| Users Online Now: 2,277 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,398,426 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,014,895 | Threads Today: 566 | Posts Today: 10,851 |
| 04:26 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,277 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,398,426 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,014,895 | Threads Today: 566 | Posts Today: 10,851 |
| 04:26 PM | ||
Christian Fundamentalists Teach US Children Loch Ness Monster Is Real To Disprove Evolution | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500  Netherlands07/02/2012 04:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The tiktaalik was just a lobe-finned fish. No legs that turned into 4-legged tetrapods, just a fish. And Darwin's finches??? You're really using natural selection as an argument? And still talking about the whale pelvis, the two tiny bones that are used for reproduction? The same bones that snakes have? Its evidence of a common designer, but thanks for the other perspective, as usual. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 Same confusion persisting here. The complaint is not that the whale and snake have some bones resembling legs, bones which may serve a minor function in some species. It is that whales form complete legs as an embryo then lose them -- except for some atavisms which are born with nearly-complete legs, up to and including toes! Obviously a whale has no need for legs. Obviously the bony structures remaining in modern whales is the remnant of a leg. The point being, you hardly need to code a complete leg with toes in order to achieve a tiny bit of knob later. It is a bit like ordering a custom-made, hand-carved marble bust so you can break it up into aquarium gravel. Incidentally, it is far from identical structure or purpose in snakes. But then...why search so hard for a re-used design, when the same designer apparently lost the plans for eyes not once but four times! (And the plans for wings twice -- and, no, I'm not counting insects because the design constraints are different). But on the gripping hand, isn't it rather arrogant to say you know what a celestial designer SHOULD have done? Are you pretending to know his mind? I don't quite follow your other comments. Darwin's finches are a type case for adaptive radiation (even though there were some flaws in the original study, and the case of finch radiation is a little more complex than had once been thought). And natural selection is the leading mechanism of evolution; it still has primacy in the Modern Synthesis. Tiktaalik has numerous features that classify it as moving towards the tetrapods. Lobe-finned fish don't usually have wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints! Nor do fish usually have mobile necks, or spiracules. Tiktaalik's arm bones are homologous to, well, tetrapod limbs, not the rather different bony structure of a true fish. Even more exciting, however, is that Tiktaalik was discovered based on a prediction of evolution (as well as predictions of paleontology; as in; here is a place where we would expect that kind of animal to have lived at this target date, and where we believe the conditions are supportive of the formation of fossils). Creationism can't do that. Not to that level of detail. Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Dodging the origins aspect of it? There isn't any explanation of origins inside the theory of evolution. There are other theories such as abiogenesis or panspermia but those theories are far less well substantiated then the theory of evolution itself. But they are totally irrelevant to what the theory of evolution suggests, and even if there was a creative power or "god" (for which there is no evidence whatsoever, but can not be fully discarded imho) then it would not conflict with the theory of evolution. But that is A another question entirely and B creationists refuse (or can't) provide evidence of their creators (which means they can't be falsified in return). |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183  United States07/02/2012 01:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 I'm dodging? Since when do whale pelvises have anything to do with abiogenesis? If you want to argue common descent, argue common descent. If you want to argue abioigenesis, argue abiogenesis. Although LIFE requires both, neither body of THEORY requires the other -- any more than (in my example) minerology requires stellar nucleosynthesis. That's part of the definition of a theory; it explains the body of data within a defined domain. Which is also to say; a theory can be falsified within that domain. It isn't necessary to complain that Special Relativity says nothing about economics -- it is only necessary (and proper) to show that the predictions of Special Relativity did not match the observed results from a pair of matched chronometers at different depths in a gravity well. In case this isn't sinking in, evolutionary theory would work perfectly well and be a solid and useful theory if we had incontrovertible proof that all life on Earth had been poofed into existence 2 million years ago. (You could pick a later date, but then you get into Omphalos and no-one wants to go there.) |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/02/2012 02:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 7594251 United States07/02/2012 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The tiktaalik was just a lobe-finned fish. No legs that turned into 4-legged tetrapods, just a fish. And Darwin's finches??? You're really using natural selection as an argument? And still talking about the whale pelvis, the two tiny bones that are used for reproduction? The same bones that snakes have? Its evidence of a common designer, but thanks for the other perspective, as usual. