| Users Online Now: 1,671 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 52,101 | |
| Pageviews Today: 71,905 | Threads Today: 47 | Posts Today: 358 |
| 12:36 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,671 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 52,101 | |
| Pageviews Today: 71,905 | Threads Today: 47 | Posts Today: 358 |
| 12:36 AM | ||
This is how they fooled you to believe evolution | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60583345  Belgium07/28/2014 07:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345 Experiments, read, intelligence put into practice, has shown you can create amino acids given some conditions, good point, I know a few very old books that claim the same thing, only has the scientist word been replaced by the g word. Perhaps you can share some evidence of these things occuring in nature, if you can find any, let us know. Don't bother spewing out more inferences. About the socalled positive experiments. Have they created anything new out of these experiments? Did these amino acids further evolve into any kind of organism? If you have a look at the fossil record, one can simply conclude evolution never happened and looking at current life, it never will, it will merely adapt to the given instructions of a complete and functional cell and it's ability to react to internal and external factors. Perhaps you can put all the known parts of a cell in a test tube and make some experiments yourself, trust me, you shall be deeply disappointed with the results. What are your opinions on stasis and evolution & punctuated equilibrium and evolution? The evolution theory is based on randomness and chance events so please, don't give up and try again. Those conditions in the lab were originally thought to be the conditions of the early Earth. That is the flaw of the Miller-Urey experiment, as now scientists (some) believe that their were even more favorable atmospheric gases for the production of amino acids... Do they occur in nature? Not our nature. Using geochemistry/other relevant fields of geology, we know the conditions have occurred in the past, and thus amino acids could have been produced by simply chemistry. In fact, check this out. Apparently the most shared genes of life are composed of the amino acids most readily produced during the Miller-Urey experiment. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Now is this life? Absolutely not. But it is complexity from seemingly "nothing," if you will. We can also talk about how other pieces of cells can and do assemble themselves by purely chemical and physical means, such as the phospholipid bilayer that makes our cell membranes. [link to en.wikipedia.org] See, we can never be sure how it started here on Earth. We can look at the chemistry, the physics, and the evidence in geology and biology and say that "this model works, and this one doesn't." But that's as close as we can get... Which models might have worked... As for the modes of evolution, I've seen that most models tend to favor punctuated equilibrium while a few models (by which I mean specific data for specific taxonomic groups) suggests phyletic gradualism. I do hope you didn't think it'd be a simple either/or. :) I don't know how random things in evolution are... Organisms respond to changes in their environment, even you must see that finches with larger beaks are better suited to places where nuts and seeds are the abundant food source... (Microevolution, if you will, although I don't make the distinction...) I suppose you can call this chance in some way, as that the odds of an organism surviving depend on how it can respond to environmental changes. It is chance on the individual level, but probability on the population level. As for a finch being a finch... Did you know that Darwin's finches aren't all the same species? They can't reproduce, defining them as different biological species. Furthermore, some have been classified as different genuses. And these are just Darwin's finches, not finches found elsewhere. [link to en.wikipedia.org] The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted without oxygen. Do you believe this experiment is a correct representation of early earth? I'd rather think that is delusional reasoning without any scientific evidence, not even going to bring up the scientific method. The fossil record is limited? The known fossil record holds plenty of hindsight evidence. I could not care less about the finches, they still are finches and they will remain finches, they will never evolve/transform into superfinches. What you write reminds me of some people I met in the past that were quite convinced one day the whales would group up, create themselves some legs and reclaim the land that was once theirs. Hunting down every pesky human and other mammals in the name of natural selection. Or maybe it will the beavers. Or the monkeys! Don't give up! Howdy, Yes, oxygen was not a large constituent in the early Earth's atmosphere, as indicated by geology. Specifically, BIF's which show when oxygen became abundant on Earth, oxidizing irons... Although it is true that some scientists believe that their would have been some oxygen in the early atmosphere anyway, suggesting black smokers as a possible location for life generation. There is evidence, whether you want to believe it or not. The fossil record is very limited. Fossilization is a rare process that usually involves rapid sediment deposition, unique chemical conditions (anoxia), or the selective preservation of hard parts... (Sea shells can last a lot longer on the ocean floor than a piece of meat...) Of course they are finches. If they became superfinches, evolution would be a faulty theory. You can't ignore the fact that these finches represent DIFFERENT genuses. They cannot reproduce with each other. If you believe in microevolution (I hate using this term, but I will if you will agree to it), this is it. In fact, it's a step beyond it. It shows natural selection and how evolution has produced it. I see you talk to some crazy people, which is not surprising, as what you believe is not too far from such thoughts... What I write is founded in observations, experimentation, and a healthy understanding of the scientific method. Please, do tell where your scientifically valid information comes from. :) Crazy people? They are as normal as you are. They are just naturalist materialists, nothing more nothing less. Just like you, they have no answers, no evidence, nothing but empty words. Just some inferences and a whole lot of just-so stories that look and sound appealing to the simple minded. Why would the fossil record be limited? What we possess and have studied shows that no evolution has taken place. Have a look at a dragonfly, a bat, a tortoise and plenty of others. In some way the million and billions of year show a poor effort on the evolving part. But I guess they were already fit? Right? Fossilization is not a rare process, we have plenty of material on that subject from all kinds of recent natural events. It needs some conditions for sure, but you kind of give me the impression it needs a miracle. Evolution and natural selection producing things? How does a process like evolution based on chance, randomness and aspecially death of an organism give you an abundance of species/kinds? Does the adding happen by natural selection? You know, the theory that states selecting from minimum 2 things. You get less and less, not more and more. |
| hydeman11 User ID: 21577450  United States07/28/2014 08:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21577450 Those conditions in the lab were originally thought to be the conditions of the early Earth. That is the flaw of the Miller-Urey experiment, as now scientists (some) believe that their were even more favorable atmospheric gases for the production of amino acids... Do they occur in nature? Not our nature. Using geochemistry/other relevant fields of geology, we know the conditions have occurred in the past, and thus amino acids could have been produced by simply chemistry. In fact, check this out. Apparently the most shared genes of life are composed of the amino acids most readily produced during the Miller-Urey experiment. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Now is this life? Absolutely not. But it is complexity from seemingly "nothing," if you will. We can also talk about how other pieces of cells can and do assemble themselves by purely chemical and physical means, such as the phospholipid bilayer that makes our cell membranes. [link to en.wikipedia.org] See, we can never be sure how it started here on Earth. We can look at the chemistry, the physics, and the evidence in geology and biology and say that "this model works, and this one doesn't." But that's as close as we can get... Which models might have worked... As for the modes of evolution, I've seen that most models tend to favor punctuated equilibrium while a few models (by which I mean specific data for specific taxonomic groups) suggests phyletic gradualism. I do hope you didn't think it'd be a simple either/or. :) I don't know how random things in evolution are... Organisms respond to changes in their environment, even you must see that finches with larger beaks are better suited to places where nuts and seeds are the abundant food source... (Microevolution, if you will, although I don't make the distinction...) I suppose you can call this chance in some way, as that the odds of an organism surviving depend on how it can respond to environmental changes. It is chance on the individual level, but probability on the population level. As for a finch being a finch... Did you know that Darwin's finches aren't all the same species? They can't reproduce, defining them as different biological species. Furthermore, some have been classified as different genuses. And these are just Darwin's finches, not finches found