|
|
| Macro-Evolution to be proved false? |
| yes |
|
57% |
[ 8 ] |
| no |
|
42% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:51 pm
Element is my rp name Lethkhar Goldenlici Alright, I'm not really going to debate every little thing you said, because that is just nit-picking at this point. I am a science student, whether I sound it or not. However, I do see your point about "theories". I believe that could have it's own forum topic, but at this point, it's not that important. Just remember that laws almost always include numbers and a relationship of some sort. Obviously, there is no such thing as a biological law. Quote: About science changing and religion not, you said exactly my point. Science changes when it is flawed. What is to say it's not flawed now and will change again? Do you believe in something you know is flawed? Let me answer this by telling you a very simple fact: I have not voted on the above survey. I do not know if evolution will be proven wrong. It's perfectly possible, in which case I will embrace the change to a more accurate hypothesis. However, given the amount of evidence in its favor I choose to believe in it at the time being over any opposing hypothesis that do not hold nearly as much evidence. Science changes when it is flawed. It does this so it will remain as "correct" as possible. Religion does not. Thus, what is to say that religion is not flawed? In fact, chances are that what you believe is much more wrong than what I believe simply because your belief hasn't changed in thousands of years and mine is constantly editing itself to fit with modern discoveries. Quote: Just as much as the Bible has not changed, the books trying to explain the Bible have. There are thousands of books that try to interpret the Bible, and, yes, honestly, sometimes they are flawed. But, no one has ever found a fundamental flaw in the Bible that can be proven. Simply saying that Jesus did not exist and was not a virgin-born child is not enough to disprove that He existed. No one has ever found the body of a man that could be Jesus, so He could or could not have existed. No flaws in the Bible? lol Surely you jest? I can think of several off the top of my head. But that's another discussion, I suppose. Quote: First off, the book I will be using is actually a compilation of facts already organized by someone else. The book is called "Creation by Design" by Mark Eastman, M.D. with general editor Chuck Smith and is distributed by "The Word for Today" publishing. The web site is www.twft.com. If you go to this link, click on the "products" title on the top of the site, then search for "creation" and you'll see the book I'm talking about. However, this book uses (and sites) 25 other sources from science. I'll list them as I use them. What would you like me to address first? I'll address some facts in another post, since this one is getting a little long. Go ahead. Real quick, though: What's the publishing date? here is a point that you pointed out but probabily didn't notice, science is always having to change its story when proof is found to be put against it, like a lier does. where as the bible has not changed its story over the years and there is always new proof found to be supporting and disproving it but it hasn't changed at all, like a truth teller. Oh my God... eek I'm sorry, I'm just appalled...How on earth...? I mean, do you even look at what you're saying? Ok, deep breath...I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible. I realise that I can be a bit brisk at times and this last statement has made me somewhat exasperated. Ok, here we go...Yes, science changes. It is a man-made creation, of course it is going to be flawed. If science didn't change, we sould still believe the sun revolved around the earth and such. But that's the beauty of science. We realized our mistake and changed it. Science never "lies". It worked best with what it had at the time and, when people like Galileo came along, it edited itself to be as correct as possible. The Bible isn't changed, yes. But that doesn't make it any more true. I could tell you about God's pet monkey Bobo over and over again for millenia, but that doesn't make Bobo any more real. Just repeating something does not make it true. If you don't edit yourself to fit with new discoveries, the fact is that you are wrong. You even admitted it's been disproven. That in itself should show you why science must be edited. Scientists don't hide past mistakes. They openly admit that science has been wrong before. Yes, evolution could be wrong. But it's the best we've got right now and I will believe it until it's disproven like the Bible was centuries ago.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:00 pm