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 Same confusion persisting here. The complaint is not that the whale and snake have some bones resembling legs, bones which may serve a minor function in some species. It is that whales form complete legs as an embryo then lose them -- except for some atavisms which are born with nearly-complete legs, up to and including toes! Obviously a whale has no need for legs. Obviously the bony structures remaining in modern whales is the remnant of a leg. The point being, you hardly need to code a complete leg with toes in order to achieve a tiny bit of knob later. It is a bit like ordering a custom-made, hand-carved marble bust so you can break it up into aquarium gravel. Incidentally, it is far from identical structure or purpose in snakes. But then...why search so hard for a re-used design, when the same designer apparently lost the plans for eyes not once but four times! (And the plans for wings twice -- and, no, I'm not counting insects because the design constraints are different). But on the gripping hand, isn't it rather arrogant to say you know what a celestial designer SHOULD have done? Are you pretending to know his mind? I don't quite follow your other comments. Darwin's finches are a type case for adaptive radiation (even though there were some flaws in the original study, and the case of finch radiation is a little more complex than had once been thought). And natural selection is the leading mechanism of evolution; it still has primacy in the Modern Synthesis. Tiktaalik has numerous features that classify it as moving towards the tetrapods. Lobe-finned fish don't usually have wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints! Nor do fish usually have mobile necks, or spiracules. Tiktaalik's arm bones are homologous to, well, tetrapod limbs, not the rather different bony structure of a true fish. Even more exciting, however, is that Tiktaalik was discovered based on a prediction of evolution (as well as predictions of paleontology; as in; here is a place where we would expect that kind of animal to have lived at this target date, and where we believe the conditions are supportive of the formation of fossils). Creationism can't do that. Not to that level of detail. Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Dodging the origins aspect of it? There isn't any explanation of origins inside the theory of evolution. There are other theories such as abiogenesis or panspermia but those theories are far less well substantiated then the theory of evolution itself. But they are totally irrelevant to what the theory of evolution suggests, and even if there was a creative power or "god" (for which there is no evidence whatsoever, but can not be fully discarded imho) then it would not conflict with the theory of evolution. But that is A another question entirely and B creationists refuse (or can't) provide evidence of their creators (which means they can't be falsified in return). You still miss a major point: United States public schools have 'macro-evolution' alongside 'micro-evolution' as fact. Little kids are forced to learn these 'theories' as fact. See where this is going? Creationists arent begging for God to be in the books, just the lies taken out. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 7594251 United States07/02/2012 02:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 I'm dodging? Since when do whale pelvises have anything to do with abiogenesis? If you want to argue common descent, argue common descent. If you want to argue abioigenesis, argue abiogenesis. Although LIFE requires both, neither body of THEORY requires the other -- any more than (in my example) minerology requires stellar nucleosynthesis. That's part of the definition of a theory; it explains the body of data within a defined domain. Which is also to say; a theory can be falsified within that domain. It isn't necessary to complain that Special Relativity says nothing about economics -- it is only necessary (and proper) to show that the predictions of Special Relativity did not match the observed results from a pair of matched chronometers at different depths in a gravity well. In case this isn't sinking in, evolutionary theory would work perfectly well and be a solid and useful theory if we had incontrovertible proof that all life on Earth had been poofed into existence 2 million years ago. (You could pick a later date, but then you get into Omphalos and no-one wants to go there.) Why do you keep bringing up whale pelvises? For the third time, those two tiny bones are used for reproduction. Again, natural selection isnt the debate here, please understand this. All the best. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/02/2012 03:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 I'm dodging? Since when do whale pelvises have anything to do with abiogenesis? If you want to argue common descent, argue common descent. If you want to argue abioigenesis, argue abiogenesis. Although LIFE requires both, neither body of THEORY requires the other -- any more than (in my example) minerology requires stellar nucleosynthesis. That's part of the definition of a theory; it explains the body of data within a defined domain. Which is also to say; a theory can be falsified within that domain. It isn't necessary to complain that Special Relativity says nothing about economics -- it is only necessary (and proper) to show that the predictions of Special Relativity did not match the observed results from a pair of matched chronometers at different depths in a gravity well. In case this isn't sinking in, evolutionary theory would work perfectly well