanism available for the creation of new lifeforms is mutation." First, sexual and asexual reproduction are some of the most studied processes in all of science. We do know how they work. The only way you get changes from one generation to the next is through a change in DNA. We don't know a lot about which part of the DNA creates which change, but we do know what the mechanism is for the changes. pmh1nic wrote: Is there another naturalistic explanation? I don't know BUT the continuing claim that mutations (errors in genetic replication) and the happenstance (random changes of Earth environment) is to ignor what some scientist claim is an insurmountable barricade with respect to what can be accomplished via this process. I'm aware that some scientists (Hoyle, Behe, Spetner, and others) reject mutations and natural selection as evolutionary mechanisms. The problem is a) they haven't provided any experimental data proving (or even suggesting) that the barriers that they claim prevent macroevolution, in fact, exist, and b) they substitute evolution with what is essentially magic. It should be said, there's a lot of debate as to how evolution works in the details. It's no mean feat to explain things like how animals moved from the sea to the land, and what the human ancestry tree actually looks like (again, the Neanderthal and Cromagnon debates). But it's a little bit like a Rubik's Cube: You might not know how to solve a Rubik's Cube, but you know it involves rotating the faces. In the same way, we might not know every detail as to how humans came about, but we know from the data that it was from earlier species, and we know that the mechanism was DNA mutation.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member  Without Jesus we fall short...
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: JBF I most certainly have no argument with that nor does the bible. One has too "suppress" God in the mind in order to conclude that such beauty and design was without a Designer. 
Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amy Original500© Member  ...going with the flow...
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
not that anyone cares...but Abdu'l-Baha says that the reason they can't find the 'missing link' is because there isn't one.  "The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never been an animal. It will never be found. The significance is this: that the world of humanity is distinct from the animal kingdom. This is the teaching of the philosophers of the Orient. They have a proof for it. The proof is that the animals are captives of nature. All existence and phenomena of the lower kingdoms are captives of nature; the mighty sun, the numberless stars, the kingdoms of the vegetable and mineral, none of these can deviate one hair's breadth from the limitation of nature's laws. They are, as it were, arrested by nature's hands. But man breaks the laws of nature and makes them subservient to his uses. For instance, man is an animate earthly being in common with the animals. The exigency of nature demands that he should be restricted to the earth; but he, by breaking the laws of nature, soars in the atmosphere high above it. By the application of his intellect he overcomes natural law and dives beneath the seas in submarines or sails across them in ships. He arrests a mighty force of nature such as electricity and imprisons it in an incandescent lamp. According to the law of nature he should be able to communicate at a distance of, say, one thousand feet; but through his inventions and discoveries he communicates with the East and with the West in a few moments. This is breaking the laws of nature..." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 358)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The same process you are claiming gets us from ape to man is the same process evolutionist claim gets us from ameba to man. The problem with both is that mutations and happenstance cannot bridge the genetic gap in either case. There is nothing in science preventing or negating the evidence that demonstrates or supports lots of microevolutionary changes add up to larger ones. Period. There is NOTHING you can present to invalidate the mountain of evidence that man evolved from primate. ZERO. All science does NOT point to mutation and happenstance as the process by which advance life forms came into existence. In fact some of the science demonstrates that this could NOT be the mechanism. The argument that another mechanism is required to disprove the theory is evidence of a mind closed the science that runs counter to this theory. You're so sold on this theory that no matter what physical obstacle are thrown it the way of this theory you cling to it by the shear force of faith. Wrong. All science does support and point to lots of gradual microevolutionary adaptations strung together to make larger ones. That is the mechanism the scientific evidence supports, period. You may not like that, but that doesn't negative lots of micros = larger micros/macros.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"What direct observations are we talking about here? The kind of probability exercises you've mentioned before (e.g., Spetner, Hoyle) aren't direct observations." There have been direct observations of mutations and calculations based on those observations of the kinds of mutations, the impact of mutations, mutations survival in a population, mutation rates, etc. "We do know how they work." Correct. And based on what we know the mechanism proposed (mutation and happenstance) cannot bridget the genetic gap between ameba and man. "I'm aware that some scientists (Hoyle, Behe, Spetner, and others) reject mutations and natural selection as evolutionary mechanisms." You can include in that list scientist that while the still believe in an evolutionary process reject or seriously question mutation and natural selection as the mechanism. "The problem is a) they haven't provided any experimental data proving (or even suggesting) that the barriers that they claim prevent macroevolution, in fact, exist, and b) they substitute evolution with what is essentially magic." That is NOT accurate. Experimentation in the process of genetic research and the study of mutations and their affects are coupled with calculations regarding mutation rates, etc. Last edited on 03:10 pm by pmh1nic |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amy, despite what Abdu'l-Baha feels or wrote, all the science points to and supports humans evolving from hominids, evolving from primates. We really can't go by what someone writes down or feels as evidence, we need to look at the evidence. And all the evidence points to humans being another primate - we are closer to chimps genetically than many other primates. Just a small difference between us and chimps DNA wise (1.23%) and so it is easy to see how over millions of years microevolutionary/DNA changes added up.