elsewhere. [link to en.wikipedia.org] The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted without oxygen. Do you believe this experiment is a correct representation of early earth? I'd rather think that is delusional reasoning without any scientific evidence, not even going to bring up the scientific method. The fossil record is limited? The known fossil record holds plenty of hindsight evidence. I could not care less about the finches, they still are finches and they will remain finches, they will never evolve/transform into superfinches. What you write reminds me of some people I met in the past that were quite convinced one day the whales would group up, create themselves some legs and reclaim the land that was once theirs. Hunting down every pesky human and other mammals in the name of natural selection. Or maybe it will the beavers. Or the monkeys! Don't give up! Howdy, Yes, oxygen was not a large constituent in the early Earth's atmosphere, as indicated by geology. Specifically, BIF's which show when oxygen became abundant on Earth, oxidizing irons... Although it is true that some scientists believe that their would have been some oxygen in the early atmosphere anyway, suggesting black smokers as a possible location for life generation. There is evidence, whether you want to believe it or not. The fossil record is very limited. Fossilization is a rare process that usually involves rapid sediment deposition, unique chemical conditions (anoxia), or the selective preservation of hard parts... (Sea shells can last a lot longer on the ocean floor than a piece of meat...) Of course they are finches. If they became superfinches, evolution would be a faulty theory. You can't ignore the fact that these finches represent DIFFERENT genuses. They cannot reproduce with each other. If you believe in microevolution (I hate using this term, but I will if you will agree to it), this is it. In fact, it's a step beyond it. It shows natural selection and how evolution has produced it. I see you talk to some crazy people, which is not surprising, as what you believe is not too far from such thoughts... What I write is founded in observations, experimentation, and a healthy understanding of the scientific method. Please, do tell where your scientifically valid information comes from. :) Crazy people? They are as normal as you are. They are just naturalist materialists, nothing more nothing less. Just like you, they have no answers, no evidence, nothing but empty words. Just some inferences and a whole lot of just-so stories that look and sound appealing to the simple minded. Why would the fossil record be limited? What we possess and have studied shows that no evolution has taken place. Have a look at a dragonfly, a bat, a tortoise and plenty of others. In some way the million and billions of year show a poor effort on the evolving part. But I guess they were already fit? Right? Fossilization is not a rare process, we have plenty of material on that subject from all kinds of recent natural events. It needs some conditions for sure, but you kind of give me the impression it needs a miracle. Evolution and natural selection producing things? How does a process like evolution based on chance, randomness and aspecially death of an organism give you an abundance of species/kinds? Does the adding happen by natural selection? You know, the theory that states selecting from minimum 2 things. You get less and less, not more and more. All right, I'll be fair here... Maybe they're not crazy. Maybe they're being misquoted? I have explained the limitation of the fossil record... It requires burial by sediment in the most basic of cases. Sediment only accumulates in watery conditions, with few exceptions (ash...). Thus, land organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. We also need to have the remains not decay or be scavenged and eaten. So, either rapid burial or hard parts that cannot be eaten or unique chemical conditions... (Anoxia, or extreme salinity are good examples.) This means soft bodied organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. This is logical, no? This is why I call fossilization rare. Sure, there are lots of fossil brachiopods, trilobites, bivalves, and corals, (all of which have hard body parts) but how often do you find a fossilized jellyfish? Not commonly, but rarely, and it is almost always a mold or imprint. I have no idea what you mean by no evolution of the dragonfly, bat, or tortoise? Do you mean to imply that because they have similar morphologies to fossil ancestors that this disproves evolution? There are no modern animals that are exactly the same as their fossilized ancestors. Even coelacanths are morphologically different species from fossil ones. In fact, this fits quite well with the theory of evolution... As for why they didn't change much, yes. They were well suited to their environment, and if that environment did not change, there would be no reason for a speciation event to occur (by which I mean no organisms with traits beneficial to a new environment would be naturally selected in that environment.) This isn't random. Evolution occurs on a population level. Sure, genetics are "random" on an individual basis. You are uniquely you. It's how your genetics interact with the environmental changes that determines your ability to pass on your unique genes and have your genes become the dominant genes of that species... As for adding, adding what? What "2 things?" I have no idea what you are trying to ask in that last paragraph. Please clarify. Regards, Hydeman |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60583345 Belgium07/29/2014 06:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345 The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted without oxygen. Do you believe this experiment is a correct representation of early earth? I'd rather think that is delusional reasoning without any scientific evidence, not even going to bring up the scientific method. The fossil record is limited? The known fossil record holds plenty of hindsight evidence. I could not care less about the finches, they still are finches and they will remain finches, they will never evolve/transform into superfinches. What you write reminds me of some people I met in the past that were quite convinced one day the whales would group up, create themselves some legs and reclaim the land that was once theirs. Hunting down every pesky human and other mammals in the name of natural selection. Or maybe it will the beavers. Or the monkeys! Don't give up! Howdy, Yes, oxygen was not a large constituent in the early Earth's atmosphere, as indicated by geology. Specifically, BIF's which show when oxygen became abundant on Earth, oxidizing irons... Although it is true that some scientists believe that their would have been some oxygen in the early atmosphere anyway, suggesting black smokers as a possible location for life generation. There is evidence, whether you want to believe it or not. The fossil record is very limited. Fossilization is a rare process that usually involves rapid sediment deposition, unique chemical conditions (anoxia), or the selective preservation of hard parts... (Sea shells can last a lot longer on the ocean floor than a piece of meat...) Of course they are finches. If they became superfinches, evolution would be a faulty theory. You can't ignore the fact that these finches represent DIFFERENT genuses. They cannot reproduce with each other. If you believe in microevolution (I hate using this term, but I will if you will agree to it), this is it. In fact, it's a step beyond it. It shows natural selection and how evolution has produced it. I see you talk to some crazy people, which is not surprising, as what you believe is not too far from such thoughts... What I write is founded in observations, experimentation, and a healthy understanding of the scientific method. Please, do tell where your scientifically valid information comes from. :) Crazy people? They are as normal as you are. They are just naturalist materialists, nothing more nothing less. Just like you, they have no answers, no evidence, nothing but empty words. Just some inferences and a whole lot of just-so stories that look and sound appealing to the simple minded. Why would the fossil record be limited? What we possess and have studied shows that no evolution has taken place. Have a look at a dragonfly, a bat, a tortoise and plenty of others. In some way the million and billions of year show a poor effort on the evolving part. But I guess they were already fit? Right? Fossilization is not a rare process, we have plenty of material on that subject from all kinds of recent natural events. It needs some conditions for sure, but you kind of give me the impression it needs a miracle. Evolution and natural selection producing things? How does a process like evolution based on chance, randomness and aspecially death of an organism give you an abundance of species/kinds? Does the adding happen by natural selection? You know, the theory that states selecting from minimum 2 things. You get less and less, not more and more. All right, I'll be fair here... Maybe they're not crazy. Maybe they're being misquoted? I have explained the limitation of the fossil record... It requires burial by sediment in the most basic of cases. Sediment only accumulates in watery conditions, with few exceptions (ash...). Thus, land organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. We also need to have the remains not decay or be scavenged and eaten. So, either rapid burial or hard parts that cannot be eaten or unique chemical conditions... (Anoxia, or extreme salinity are good examples.) This means soft bodied organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. This is logical, no? This is why I call fossilization rare. Sure, there are lots of fossil brachiopods, trilobites, bivalves, and corals, (all of which have hard