and be a solid and useful theory if we had incontrovertible proof that all life on Earth had been poofed into existence 2 million years ago. (You could pick a later date, but then you get into Omphalos and no-one wants to go there.) Why do you keep bringing up whale pelvises? For the third time, those two tiny bones are used for reproduction. Again, natural selection isnt the debate here, please understand this. All the best. That's disingenuous. "The whale pelvis proves evolution is wrong" says the creationist. "But the whale pelvis..." "How dare you start talking about the whale pelvis? Who brought that up in the first place! We're talking about the origins of life now." Pretty typical. So typical there's even a term for it. Oh, and by the fracking by, how is natural selection NOT part of the debate about the Loch Ness Monster being used to disprove evolution? Did you forget which thread you were posting in? |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/02/2012 03:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You still miss a major point: United States public schools have 'macro-evolution' alongside 'micro-evolution' as fact. Little kids are forced to learn these 'theories' as fact. See where this is going? Creationists arent begging for God to be in the books, just the lies taken out. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7594251 That would be a lie. Almost every proposal put to a school board or education board or otherwise discussing educational goals and standards has been phrased as "Teach the alternatives to..." The small number that do not implicitly suggest there are alternatives does not falsify the trend. |
| oh puhleeze User ID: 18996344 United States07/02/2012 04:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | why don't they use the actual scientific proof and validation/verification that is available to the world at this time I wonder, instead? just as mankind made up the "faux Lillith" because they can't for the life of them explain all the races having come from two caucasian peoples of the Adamic lineage, aka Adam and Eve... (which is explained in full in Genesis with the sixth day Creation) they now use the Loch Ness debacle to attempt to fill in more gaps PITIFUL truly is pitiful there is plenty of evidence to document such things as the first earth age, and humankind being upon the earth during that time frame wherein the dinosaurs roamed here also... including specifically a carbon dated footprint of a human, possibly a female due to it's delicacy and structure SET NOW IN STONE boggles the mind how they prefer to make things up which have no foundation in either common sense OR logic instead of taking the time necessary to investigate such things accordingly whereby they could then present a solid case therefrom which would hold up against all comers... sigh wearies me, at best pisses me off at the very least. |
SilverPatriot  User ID: 18456813 United States07/02/2012 05:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Op, The simple fact is that our public school systems teaches controversial sex education at a young age regardless of the parent’s wishes along with negating all religions hence some parents elect to place their children in Parochial or fundamentalist schools. The Louisiana school system does have a voucher system whereby they do pay for a fundamentalist education and I fail to understand your abhorrence other than your hate of religion. Perhaps you should look at the objectives of the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum and note that each child receives diagnostic testing to fill the knowledge gaps from their public education system learning. If a parent wanted to take advantage of the better education provided by an Accelerated Christian Education school then why not as ultimately it is the parent’s responsibility to use their input to help their child have a well-rounded education. Also, consider the fact that many people on this forum believe some controversial ideas that they did not learn in school hence we are always learning and changing our beliefs and it does not matter where we started our education. Accelerated Christian Education curriculum (ACE) [link to www.aceministries.com] |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/02/2012 05:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | why don't they use the actual scientific proof and validation/verification that is available to the world at this time I wonder, instead? Quoting: oh puhleeze 18996344 just as mankind made up the "faux Lillith" because they can't for the life of them explain all the races having come from two caucasian peoples of the Adamic lineage, aka Adam and Eve... (which is explained in full in Genesis with the sixth day Creation) Sorry, "mitochondrial Eve" is not "Eve." The mitochondrial clock doesn't slip THAT badly. And the molecular clock sequences for the human diaspora match up very badly with the idea of all humanity being six guys on a boat in the middle of the Sinai. When there's twenty thousand years of molecular drift between groups the crossed the Bering Straits, it is pretty hard to believe they all started in the same spot at the same time at a mere 4 KYA. Plus I have to wonder; did "Adam" look like homo Heidlebergensis? Like robustus? Boise? Perhaps he looked like australophithicus aferensis?! Wrong "they." Christian fundies are using old Nessie to try to wedge their way into proselytizing at schoolkids. Which by the by raises an interesting question. Whenever a school board in Tennessee or whatever lets the first wedge in, why are so many Christians supportive of the idea? Do they not realize that they are giving the baptist church down the road, or -- God forbid -- some CATHOLICS