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24hournut "Just a small difference between us and chimps DNA wise (1.23%)" I don't know where you came up with the 1.23% difference (I've read more like (3% ~ 5%) BUT that 1.23% difference represents hundreds of thousands if not millions of difference in genetic coding and bridging that gap could not (based on studies I've read) have been accomplished via mutation errors and happenstance. In addition the process you propose inyour theory is required to have been repeated over and over again billions of time in order to create the diversity of species of plants and animals. As mentioned before, it is the cosmic lottery game won not just once but millions of times.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "What direct observations are we talking about here? The kind of probability exercises you've mentioned before (e.g., Spetner, Hoyle) aren't direct observations." There have been direct observations of mutations. The rest of what you say here is merely speculative, based upon calculations (some of which, as we've discussed before, use the wrong model of evolution). Direct observation will always trump calculations. A good portion of the calculations you're talking about (and we can discuss them on a case by case basis, if you prefer) run counter to direct observations, basically looking at what is and calculating it in such a way to "prove" that it couldn't possibly be. pmh1nic wrote: "We do know how they work." If all you've got to go on there is Spetner and Holye, try again. You've got to get the models right before you can disprove anything via calculations. The wrong model yields the wrong result. (Garbage In, Garbage Out) pmh1nic wrote: "I'm aware that some scientists (Hoyle, Behe, Spetner, and others) reject mutations and natural selection as evolutionary mechanisms." Okay. Got any names? I'd be happy to discuss their theories and see what they would put in place of mutation or natural selection. pmh1nic wrote: "The problem is a) they haven't provided any experimental data proving (or even suggesting) that the barriers that they claim prevent macroevolution, in fact, exist, and b) they substitute evolution with what is essentially magic." Studying single mutations (or even groups of mutations) doesn't have any bearing on whether or not macroevolution happens. Speciation has been demonstrated in the lab. Going from ape to man is not demonstrable through experiments, because human beings don't have lifespans long enough to conduct such direct experiments. Part of the difficulty in this discussion is that you've got the wrong model of evolution in your head. You look at the distance between early life and man and say that the distance couldn't possibly be bridged by genetic mutation. What you fail to take into account is that the distance wasn't bridged in one enormous leap. There were not only millions of years, but millions of successive generations of life, each with thousands, or millions of offspring. If you look at the fossil record in toto, you'll see a branch that reaches back from humans, to earlier primates,back through earlier mammals, and so on down the line. There are morphological and genetic ties in every link of the chain, and the progression is more gradual than you're being led to believe.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: 24hournut I showed you where in a previous post in this thread, top of the page before. Here is a copy of it below for your enjoyment.  Yes, cavemen, and the early hominids before them, are the result of lots of microevolutionary changes over time. These in-betweens are not primates, but do not stand up and operate, talk, or are much like modern humans. As for more evidence - just Google "evidence for evolution" or "did man evolve from primate" and so forth to start reading about the mountain load of it. I only presented 5 or 6 lines of evidence - just a speck on the surface of what is out there for you to research if you wish. Your 5% figure is off - try 1.23% with chimps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics The complete mapping of the common chimpanzee genome in the summer 2005 showed the genetic difference with humans to be 1.23% (i.e., 98.77% similarity). Nature, in September 2005, published a seminal paper on comparison studies by 67 prominent scientists. Almost half of that 1.23% change belongs to the human at 0.53%, whose genetic variance is slower than a chimp, and just over half to the chimp at 0.7%. If we also take into account that random "genetic drift" takes up the bulk of the 0.54% difference, then that percentage difference where genes have a potential positive impact on human abilities, is between 0.01% and 0.02%. The bonobo is a sibling species of common chimpanzee and is genetically about as different from humans as are common chimps. What a coincidence - all the scientific evidence points to humans being primates and having evolved/branched off from them - AND God loves primates so much, he make a mountain of evidence lead, after thousands of years, the entire world-wide scientific community to claiming this. Remove archaic text, your speculative and emotional based BS revolving around God writing books for people, and it is practically common sense that we did. Like I said, only religious fanatics "don't know" if dinosaurs were on the Ark, claim the Adam & Eve incestuous family with bonus talking snake is the start of people, and act like practically all of the evidence that modern science has for the evolution of humans from primates is invalid. Right, sure, whatever you say!
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member Without Jesus we fall short...
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frank Said: "Just a small difference between us and chimps DNA wise (1.23%) and so it is easy to see how over millions of years microevolutionary/DNA changes added up." JBF Said: " Like paintings from a painter have similar style and design so does creation have the hand prints and unity of the Designer..."
Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| JustifiedByFaith< | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