body parts) but how often do you find a fossilized jellyfish? Not commonly, but rarely, and it is almost always a mold or imprint. I have no idea what you mean by no evolution of the dragonfly, bat, or tortoise? Do you mean to imply that because they have similar morphologies to fossil ancestors that this disproves evolution? There are no modern animals that are exactly the same as their fossilized ancestors. Even coelacanths are morphologically different species from fossil ones. In fact, this fits quite well with the theory of evolution... As for why they didn't change much, yes. They were well suited to their environment, and if that environment did not change, there would be no reason for a speciation event to occur (by which I mean no organisms with traits beneficial to a new environment would be naturally selected in that environment.) This isn't random. Evolution occurs on a population level. Sure, genetics are "random" on an individual basis. You are uniquely you. It's how your genetics interact with the environmental changes that determines your ability to pass on your unique genes and have your genes become the dominant genes of that species... As for adding, adding what? What "2 things?" I have no idea what you are trying to ask in that last paragraph. Please clarify. Regards, Hydeman Almost every naturalist materialist 'misquotes'. Just like you. It's great that for some unknown reason you need to explain away the fossil record, I only pointed out that a majority of the fauna and flaura in the fossil record, did not evolve over millions or billions of years. Hindsight examples are the tortoise group, dragonflies and bats. They enter the record and guess what, no big change happens over millions of years. If you don't see or want to see this, I can not help you. I think the scientific term is 'living fossils'. Coelacanths, great, tell me what is the evolutionary difference between the oldest fossilized coelacanths and the living and dead ones today? According to the evolution theory, we evolved from them, yet they don't even seem to have evolved as a species over millions of years. Not even mentioning the countless missing links. Yet they have fins and god knows, fins might turn into legs! Right? If you can't see that a theory like evolution theory and natural selection are deductionist or eliminatory processes, I sincerely can't help you. Again, the theory is based primarily on removals based on selection. Who or what does the selecting? From where exactly are the archetypes coming from whereon the selection happens? Where are the predecessors? Nowhere. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a human, swims like a human, and talks like a human, then it probably evolved from a rock that became alive in some premordial shitsoup that got struck by lightening and evolved over billions over years without any reasonable proof or evidence. How rational. Not even mentioning the grandeur of the fucking universe making this magical process at all possible. Bloody monkeys. |
72Pantera  User ID: 51617477 United States07/29/2014 07:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The creationist argument always seems to be that If science cannot prove how the Universe was created then it has failed and is bunk. The scientific method is one of continually refining and changing its view of the world (reality or truth) based on new evidence. A science that is rigidly stuck in its view of the world and not willing to change that view in light of new evidence - is not science but is dogma. Dogma is the foundation of religion and rejects any evidence to the contrary. Its followers must rely upon faith, for reason and logic are the handiwork of the devil. Evolution is not the end all be all to science as creationists would like to believe. It is simply the best model postulated to date. When a better model is put forth that answers more of sciences questions - it will be adopted. The same cannot be said of religious believers - except for the most liberal and progressive thinkers of the faith. For them, the Book is perfect and without contradictions. Those who take its word as the literal truth are chaining themselves to a fantasy that will forever alienate them from reality. ***Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master ~George Washington*** |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 54438059  Netherlands07/29/2014 07:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| hydeman11 User ID: 21577450 United States07/29/2014 11:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21577450 Howdy, Yes, oxygen was not a large constituent in the early Earth's atmosphere, as indicated by geology. Specifically, BIF's which show when oxygen became abundant on Earth, oxidizing irons... Although it is true that some scientists believe that their would have been some oxygen in the early atmosphere anyway, suggesting black smokers as a possible location for life generation. There is evidence, whether you want to believe it or not. The fossil record is very limited. Fossilization is a rare process that usually involves rapid sediment deposition, unique chemical conditions (anoxia), or the selective preservation of hard parts... (Sea shells can last a lot longer on the ocean floor than a piece of meat...) Of course they are finches. If they became superfinches, evolution would be a faulty theory. You can't ignore the fact that these finches represent DIFFERENT genuses. They cannot reproduce with each other. If you believe in microevolution (I hate using this term, but I will if you will agree to it), this is it. In fact, it's a step beyond it. It shows natural selection and how evolution has produced it. I see you talk to some crazy people, which is not surprising, as what you believe is not too far from such thoughts... What I write is founded in observations, experimentation, and a healthy understanding of the scientific method. Please, do tell where your scientifically valid information comes from. :) Crazy people? They are as normal as you are. They are just naturalist materialists, nothing more nothing less. Just like you, they have no answers, no evidence, nothing but empty words. Just some inferences and a whole lot of just-so stories that look and sound appealing to the simple minded. Why would the fossil record be limited? What we possess and have studied shows that no evolution has taken place. Have a look at a dragonfly, a bat, a tortoise and plenty of others. In some way the million and billions of year show a poor effort on the evolving part. But I guess they were already fit? Right? Fossilization is not a rare process, we have plenty of material on that subject from all kinds of recent natural events. It needs some conditions for sure, but you kind of give me the impression it needs a miracle. Evolution and natural selection producing things? How does a process like evolution based on chance, randomness and aspecially death of an organism give you an abundance of species/kinds? Does the adding happen by natural selection? You know, the theory that states selecting from minimum 2 things. You get less and less, not more and more. All right, I'll be fair here... Maybe they're not crazy. Maybe they're being misquoted? I have explained the limitation of the fossil record... It requires burial by sediment in the most basic of cases. Sediment only accumulates in watery conditions, with few exceptions (ash...). Thus, land organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. We also need to have the remains not decay or be scavenged and eaten. So, either rapid burial or hard parts that cannot be eaten or unique chemical conditions... (Anoxia, or extreme salinity are good examples.) This means soft bodied organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. This is logical, no? This is why I call fossilization rare. Sure, there are lots of fossil brachiopods, trilobites, bivalves, and corals, (all of which have hard body parts) but how often do you find a fossilized jellyfish? Not commonly, but rarely, and it is almost always a mold or imprint. I have no idea what you mean by no evolution of the dragonfly, bat, or tortoise? Do you mean to imply that because they have similar morphologies to fossil ancestors that this disproves evolution? There are no modern animals that are exactly the same as their fossilized ancestors. Even coelacanths are morphologically different species from fossil ones. In fact, this fits quite well with the theory of evolution... As for why they didn't change much, yes. They were well suited to their environment, and if that environment did not change, there would be no reason for a speciation event to occur (by which I mean no organisms with traits beneficial to a new environment would be naturally selected in that environment.) This isn't random. Evolution occurs on a population level. Sure, genetics are "random" on an individual basis. You are uniquely you. It's how your genetics interact with the environmental changes that determines your ability to pass on your unique genes and have your genes become the dominant genes of that species... As for adding, adding what? What "2 things?" I have no idea what you are trying to ask in that last paragraph. Please clarify. Regards, Hydeman Almost every naturalist materialist 'misquotes'. Just like you. It's great that for some unknown reason you need to explain away the fossil record, I only pointed out that a majority of the fauna and flaura in the fossil record, did not evolve over millions or billions of years. Hindsight examples are the tortoise group, dragonflies and bats. They enter the record and guess what, no big change happens over millions of years. If you don't see or want to see this, I can not help you. I think the scientific term is 'living fossils'. Coelacanths, great, tell me what is the evolutionary difference between the oldest fossilized coelacanths and the living and dead ones today? According to the evolution theory, we evolved from them, yet they don't even seem to have evolved as a species over millions of years. Not even mentioning the countless missing links. Yet they have fins and god knows, fins might turn into legs! Right? If you can't see that a theory like evolution theory and natural selection are deductionist or eliminatory processes, I sincerely can't help you. Again, the theory is based primarily on removals based on selection. Who or what does the selecting? From where exactly are the archetypes coming from whereon the selection happens? Where are the predecessors? Nowhere. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a human, swims like a human, and talks like a human, then it probably evolved from a rock that became alive in some premordial shitsoup that got struck by lightening and evolved over billions over years without any reasonable proof or evidence. How rational. Not even mentioning the grandeur of the fucking universe making this magical process at all possible. Bloody monkeys. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would attack my ideas instead of accusing me of misquoting. Or, better yet, if I have misquoted something, please clarify it. I am always open to learning. Now, I do not wish to "explain away" the fossil record. Quite the opposite, as I'm an avid fossil collector. I merely wished to show you the limitations of said record... There are limitations to all things, and they must be worked around if they are to be used... Sadly, my point was that land organisms are rarely preserved as fossils, while the vast majority of fossils preserved globally are marine in nature. I asked for clarification on the point of said organisms (bats, tortoises, and dragonflies), I did not misquote, I merely asked questions. To that point, they did evolve. Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern dragonflies show morphological differences, most noticeably size. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that... [link to en.wikipedia.org] As for coelacanths, I am again no biologist. I'll refer you to this paper, which is probably entirely relevant (as it examines the slow "evolution" and the poor genetic diversity of modern coelacanth), but more specifically pages 3-4 to answer your question. Actually, it's a short read and it discusses the idea of a "living fossil," so I would suggest its entirety. [link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com] Morphological similarity does not disprove evolution. In fact, it supports it, as morphologically similar finches must have come from the same finch, right? Well, those finches can no longer reproduce with each other, making them different species. This is the very definition of speciation and evolution... Oh, minor correction... Humans did not evolve from coelacanths specifically, but some lobe-finned fish. More importantly, we share many traits with our ancestors. Better yet, can you explain your interpretation of the fact that morphological similarity is reflected by genetic similarity? For example, why do humans and chimpanzees (which look very similar morphologically speaking) share a very large amount of the same genetics? And why do humans and fish, which have morphological similarities, share more genetics than say humans and snails? I ask because I am curious how you would explain that without an understanding of evolutionary theory... Yes, evolution(more specifically speciation) depends on a selective force of breeding. This force is environmental change in most cases, or geographic isolation. That is where natural selection comes into play. Of course life had to predate the natural selection, so we follow the path of evolution back through ancestors... This is modern biology. If you wish to discuss the origins of life, that's not covered in the theory of evolution, and you would need to consult an organic chemist on abiogenesis. That said, marine organisms are selectively fossilized by nature (see, naturally based on chemistry and physics...) so we have a pretty good record of brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and even extinct organisms like trilobites, which all had/have calcitic shells. There are indeed morphological changes through time observed in the fossil record, and I have already provided the link discussing the coelacanth's morphological changes, so they must clearly exist for at least some organisms, right? Here's a simple, yet very informative source about the trends of morphological change in trilobites... [link to www.trilobites.info] Independent of an original ancestor, by the way, those trends still remain true. Just because I cannot provide a single fossil and say "AH! This one is the ancestor to all x's" does not invalidate the rest of the chain. Again, I will tell you that evolution is likewise independent of abiogenesis. We did not "evolve from a rock." We might in fact be composed of elements from rocks (in fact, we certainly are...), but you cannot evolve anything (biologically speaking) before life even exists. If you cannot understand that, I sincerely cannot help you. Regards, Hydeman |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 55546885  United Kingdom07/29/2014 11:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| QCluminati User ID: 60902184  Canada07/29/2014 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59854873 United States07/29/2014 12:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Azadok61 User ID: 48171460 United States07/29/2014 12:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | He is waiting for his hand to evolve into a loosely formed fist so so he can take care of his penis that miraculously evolved into a bone like structure while watching this video of lucy and day dreaming of himself walking hand and paw with Lucy in a romantic primordial soup of evolution .  after all he says we are part banana because we share 50% of banana DNA So how could you not take him serious . |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 39658654 Canada07/29/2014 12:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | To both you creationalists and evolutionists, please explain this; [link to www.rexresearch.com] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 21577450 United States07/29/2014 12:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personally, I'd say such an experiment would be simple to replicate today, if you were curious... I've microscopically examined a lot of micaceous minerals in thin section (geology student) and have yet to see anything that could have been once alive... The fact that this occurred in the 1800's leads me to conclude, without other information, that these results were likely due to contamination, not spontaneous life generation. (As much as I'd love to see such a mechanism.) Also, I am skeptical of anyone who tries to sell me anything, so there's probably that too... |
| Azadok61 User ID: 48171460 United States07/29/2014 12:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you could just crack open those dull eyes for a moment and look at the stars, you would begin to understand why creationism is absolute horseshit. Quoting: Ullyssys You mean just the opposite, right? Are you going to post a valid, scientific refutation of my post, or are you simply going to start quoting bible verses until you foam at the mouth? Read your post .....look at the stars that proves creationism is bull shit ... What kind of statement is that ? It shows he thought process of a retard ! What will you tell us next look in the muddy puddle .....evolution is ocurring right before your eyes ..... The school systems have produced a generation of non critical thinkers who lack common sense and parrot any statement that tickles their ears to prove their religion of evolution . |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 39658654 Canada07/29/2014 12:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personally, I'd say such an experiment would be simple to replicate today, if you were curious... I've microscopically examined a lot of micaceous minerals in thin section (geology student) and have yet to see anything that could have been once alive... The fact that this occurred in the 1800's leads me to conclude, without other information, that these results were likely due to contamination, not spontaneous life generation. (As much as I'd love to see such a mechanism.) Also, I am skeptical of anyone who tries to sell me anything, so there's probably that too... Farraday replicated it My point is life manifests in ways we don't understand Crosse was bashed by the scientific community for discovering this. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59854873 United States07/29/2014 12:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 21577450 United States07/29/2014 12:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Personally, I'd say such an experiment would be simple to replicate today, if you were curious... I've microscopically examined a lot of micaceous minerals in thin section (geology student) and have yet to see anything that could have been once alive... The fact that this occurred in the 1800's leads me to conclude, without other information, that these results were likely due to contamination, not spontaneous life generation. (As much as I'd love to see such a mechanism.) Also, I am skeptical of anyone who tries to sell me anything, so there's probably that too... Farraday replicated it My point is life manifests in ways we don't understand Crosse was bashed by the scientific community for discovering this. Replication of a flawed method will consistently produce flawed results, and I don't care with scientific giant replicated it. :) That's the truth. There are two things to consider in science, accuracy and precision. Accuracy is the relative closeness to an accepted value (a standard, if you will). Precision is the repetition of getting a similar value. Both are independent, and you can be any combination of accurate/inaccurate and precise/imprecise. As for the experiment itself, it looks like it is open to the air. It was also made of a wooden frame. The lifeform "generated" was a known species that was known to reproduce, producing eggs. It just seems rather... easily contaminated. Like I said, you could reproduce the experiment, pretty easily, adjusting for those variables (open to environment/wooden frame) and see if you still "generate" eggs... This was early science, so I wouldn't fault the guy, I just don't think there's merit to his claims, is all. |