an unfair advantage over their own sect and congregation? Why do they think they will get equal space at the trough when the full-funded fundies start growing their flock from their new captive audience? (As if. Actually, I am all in favor of teaching every bit of creotard stupidity in the classrooms. Because the evidence is, the sooner a kid is exposed to the stupids that fundamentalists make whenever they attempt to talk about science, the sooner they will be on the path to full atheism.) PITIFUL Quoting: oh puhleeze 18996344 truly is pitiful there is plenty of evidence to document such things as the first earth age, and humankind being upon the earth during that time frame wherein the dinosaurs roamed here also... including specifically a carbon dated footprint of a human, possibly a female due to it's delicacy and structure SET NOW IN STONE boggles the mind how they prefer to make things up which have no foundation in either common sense OR logic instead of taking the time necessary to investigate such things accordingly whereby they could then present a solid case therefrom which would hold up against all comers... sigh wearies me, at best pisses me off at the very least. Paluxy river tracks. Riiiight. Has been investigated. Wonder why it is that nobody seems very happy that it has? Seems to me that every time science DOES "take the time to investigate" the results are not what the fundies wanted to hear. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 06:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Same confusion persisting here. The complaint is not that the whale and snake have some bones resembling legs, bones which may serve a minor function in some species. It is that whales form complete legs as an embryo then lose them -- except for some atavisms which are born with nearly-complete legs, up to and including toes! Obviously a whale has no need for legs. Obviously the bony structures remaining in modern whales is the remnant of a leg. The point being, you hardly need to code a complete leg with toes in order to achieve a tiny bit of knob later. It is a bit like ordering a custom-made, hand-carved marble bust so you can break it up into aquarium gravel. Incidentally, it is far from identical structure or purpose in snakes. But then...why search so hard for a re-used design, when the same designer apparently lost the plans for eyes not once but four times! (And the plans for wings twice -- and, no, I'm not counting insects because the design constraints are different). But on the gripping hand, isn't it rather arrogant to say you know what a celestial designer SHOULD have done? Are you pretending to know his mind? I don't quite follow your other comments. Darwin's finches are a type case for adaptive radiation (even though there were some flaws in the original study, and the case of finch radiation is a little more complex than had once been thought). And natural selection is the leading mechanism of evolution; it still has primacy in the Modern Synthesis. Tiktaalik has numerous features that classify it as moving towards the tetrapods. Lobe-finned fish don't usually have wrist, elbow, and shoulder joints! Nor do fish usually have mobile necks, or spiracules. Tiktaalik's arm bones are homologous to, well, tetrapod limbs, not the rather different bony structure of a true fish. Even more exciting, however, is that Tiktaalik was discovered based on a prediction of evolution (as well as predictions of paleontology; as in; here is a place where we would expect that kind of animal to have lived at this target date, and where we believe the conditions are supportive of the formation of fossils). Creationism can't do that. Not to that level of detail. Again, according to your 'scientists' like darwin and dawkins, 'natural selection' is the 'leading mechanism of evolution'. You keep dodging the whole origins aspect. Thanks again for your input. Dodging the origins aspect of it? There isn't any explanation of origins inside the theory of evolution. There are other theories such as abiogenesis or panspermia but those theories are far less well substantiated then the theory of evolution itself. But they are totally irrelevant to what the theory of evolution suggests, and even if there was a creative power or "god" (for which there is no evidence whatsoever, but can not be fully discarded imho) then it would not conflict with the theory of evolution. But that is A another question entirely and B creationists refuse (or can't) provide evidence of their creators (which means they can't be falsified in return). You still miss a major point: United States public schools have 'macro-evolution' alongside 'micro-evolution' as fact. Little kids are forced to learn these 'theories' as fact. See where this is going? Creationists arent begging for God to be in the books, just the lies taken out. What big point? What is macro evolution? What is micro evolution? What is the biggest change that would be called micro evolution and what is the smallest change called macro evolution? What imposes this barrier? Also you seem to be unsure what the word theory exactly means within the scientific method, why not trying out the theory of gravity since it's "just a theory"? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 08:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | But to humor your, what exactly causes the barrier between micro and macro evolution? What is the biggest genetical change over 1 million generations that is possible? And what is the smallest change that isn't possible? What causes this barrier to exist? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 The greatest change that is possible is that a dog will keep reproducing a dog, or a lizard a lizard, or a fish a fish. Many different variations, but still obviously the same kind. (dogs, coyotes, wolves are all the same kind. different "species", but they can interbreed) If you're seriously suggesting that a fish can turn into a dog over a million years, well, I'm sorry.. It's amazing to me that people like you actually believe you are approaching this issue scientifically, when you are as religious as it gets. Oooh missed this one. But it doesn't answer the question.... It only changes the wording to the question what is a "kind"? Which you refuse to define, or when you try you will find that it is utterly impossible to define (otherwise the Christian apologetics would have done so long ago) Why are Chihuahuas and African wild dogs the same kind (they can't interbreed), but humans and chimpanzees not? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What big point? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 What is macro evolution? What is micro evolution? What is the biggest change that would be called micro evolution and what is the smallest change called macro evolution? What imposes this barrier? Also you seem to be unsure what the word theory exactly means within the scientific method, why not trying out the theory of gravity since it's "just a theory"? Try and grasp this. One is observed. One is not observed. Micro-Evolution (Speciation, adapatation) is Observed. The effects of Gravity are Observed. Macro-Evolution, the imagined idea that a fish can turn into a dog over millions of years is NOT observed, and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. In other words, we observe limitations to changes. Evolutionists imagine that those limitations do not exist. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 10:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What big point? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 What is macro evolution? What is micro evolution? What is the biggest change that would be called micro evolution and what is the smallest change called macro evolution? What imposes this barrier? Also you seem to be unsure what the word theory exactly means within the scientific method, why not trying out the theory of gravity since it's "just a theory"? Try and grasp this. One is observed. One is not observed. Micro-Evolution (Speciation, adapatation) is Observed. The effects of Gravity are Observed. Macro-Evolution, the imagined idea that a fish can turn into a dog over millions of years is NOT observed, and there is not a shred of evidence to support it. In other words, we observe limitations to changes. Evolutionists imagine that those limitations do not exist. You are not defining anything. You are just taking 2 extremes and saying WAAAAAAH. That isn't the smallest change that would fall under macro evolution and thus is not possible(or are you suggesting that every adaptation smaller then a fish compared to a dog is possible? such as for example humans and chimps being related?) nor do you define the biggest change that would still fall under micro evolution. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 10:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Oooh missed this one. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 But it doesn't answer the question.... It only changes the wording to the question what is a "kind"? Which you refuse to define, or when you try you will find that it is utterly impossible to define (otherwise the Christian apologetics would have done so long ago) Why are Chihuahuas and African wild dogs the same kind (they can't interbreed), but humans and chimpanzees not? You do realize that SPECIES can not be accurately defined, right? Definition: The term species can be defined as a group of individual organisms that are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring in nature. A species is, according to this definition, the largest gene pool that exists under natural conditions. Thus, if a pair of organisms are capable of producing offspring in nature, they must belong to the same species. Wolves and Dogs can interbreed, yet they are classed as different species. A wolf and a dog would be classified under the same "Kind", as would any creatures that can interbreed. But "Kind" can not be perfectly defined, nor can Species. Chihuahuas, mules, etc. represent a limit to variations from interbreeding. But they still originated from the same kind. The only reason "Kind" classification is rejected is because it does not support evolution. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 10:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Oooh missed this one. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 But it doesn't answer the question.... It only changes the wording to the question what is a "kind"? Which you refuse to define, or when you try you will find that it is utterly impossible to define (otherwise the Christian apologetics would have done so long ago) Why are Chihuahuas and African wild dogs the same kind (they can't interbreed), but humans and chimpanzees not? You do realize that SPECIES can not be accurately defined, right? Definition: The term species can be defined as a group of individual organisms that are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring in nature. A species is, according to this definition, the largest gene pool that exists under natural conditions. Thus, if a pair of organisms are capable of producing offspring in nature, they must belong to the same species. Wolves and Dogs can interbreed, yet they are classed as different species. A wolf and a dog would be classified under the same "Kind", as would any creatures that can interbreed. But "Kind" can not be perfectly defined, nor can Species. Chihuahuas, mules, etc. represent a limit to variations from interbreeding. But they still originated from the same kind. The only reason "Kind" classification is rejected is because it does not support evolution. African wild dogs cannot interbreed with wolves or dogs. picture; [link to farm3.static.flickr.com] Which is why I took it as an example.... So your entire argument is rather shaky because of that. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 10:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You are not defining anything. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 You are just taking 2 extremes and saying WAAAAAAH. That isn't the smallest change that would fall under macro evolution and thus is not possible(or are you suggesting that every adaptation smaller then a fish compared to a dog is possible? such as for example humans and chimps being related?) nor do you define the biggest change that would still fall under micro evolution. I'll say it again, the biggest change in micro-evolution is what we have OBSERVED, which is a limit. Frame it however you want, at the end of the day, we have not observed a single variation surpass a certain limit. You are welcome to imagine that the limit does not exist when you add "billions of years" into the equation. But there is no evidence for that, and it is not science, no matter how badly you want it to be. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 10:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You are not defining anything. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 You are just taking 2 extremes and saying WAAAAAAH. That isn't the smallest change that would fall under macro evolution and thus is not possible(or are you suggesting that every adaptation smaller then a fish compared to a dog is possible? such as for example humans and chimps being related?) nor do you define the biggest change that would still fall under micro evolution. I'll say it again, the biggest change in micro-evolution is what we have OBSERVED, which is a limit. Frame it however you want, at the end of the day, we have not observed a single variation surpass a certain limit. You are welcome to imagine that the limit does not exist when you add "billions of years" into the equation. But there is no evidence for that, and it is not science, no matter how badly you want it to be. A limit, like for example light speed is a set definition that just does not change... Saying that the largest observed example of speciation is the set definition is not a hard limit. Since it is likely that in the future we will find examples that are slightly bigger then the examples we are aware of right now. Hence it is totally useless as a "limit". |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 10:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | African wild dogs cannot interbreed with wolves or dogs. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 picture; [link to farm3.static.flickr.com] Which is why I took it as an example.... So your entire argument is rather shaky because of that. Nobody said "Kind" was an airtight definition. But it works most of the time, and is certainly a logical conclusion to the limitations on variations man has been witness to for thousands of years. How is it any more shaky than different "species" being able to interbreed? You have a problem with one inaccuracy but not another? Could it be because one supports the imagined idea of Evolution and one does not? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 10:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A limit, like for example light speed is a set definition that just does not change... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 Saying that the largest observed example of speciation is the set definition is not a hard limit. Since it is likely that in the future we will find examples that are slightly bigger then the examples we are aware of right now. Hence it is totally useless as a "limit". So you are skeptical that variations are limited to what we have observed in reality thus far. I assume you are equally, if not many times more, skeptical that there exists no limitations to variations whatsoever, beyond the environmental constraints, of which we have never observed or gathered evidence for. Are you more skeptical of something observed and tested, than you are of something unobserved and untested? It sounds like you just really really want to believe in Evolution. Is that it? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | African wild dogs cannot interbreed with wolves or dogs. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 picture; [link to farm3.static.flickr.com] Which is why I took it as an example.... So your entire argument is rather shaky because of that. Nobody said "Kind" was an airtight definition. But it works most of the time, and is certainly a logical conclusion to the limitations on variations man has been witness to for thousands of years. How is it any more shaky than different "species" being able to interbreed? You have a problem with one inaccuracy but not another? Could it be because one supports the imagined idea of Evolution and one does not? The definition of species is quite a bit wider then just being able of producing fertile offspring (read the definition of species in wikipedia if you want to know). The definition of kind however is totally undefined other then vague presumptions like a dog and a wolf are of the same kind! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 11:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A limit, like for example light speed is a set definition that just does not change... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 Saying that the largest observed example of speciation is the set definition is not a hard limit. Since it is likely that in the future we will find examples that are slightly bigger then the examples we are aware of right now. Hence it is totally useless as a "limit". So you are skeptical that variations are limited to what we have observed in reality thus far. I assume you are equally, if not many times more, skeptical that there exists no limitations to variations whatsoever, beyond the environmental constraints, of which we have never observed or gathered evidence for. Are you more skeptical of something observed and tested, than you are of something unobserved and untested? It sounds like you just really really want to believe in Evolution. Is that it? No limitations? Ofcourse there are limitations, mainly time (the amount of generations) and how much DNA mutates per generation by default. There is however no _SET_ limit like saying, speciation even minutely beyond what the biggest example is we have observed sofar is impossible. Which you are stating considering I asked for the biggest possible change that constitutes micro evolution. Nor do you even begin to touch on the subject as to why more changes are physically impossible (eg. Einsteins relativity theory clearly explains why lightspeed is constant and the absolute maximum speed). |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 11:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 11:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The definition of species is quite a bit wider then just being able of producing fertile offspring (read the definition of species in wikipedia if you want to know). Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15257500 The definition of kind however is totally undefined other then vague presumptions like a dog and a wolf are of the same kind! Actually the definition of Kind is part of a systematic and in depth body of research called Baraminology. When you break it down, Kinds really on lifeforms that we actually observe today as being distinctly separate from each other, and also FAITH that they were created that way. Evolutionary Species totally relies on FAITH that everything started from wet rocks, or slime, single-cell whatever and branched out from there. Not a shred of evidence for it. You just want it to be true because you don't like the idea of a Creator, so you keep telling yourself you're on the side of science. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 11:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I know you believe that. You've made that quite clear. Care to back it up? ? How about responding to my points first? There is no reason to presume that there is a limit, you are claiming there is one. Hence you are making the claim, not I. Yet you are asking for me to provide evidence without even giving a shred of it yourself? The one making the claim generally has to provide the evidence you know... But that is usually the problem with creationists, because if you actually would provide tangible, usable evidence or arguments then suddenly your god becomes falsifiable by disproving such claims. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 11:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I know you believe that. You've made that quite clear. Care to back it up? ? How about responding to my points first? There is no reason to presume that there is a limit, you are claiming there is one. Hence you are making the claim, not I. Yet you are asking for me to provide evidence without even giving a shred of it yourself? The one making the claim generally has to provide the evidence you know... But that is usually the problem with creationists, because if you actually would provide tangible, usable evidence or arguments then suddenly your god becomes falsifiable by disproving such claims. Are you kidding me? You're the one professing that millions of years will remove the limitations that we observe. And you think I'm the one making the claim? You're the one deviating from what is scientifically observed today and saying "all this other stuff can happen to.. in time!" And then you're shrugging the burden of proof off on others to prove you wrong? What kind of a joke is that? This is what happens when you teach children a religion like Evolution, and tell them over and over again that it is science. After awhile they believe it is. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/03/2012 12:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody said "Kind" was an airtight definition. But it works most of the time, and is certainly a logical conclusion to the limitations on variations man has been witness to for thousands of years. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 How is it any more shaky than different "species" being able to interbreed? You have a problem with one inaccuracy but not another? Could it be because one supports the imagined idea of Evolution and one does not? Depends on which story you are using. The primary reason "kinds" was developed was to limit the number of animals a fellow needed to put on a boat. And if you include that boat, you need to have "adaptive radiation" which is 10,000 times greater, and faster, than any other evidence in biology or paleontology will support, and is of course 10,000 times greater than your magical "kind" limitation. Even without Noah in the picture, the chimpanzee and the orangutan (both being an "ape" kind) have to diverge from an ur-ape during the last 6,000 years. Then, like some sort of quantum wave function, the moment humans start observing them this ultra-speed "adaptation" slows to an unmeasurable crawl. Oh -- and ask any baraminologist how many "kinds" of bacteria there are, and how many "kinds" of beetles. Funny thing; how it is really, really important to separate sheep "kind" from goat "kind" but it is all the same to them whether you metabolize oxygen or sulfur! (Honestly...if you divide the insect world as finely as any division of higher mammals that considers a horse and a pig as different kinds, then you require literally tens of millions of species of insect life.) |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States07/03/2012 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Are you kidding me? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 You're the one professing that millions of years will remove the limitations that we observe. And you think I'm the one making the claim? You're the one deviating from what is scientifically observed today and saying "all this other stuff can happen to.. in time!" And then you're shrugging the burden of proof off on others to prove you wrong? What kind of a joke is that? This is what happens when you teach children a religion like Evolution, and tell them over and over again that it is science. After awhile they believe it is. Ever measured air temperature? LIAR! You can't directly measure air temperature; your senses aren't that accurately calibrated. The only thing you've done is trust an indirect observation; that someone you don't even know put some mercury that some other people claim has a known coefficient of expansion into a glass tube with markings on it. A single niCad cell tops off at 1.6 volts. Riiight. You have never measured that yourself, because the human tongue isn't that good. You only used an instrument that was connected to wires that turned the chemical potential into an electrical potential into a magnetic field which pushed against a spring. Plan a trip to Paris, the city of lights? Are you INSANE?! What possible PROOF do you have that Paris exists? (Unless you've been there before, as I have -- but I could be lying to you so you still don't know.) Every day you encounter numerous things that you are only observing indirectly. Everything you think you see, after all, is only photons triggering a chemical change in the back of your eyes, which is then filtered by an ancient and rather stupid mechanism which then presents an edited and inaccurate version to your conscious mind. Your aversion to the fossil record and comparative molecular biology is simply superstition. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 15257500 Netherlands07/03/2012 12:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I know you believe that. You've made that quite clear. Care to back it up? ? How about responding to my points first? There is no reason to presume that there is a limit, you are claiming there is one. Hence you are making the claim, not I. Yet you are asking for me to provide evidence without even giving a shred of it yourself? The one making the claim generally has to provide the evidence you know... But that is usually the problem with creationists, because if you actually would provide tangible, usable evidence or arguments then suddenly your god becomes falsifiable by disproving such claims. Are you kidding me? You're the one professing that millions of years will remove the limitations that we observe. And you think I'm the one making the claim? You're the one deviating from what is scientifically observed today and saying "all this other stuff can happen to.. in time!" And then you're shrugging the burden of proof off on others to prove you wrong? What kind of a joke is that? This is what happens when you teach children a religion like Evolution, and tell them over and over again that it is science. After awhile they believe it is. So you fully agree with the theory of evolution and the time frames it proposes but you are not in agreement with cosmology, geology and dozens of other methods used to determine the scale of time that has actually existed? Why are you posting against the theory of evolution again then? Shouldn't be spamming geology and cosmology forums instead? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 8597527 United States07/03/2012 01:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nobody said "Kind" was an airtight definition. But it works most of the time, and is certainly a logical conclusion to the limitations on variations man has been witness to for thousands of years. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527 How is it any more shaky than different "species" being able to interbreed? You have a problem with one inaccuracy but not another? Could it be because one supports the imagined idea of Evolution and one does not? Depends on which story you are using. The primary reason "kinds" was developed was to limit the number of animals a fellow needed to put on a boat. And if you include that boat, you need to have "adaptive radiation" which is 10,000 times greater, and faster, than any other evidence in biology or paleontology will support, and is of course 10,000 times greater than your magical "kind" limitation. Even without Noah in the picture, the chimpanzee and the orangutan (both being an "ape" kind) have to diverge from an ur-ape during the last 6,000 years. Then, like some sort of quantum wave function, the moment humans start observing them this ultra-speed "adaptation" slows to an unmeasurable crawl. And your magical creation story of everything originating from rocks, slime, soup, etc. is any more valid? After all this is where your "evolutionary species" originate, just like you are linking "Kinds" back to Noah's Ark. The ambiguities in your definition of Species is less flawed than ambiguities in the definition of Kind/Baromin? Is that because you believe whatever supports Evolution must be the correct choice? |