| Strudol User ID: 51745794 United States07/29/2014 01:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | this right here. While I am an atheist myself, there is no reason you cannot believe in evolution and god at the same time. Your god is all powerful, he can create the world any way he wants to. why would he plant all this evidence that says that the earth was formed over billions of years rather than six days? Student of Biology and proud supporter of evolution and the Big Bang theory |
| Strudol User ID: 51745794 United States07/29/2014 01:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Let's say evolution is true, what STARTED it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43391722 The universe is rocks and gas right? Combing them creates life?? yep. humans are carbon based life. where is carbon created? in the nuclear furnace that is a star. the point of evolution is not to explain how life started. Its only goal is to explain how life came to be as it is today. We KNOW for a a fact that life has evolved to this point from small changes over time, the evidence for this is overwhelming. Most scientists will freely admit that we don't know how life started. we have some ideas but no hard evidence like we do for evolution. Student of Biology and proud supporter of evolution and the Big Bang theory |
| Strudol User ID: 51745794 United States07/29/2014 01:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you could just crack open those dull eyes for a moment and look at the stars, you would begin to understand why creationism is absolute horseshit. Quoting: Ullyssys You mean just the opposite, right? Are you going to post a valid, scientific refutation of my post, or are you simply going to start quoting bible verses until you foam at the mouth? Wow. It's just as bad as saturated fat being bad for you.... whole grain food being good for you... sun is being bad for you... CO2 driven global warming is gonna kill us... and so on... Sorry but evolution theory is still a theory that can be completely debunked as we know one day... You are 100% correct. it can be proven incorect. Will it? Probably not. the evidence required to overturn all the evidence (from multiple branches of science no less) would have to be absolutely massive and indisputable. Student of Biology and proud supporter of evolution and the Big Bang theory |
| Rise Up for Truth User ID: 25975491 United States07/29/2014 01:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60583345 Belgium07/29/2014 02:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345 Crazy people? They are as normal as you are. They are just naturalist materialists, nothing more nothing less. Just like you, they have no answers, no evidence, nothing but empty words. Just some inferences and a whole lot of just-so stories that look and sound appealing to the simple minded. Why would the fossil record be limited? What we possess and have studied shows that no evolution has taken place. Have a look at a dragonfly, a bat, a tortoise and plenty of others. In some way the million and billions of year show a poor effort on the evolving part. But I guess they were already fit? Right? Fossilization is not a rare process, we have plenty of material on that subject from all kinds of recent natural events. It needs some conditions for sure, but you kind of give me the impression it needs a miracle. Evolution and natural selection producing things? How does a process like evolution based on chance, randomness and aspecially death of an organism give you an abundance of species/kinds? Does the adding happen by natural selection? You know, the theory that states selecting from minimum 2 things. You get less and less, not more and more. All right, I'll be fair here... Maybe they're not crazy. Maybe they're being misquoted? I have explained the limitation of the fossil record... It requires burial by sediment in the most basic of cases. Sediment only accumulates in watery conditions, with few exceptions (ash...). Thus, land organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. We also need to have the remains not decay or be scavenged and eaten. So, either rapid burial or hard parts that cannot be eaten or unique chemical conditions... (Anoxia, or extreme salinity are good examples.) This means soft bodied organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. This is logical, no? This is why I call fossilization rare. Sure, there are lots of fossil brachiopods, trilobites, bivalves, and corals, (all of which have hard body parts) but how often do you find a fossilized jellyfish? Not commonly, but rarely, and it is almost always a mold or imprint. I have no idea what you mean by no evolution of the dragonfly, bat, or tortoise? Do you mean to imply that because they have similar morphologies to fossil ancestors that this disproves evolution? There are no modern animals that are exactly the same as their fossilized ancestors. Even coelacanths are morphologically different species from fossil ones. In fact, this fits quite well with the theory of evolution... As for why they didn't change much, yes. They were well suited to their environment, and if that environment did not change, there would be no reason for a speciation event to occur (by which I mean no organisms with traits beneficial to a new environment would be naturally selected in that environment.) This isn't random. Evolution occurs on a population level. Sure, genetics are "random" on an individual basis. You are uniquely you. It's how your genetics interact with the environmental changes that determines your ability to pass on your unique genes and have your genes become the dominant genes of that species... As for adding, adding what? What "2 things?" I have no idea what you are trying to ask in that last paragraph. Please clarify. Regards, Hydeman Almost every naturalist materialist 'misquotes'. Just like you. It's great that for some unknown reason you need to explain away the fossil record, I only pointed out that a majority of the fauna and flaura in the fossil record, did not evolve over millions or billions of years. Hindsight examples are the tortoise group, dragonflies and bats. They enter the record and guess what, no big change happens over millions of years. If you don't see or want to see this, I can not help you. I think the scientific term is 'living fossils'. Coelacanths, great, tell me what is the evolutionary difference between the oldest fossilized coelacanths and the living and dead ones today? According to the evolution theory, we evolved from them, yet they don't even seem to have evolved as a species over millions of years. Not even mentioning the countless missing links. Yet they have fins and god knows, fins might turn into legs! Right? If you can't see that a theory like evolution theory and natural selection are deductionist or eliminatory processes, I sincerely can't help you. Again, the theory is based primarily on removals based on selection. Who or what does the selecting? From where exactly are the archetypes coming from whereon the selection happens? Where are the predecessors? Nowhere. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a human, swims like a human, and talks like a human, then it probably evolved from a rock that became alive in some premordial shitsoup that got struck by lightening and evolved over billions over years without any reasonable proof or evidence. How rational. Not even mentioning the grandeur of the fucking universe making this magical process at all possible. Bloody monkeys. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would attack my ideas instead of accusing me of misquoting. Or, better yet, if I have misquoted something, please clarify it. I am always open to learning. Now, I do not wish to "explain away" the fossil record. Quite the opposite, as I'm an avid fossil collector. I merely wished to show you the limitations of said record... There are limitations to all things, and they must be worked around if they are to be used... Sadly, my point was that land organisms are rarely preserved as fossils, while the vast majority of fossils preserved globally are marine in nature. I asked for clarification on the point of said organisms (bats, tortoises, and dragonflies), I did not misquote, I merely asked questions. To that point, they did evolve. Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern dragonflies show morphological differences, most noticeably size. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that... [link to en.wikipedia.org] As for coelacanths, I am again no biologist. I'll refer you to this paper, which is probably entirely relevant (as it examines the slow "evolution" and the poor genetic diversity of modern coelacanth), but more specifically pages 3-4 to answer your question. Actually, it's a short read and it discusses the idea of a "living fossil," so I would suggest its entirety. [link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com] Morphological similarity does not disprove evolution. In fact, it supports it, as morphologically similar finches must have come from the same finch, right? Well, those finches can no longer reproduce with each other, making them different species. This is the very definition of speciation and evolution... Oh, minor correction... Humans did not evolve from coelacanths specifically, but some lobe-finned fish. More importantly, we share many traits with our ancestors. Better yet, can you explain your interpretation of the fact that morphological similarity is reflected by genetic similarity? For example, why do humans and chimpanzees (which look very similar morphologically speaking) share a very large amount of the same genetics? And why do humans and fish, which have morphological similarities, share more genetics than say humans and snails? I ask because I am curious how you would explain that without an understanding of evolutionary theory... Yes, evolution(more specifically speciation) depends on a selective force of breeding. This force is environmental change in most cases, or geographic isolation. That is where natural selection comes into play. Of course life had to predate the natural selection, so we follow the path of evolution back through ancestors... This is modern biology. If you wish to discuss the origins of life, that's not covered in the theory of evolution, and you would need to consult an organic chemist on abiogenesis. That said, marine organisms are selectively fossilized by nature (see, naturally based on chemistry and physics...) so we have a pretty good record of brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and even extinct organisms like trilobites, which all had/have calcitic shells. There are indeed morphological changes through time observed in the fossil record, and I have already provided the link discussing the coelacanth's morphological changes, so they must clearly exist for at least some organisms, right? Here's a simple, yet very informative source about the trends of morphological change in trilobites... [link to www.trilobites.info] Independent of an original ancestor, by the way, those trends still remain true. Just because I cannot provide a single fossil and say "AH! This one is the ancestor to all x's" does not invalidate the rest of the chain. Again, I will tell you that evolution is likewise independent of abiogenesis. We did not "evolve from a rock." We might in fact be composed of elements from rocks (in fact, we certainly are...), but you cannot evolve anything (biologically speaking) before life even exists. If you cannot understand that, I sincerely cannot help you. Regards, Hydeman This is why I dislike debating with evolution theory believers. "We did not evolve from the coelacanth, we evolved from some lobe-fish!" "We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor of apes!" "Evolution and abiogenesis are different things!" "Rationality comes out of irrationality!" "Nothing became something and that something eventually turned into you, can't you see the evidence all around you! We do this in labs all the time!" .. Zero evidence, shitload of inference. For the love of god you are saying you evolved from a fish. |
| Strudol User ID: 51745794 United States07/29/2014 05:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: hydeman11 21577450 All right, I'll be fair here... Maybe they're not crazy. Maybe they're being misquoted? I have explained the limitation of the fossil record... It requires burial by sediment in the most basic of cases. Sediment only accumulates in watery conditions, with few exceptions (ash...). Thus, land organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. We also need to have the remains not decay or be scavenged and eaten. So, either rapid burial or hard parts that cannot be eaten or unique chemical conditions... (Anoxia, or extreme salinity are good examples.) This means soft bodied organisms are disproportionately less likely to be preserved. This is logical, no? This is why I call fossilization rare. Sure, there are lots of fossil brachiopods, trilobites, bivalves, and corals, (all of which have hard body parts) but how often do you find a fossilized jellyfish? Not commonly, but rarely, and it is almost always a mold or imprint. I have no idea what you mean by no evolution of the dragonfly, bat, or tortoise? Do you mean to imply that because they have similar morphologies to fossil ancestors that this disproves evolution? There are no modern animals that are exactly the same as their fossilized ancestors. Even coelacanths are morphologically different species from fossil ones. In fact, this fits quite well with the theory of evolution... As for why they didn't change much, yes. They were well suited to their environment, and if that environment did not change, there would be no reason for a speciation event to occur (by which I mean no organisms with traits beneficial to a new environment would be naturally selected in that environment.) This isn't random. Evolution occurs on a population level. Sure, genetics are "random" on an individual basis. You are uniquely you. It's how your genetics interact with the environmental changes that determines your ability to pass on your unique genes and have your genes become the dominant genes of that species... As for adding, adding what? What "2 things?" I have no idea what you are trying to ask in that last paragraph. Please clarify. Regards, Hydeman Almost every naturalist materialist 'misquotes'. Just like you. It's great that for some unknown reason you need to explain away the fossil record, I only pointed out that a majority of the fauna and flaura in the fossil record, did not evolve over millions or billions of years. Hindsight examples are the tortoise group, dragonflies and bats. They enter the record and guess what, no big change happens over millions of years. If you don't see or want to see this, I can not help you. I think the scientific term is 'living fossils'. Coelacanths, great, tell me what is the evolutionary difference between the oldest fossilized coelacanths and the living and dead ones today? According to the evolution theory, we evolved from them, yet they don't even seem to have evolved as a species over millions of years. Not even mentioning the countless missing links. Yet they have fins and god knows, fins might turn into legs! Right? If you can't see that a theory like evolution theory and natural selection are deductionist or eliminatory processes, I sincerely can't help you. Again, the theory is based primarily on removals based on selection. Who or what does the selecting? From where exactly are the archetypes coming from whereon the selection happens? Where are the predecessors? Nowhere. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a human, swims like a human, and talks like a human, then it probably evolved from a rock that became alive in some premordial shitsoup that got struck by lightening and evolved over billions over years without any reasonable proof or evidence. How rational. Not even mentioning the grandeur of the fucking universe making this magical process at all possible. Bloody monkeys. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would attack my ideas instead of accusing me of misquoting. Or, better yet, if I have misquoted something, please clarify it. I am always open to learning. Now, I do not wish to "explain away" the fossil record. Quite the opposite, as I'm an avid fossil collector. I merely wished to show you the limitations of said record... There are limitations to all things, and they must be worked around if they are to be used... Sadly, my point was that land organisms are rarely preserved as fossils, while the vast majority of fossils preserved globally are marine in nature. I asked for clarification on the point of said organisms (bats, tortoises, and dragonflies), I did not misquote, I merely asked questions. To that point, they did evolve. Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern dragonflies show morphological differences, most noticeably size. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that... [link to en.wikipedia.org] As for coelacanths, I am again no biologist. I'll refer you to this paper, which is probably entirely relevant (as it examines the slow "evolution" and the poor genetic diversity of modern coelacanth), but more specifically pages 3-4 to answer your question. Actually, it's a short read and it discusses the idea of a "living fossil," so I would suggest its entirety. [link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com] Morphological similarity does not disprove evolution. In fact, it supports it, as morphologically similar finches must have come from the same finch, right? Well, those finches can no longer reproduce with each other, making them different species. This is the very definition of speciation and evolution... Oh, minor correction... Humans did not evolve from coelacanths specifically, but some lobe-finned fish. More importantly, we share many traits with our ancestors. Better yet, can you explain your interpretation of the fact that morphological similarity is reflected by genetic similarity? For example, why do humans and chimpanzees (which look very similar morphologically speaking) share a very large amount of the same genetics? And why do humans and fish, which have morphological similarities, share more genetics than say humans and snails? I ask because I am curious how you would explain that without an understanding of evolutionary theory... Yes, evolution(more specifically speciation) depends on a selective force of breeding. This force is environmental change in most cases, or geographic isolation. That is where natural selection comes into play. Of course life had to predate the natural selection, so we follow the path of evolution back through ancestors... This is modern biology. If you wish to discuss the origins of life, that's not covered in the theory of evolution, and you would need to consult an organic chemist on abiogenesis. That said, marine organisms are selectively fossilized by nature (see, naturally based on chemistry and physics...) so we have a pretty good record of brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and even extinct organisms like trilobites, which all had/have calcitic shells. There are indeed morphological changes through time observed in the fossil record, and I have already provided the link discussing the coelacanth's morphological changes, so they must clearly exist for at least some organisms, right? Here's a simple, yet very informative source about the trends of morphological change in trilobites... [link to www.trilobites.info] Independent of an original ancestor, by the way, those trends still remain true. Just because I cannot provide a single fossil and say "AH! This one is the ancestor to all x's" does not invalidate the rest of the chain. Again, I will tell you that evolution is likewise independent of abiogenesis. We did not "evolve from a rock." We might in fact be composed of elements from rocks (in fact, we certainly are...), but you cannot evolve anything (biologically speaking) before life even exists. If you cannot understand that, I sincerely cannot help you. Regards, Hydeman This is why I dislike debating with evolution theory believers. "We did not evolve from the coelacanth, we evolved from some lobe-fish!" "We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor of apes!" "Evolution and abiogenesis are different things!" "Rationality comes out of irrationality!" "Nothing became something and that something eventually turned into you, can't you see the evidence all around you! We do this in labs all the time!" .. Zero evidence, shitload of inference. For the love of god you are saying you evolved from a fish. you want evidence? We present it and people like you dissmiss it as bullshit because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. we didn't evolve from the celocanth. why is this even a question? common ancestor: Also true, and we have the DNA evidence to prove it as well as fossil evidence. Evolution and abiogenisis ARE different things. you want evidence? please ask, I will be more than happy to provide some. And we technically evolved fro ma fish, all life is descended from the same source and at some point had to migrate from the ocean to the land somehow. And another thing, you as for evidence and provide none of your own. I only see creationists attempting to refute evolution, i never see you posting evidence of your own. Where is the evidence that life spontaneously appeared 6000 years ago? how are is human genes so diverse if we're descended two people? I eagerly await the scientific papers showing the numerous evidence in favor of creationism. Student of Biology and proud supporter of evolution and the Big Bang theory |
| Nachos User ID: 60937577  Australia07/30/2014 06:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | He is waiting for his hand to evolve into a loosely formed fist so so he can take care of his penis that miraculously evolved into a bone like structure while watching this video of lucy and day dreaming of himself walking hand and paw with Lucy in a romantic primordial soup of evolution . after all he says we are part banana because we share 50% of banana DNA So how could you not take him serious .Your avatar fits you perfectly When did I say we are part banana? We share DNA, that is a fact. Just like all mammals share DNA and all of life |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 60583345 Belgium07/30/2014 07:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 60583345 Almost every naturalist materialist 'misquotes'. Just like you. It's great that for some unknown reason you need to explain away the fossil record, I only pointed out that a majority of the fauna and flaura in the fossil record, did not evolve over millions or billions of years. Hindsight examples are the tortoise group, dragonflies and bats. They enter the record and guess what, no big change happens over millions of years. If you don't see or want to see this, I can not help you. I think the scientific term is 'living fossils'. Coelacanths, great, tell me what is the evolutionary difference between the oldest fossilized coelacanths and the living and dead ones today? According to the evolution theory, we evolved from them, yet they don't even seem to have evolved as a species over millions of years. Not even mentioning the countless missing links. Yet they have fins and god knows, fins might turn into legs! Right? If you can't see that a theory like evolution theory and natural selection are deductionist or eliminatory processes, I sincerely can't help you. Again, the theory is based primarily on removals based on selection. Who or what does the selecting? From where exactly are the archetypes coming from whereon the selection happens? Where are the predecessors? Nowhere. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a human, swims like a human, and talks like a human, then it probably evolved from a rock that became alive in some premordial shitsoup that got struck by lightening and evolved over billions over years without any reasonable proof or evidence. How rational. Not even mentioning the grandeur of the fucking universe making this magical process at all possible. Bloody monkeys. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would attack my ideas instead of accusing me of misquoting. Or, better yet, if I have misquoted something, please clarify it. I am always open to learning. Now, I do not wish to "explain away" the fossil record. Quite the opposite, as I'm an avid fossil collector. I merely wished to show you the limitations of said record... There are limitations to all things, and they must be worked around if they are to be used... Sadly, my point was that land organisms are rarely preserved as fossils, while the vast majority of fossils preserved globally are marine in nature. I asked for clarification on the point of said organisms (bats, tortoises, and dragonflies), I did not misquote, I merely asked questions. To that point, they did evolve. Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern dragonflies show morphological differences, most noticeably size. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that... [link to en.wikipedia.org] As for coelacanths, I am again no biologist. I'll refer you to this paper, which is probably entirely relevant (as it examines the slow "evolution" and the poor genetic diversity of modern coelacanth), but more specifically pages 3-4 to answer your question. Actually, it's a short read and it discusses the idea of a "living fossil," so I would suggest its entirety. [link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com] Morphological similarity does not disprove evolution. In fact, it supports it, as morphologically similar finches must have come from the same finch, right? Well, those finches can no longer reproduce with each other, making them different species. This is the very definition of speciation and evolution... Oh, minor correction... Humans did not evolve from coelacanths specifically, but some lobe-finned fish. More importantly, we share many traits with our ancestors. Better yet, can you explain your interpretation of the fact that morphological similarity is reflected by genetic similarity? For example, why do humans and chimpanzees (which look very similar morphologically speaking) share a very large amount of the same genetics? And why do humans and fish, which have morphological similarities, share more genetics than say humans and snails? I ask because I am curious how you would explain that without an understanding of evolutionary theory... Yes, evolution(more specifically speciation) depends on a selective force of breeding. This force is environmental change in most cases, or geographic isolation. That is where natural selection comes into play. Of course life had to predate the natural selection, so we follow the path of evolution back through ancestors... This is modern biology. If you wish to discuss the origins of life, that's not covered in the theory of evolution, and you would need to consult an organic chemist on abiogenesis. That said, marine organisms are selectively fossilized by nature (see, naturally based on chemistry and physics...) so we have a pretty good record of brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and even extinct organisms like trilobites, which all had/have calcitic shells. There are indeed morphological changes through time observed in the fossil record, and I have already provided the link discussing the coelacanth's morphological changes, so they must clearly exist for at least some organisms, right? Here's a simple, yet very informative source about the trends of morphological change in trilobites... [link to www.trilobites.info] Independent of an original ancestor, by the way, those trends still remain true. Just because I cannot provide a single fossil and say "AH! This one is the ancestor to all x's" does not invalidate the rest of the chain. Again, I will tell you that evolution is likewise independent of abiogenesis. We did not "evolve from a rock." We might in fact be composed of elements from rocks (in fact, we certainly are...), but you cannot evolve anything (biologically speaking) before life even exists. If you cannot understand that, I sincerely cannot help you. Regards, Hydeman This is why I dislike debating with evolution theory believers. "We did not evolve from the coelacanth, we evolved from some lobe-fish!" "We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor of apes!" "Evolution and abiogenesis are different things!" "Rationality comes out of irrationality!" "Nothing became something and that something eventually turned into you, can't you see the evidence all around you! We do this in labs all the time!" .. Zero evidence, shitload of inference. For the love of god you are saying you evolved from a fish. you want evidence? We present it and people like you dissmiss it as bullshit because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. we didn't evolve from the celocanth. why is this even a question? common ancestor: Also true, and we have the DNA evidence to prove it as well as fossil evidence. Evolution and abiogenisis ARE different things. you want evidence? please ask, I will be more than happy to provide some. And we technically evolved fro ma fish, all life is descended from the same source and at some point had to migrate from the ocean to the land somehow. And another thing, you as for evidence and provide none of your own. I only see creationists attempting to refute evolution, i never see you posting evidence of your own. Where is the evidence that life spontaneously appeared 6000 years ago? how are is human genes so diverse if we're descended two people? I eagerly await the scientific papers showing the numerous evidence in favor of creationism. Who thinks I am a creationist? Who thinks I believe in the bible? I think you have some serious inference issues. You are simply believing what you are thinking without any rational evidence. I on the other hand, am simply not agreeing with the evolution theory magix. That theory needs a hell of a lot more belief than most religions do. Hell it's the only scientific theory that contains the word 'chance'. Well perhaps the multiverse bs could be added to that, that also presumes some lottery related event. You think that scientists all over the world, that are against evolution theory are imbeciles my friend? You willingly choose to put a blindfold on yourself by believing a naturalist materialist theory, others simply don't, and then you get mad at them, start spewing out inference after inference containing your shitty knowledge of theology mixed with some shitty knowledge and much generalization of basic biology. In the end, that's why I love atheists and natural materialists, eventually, the idiots turn on eachother because of the incoherence of their beliefs and lack of general structure of their beliefs. I'll just be sitting here, waiting for the natural selection to happen to you. Hopefully by a guy or a chick with a big gun, claiming his or her alphaness is a need for a better future. PS Posting evidence? If something is or might be wrong and some superintellect like yourself believes in it's correctness without any scientific evidence in it's favor. There's simply no need for other evidence. Why do you even bother asking? I feel sorry for you. Cheers |
| Nachos User ID: 60947063 Australia07/30/2014 09:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: hydeman11 21577450 Sir, I would appreciate it if you would attack my ideas instead of accusing me of misquoting. Or, better yet, if I have misquoted something, please clarify it. I am always open to learning. Now, I do not wish to "explain away" the fossil record. Quite the opposite, as I'm an avid fossil collector. I merely wished to show you the limitations of said record... There are limitations to all things, and they must be worked around if they are to be used... Sadly, my point was that land organisms are rarely preserved as fossils, while the vast majority of fossils preserved globally are marine in nature. I asked for clarification on the point of said organisms (bats, tortoises, and dragonflies), I did not misquote, I merely asked questions. To that point, they did evolve. Fossil remains of the ancestors of modern dragonflies show morphological differences, most noticeably size. I'm not a biologist, but even I can see that... [link to en.wikipedia.org] As for coelacanths, I am again no biologist. I'll refer you to this paper, which is probably entirely relevant (as it examines the slow "evolution" and the poor genetic diversity of modern coelacanth), but more specifically pages 3-4 to answer your question. Actually, it's a short read and it discusses the idea of a "living fossil," so I would suggest its entirety. [link to onlinelibrary.wiley.com] Morphological similarity does not disprove evolution. In fact, it supports it, as morphologically similar finches must have come from the same finch, right? Well, those finches can no longer reproduce with each other, making them different species. This is the very definition of speciation and evolution... Oh, minor correction... Humans did not evolve from coelacanths specifically, but some lobe-finned fish. More importantly, we share many traits with our ancestors. Better yet, can you explain your interpretation of the fact that morphological similarity is reflected by genetic similarity? For example, why do humans and chimpanzees (which look very similar morphologically speaking) share a very large amount of the same genetics? And why do humans and fish, which have morphological similarities, share more genetics than say humans and snails? I ask because I am curious how you would explain that without an understanding of evolutionary theory... Yes, evolution(more specifically speciation) depends on a selective force of breeding. This force is environmental change in most cases, or geographic isolation. That is where natural selection comes into play. Of course life had to predate the natural selection, so we follow the path of evolution back through ancestors... This is modern biology. If you wish to discuss the origins of life, that's not covered in the theory of evolution, and you would need to consult an organic chemist on abiogenesis. That said, marine organisms are selectively fossilized by nature (see, naturally based on chemistry and physics...) so we have a pretty good record of brachiopods, bivalves, echinoderms, and even extinct organisms like trilobites, which all had/have calcitic shells. There are indeed morphological changes through time observed in the fossil record, and I have already provided the link discussing the coelacanth's morphological changes, so they must clearly exist for at least some organisms, right? Here's a simple, yet very informative source about the trends of morphological change in trilobites... [link to www.trilobites.info] Independent of an original ancestor, by the way, those trends still remain true. Just because I cannot provide a single fossil and say "AH! This one is the ancestor to all x's" does not invalidate the rest of the chain. Again, I will tell you that evolution is likewise independent of abiogenesis. We did not "evolve from a rock." We might in fact be composed of elements from rocks (in fact, we certainly are...), but you cannot evolve anything (biologically speaking) before life even exists. If you cannot understand that, I sincerely cannot help you. Regards, Hydeman This is why I dislike debating with evolution theory believers. "We did not evolve from the coelacanth, we evolved from some lobe-fish!" "We did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor of apes!" "Evolution and abiogenesis are different things!" "Rationality comes out of irrationality!" "Nothing became something and that something eventually turned into you, can't you see the evidence all around you! We do this in labs all the time!" .. Zero evidence, shitload of inference. For the love of god you are saying you evolved from a fish. you want evidence? We present it and people like you dissmiss it as bullshit because it doesn't line up with your beliefs. we didn't evolve from the celocanth. why is this even a question? common ancestor: Also true, and we have the DNA evidence to prove it as well as fossil evidence. Evolution and abiogenisis ARE different things. you want evidence? please ask, I will be more than happy to provide some. And we technically evolved fro ma fish, all life is descended from the same source and at some point had to migrate from the ocean to the land somehow. And another thing, you as for evidence and provide none of your own. I only see creationists attempting to refute evolution, i never see you posting evidence of your own. Where is the evidence that life spontaneously appeared 6000 years ago? how are is human genes so diverse if we're descended two people? I eagerly await the scientific papers showing the numerous evidence in favor of creationism. Who thinks I am a creationist? Who thinks I believe in the bible? I think you have some serious inference issues. You are simply believing what you are thinking without any rational evidence. I on the other hand, am simply not agreeing with the evolution theory magix. That theory needs a hell of a lot more belief than most religions do. Hell it's the only scientific theory that contains the word 'chance'. Well perhaps the multiverse bs could be added to that, that also presumes some lottery related event. You think that scientists all over the world, that are against evolution theory are imbeciles my friend? You willingly choose to put a blindfold on yourself by believing a naturalist materialist theory, others simply don't, and then you get mad at them, start spewing out inference after inference containing your shitty knowledge of theology mixed with some shitty knowledge and much generalization of basic biology. In the end, that's why I love atheists and natural materialists, eventually, the idiots turn on eachother because of the incoherence of their beliefs and lack of general structure of their beliefs. I'll just be sitting here, waiting for the natural selection to happen to you. Hopefully by a guy or a chick with a big gun, claiming his or her alphaness is a need for a better future. PS Posting evidence? If something is or might be wrong and some superintellect like yourself believes in it's correctness without any scientific evidence in it's favor. There's simply no need for other evidence. Why do you even bother asking? I feel sorry for you. Cheers Shared orthologous Endogenous retroviruses between multiple species basically prove common descent beyond reasonable doubt. You would have to be ignorant of evolution to reject it. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1506382  Mexico07/30/2014 09:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