Goldenlici Again, breeds of dogs may be "subspecies" but they are still just different looking "dogs" and the same for humans. Subspecies-A subdivision of a species of organisms, usually based on geographic distribution. The subspecies name is written in lowercase italics following the species name. For example, Gorilla gorilla gorilla is the western lowland gorilla, and Gorilla gorilla graueri is the eastern lowland gorilla. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subspecies) I believe in "adaptation" but I do not believe in "evolution." Before you tell me they are the same thing, I have to say they really are not, at all. Adaption is the change within an already existent species, not the formation of a new species. The addition of subspecies is just a way to distinguish differences. For example, if you were looking for someone and asked someone to help you look, you wouldn't just say, " I was looking for a man." That would not be informative. You would say something like, "I'm looking for a irish man with red hair." Subspecies is just a way for scientists to "describe" an animal without going into a long drawn out explination. This is not evidence either for or against evolution. Evolution is "the change in the inherited traits of a population from generation to generation". Believe it or not, you believe in evolution. Quote: Quote: Quote: There isn't one. A lion can't impregnate a horse. Thus, you prove my last point. Species can't interbreed because they are too different. Why would they be so completely different if the point of evolution is to find the one "perfect" trait in each organism? If Darwinism was right about this, there would not be such a variety of completely different organisms. Wow...I grossly overestimated your understanding of evolutionary theory. I don't have time to go into detail, and I'm about to go on vacation, but in a month I think I will make an involved disussion explaining evolution. I will leave at this for now: Different species hold different roles in their environment called "niches". The idea behind evolution is that when one organism, such as a plant, developes something that gives it an advanteage in the wild, such as poison, then it is more likely to survive and will pass its genes on to develope a poisonous plant. Now, if the creature that normally eats that plant developes a strain of itself that can tolerate the poison, then those herbivores will survive while their distant cousins die. We all do have genes that are well-suited to our orginal environment. This means that we have genes to fit our particular niche. We're not all the same species because then we would all die out with nothing to eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:29 am
Lethkar, you may have "overestimated" my understanding. I'll concede that. I will take whatever information you give and consider it. I have already told you I do not know the specifics of everything. Evolution. Very well, by your definition I do believe in "evolution" as the change within a species; but, I do not believe in the theory Darwin wrongly called "evolution." Darwinism claims more than the scope of your definition of "evolution." Where did these "different species [who] hold different roles in their environment" come from? Whether or not you believe in Darwinism, you still have to account for where these species came from originally. For different species to have developed from a variety of organisms, the variety of organisms had to come from somewhere. If these "different species" were evolutions of something else, my point still stands. Quote: Thus, you prove my last point. Species can't interbreed because they are too different. Why would they be so completely different if the point of evolution is to find the one "perfect" trait in each organism? If Darwinism was right about this, there would not be such a variety of completely different organisms You have yet to disprove this point. You are spouting facts about Darwinism, but you have yet to figure them out for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:50 am
Lethkhar Element is my rp name Lethkhar Goldenlici Alright, I'm not really going to debate every little thing you said, because that is just nit-picking at this point. I am a science student, whether I sound it or not. However, I do see your point about "theories". I believe that could have it's own forum topic, but at this point, it's not that important. Just remember that laws almost always include numbers and a relationship of some sort. Obviously, there is no such thing as a biological law. Quote: About science changing and religion not, you said exactly my point. Science changes when it is flawed. What is to say it's not flawed now and will change again? Do you believe in something you know is flawed? Let me answer this by telling you a very simple fact: I have not voted on the above survey. I do not know if evolution will be proven wrong. It's perfectly possible, in which case I will embrace the change to a more accurate hypothesis. However, given the amount of evidence in its favor I choose to believe in it at the time being over any opposing hypothesis that do not hold nearly as much evidence. Science changes when it is flawed. It does this so it will remain as "correct" as possible. Religion does not. Thus, what is to say that religion is not flawed? In fact, chances are that what you believe is much more wrong than what I believe simply because your belief hasn't changed in thousands of years and mine is constantly editing itself to fit with modern discoveries. Quote: Just as much as the Bible has not changed, the books trying to explain the Bible have. There are thousands of books that try to interpret the Bible, and, yes, honestly, sometimes they are flawed. But, no one has ever found a fundamental flaw in the Bible that can be proven. Simply saying that Jesus did not exist and was not a virgin-born child is not enough to disprove that He existed. No one has ever found the body of a man that could be Jesus, so He could or could not have existed. No flaws in the Bible? lol Surely you jest? I can think of several off the top of my head. But that's another discussion, I suppose. Quote: First off, the book I will be using is actually a compilation of facts already organized by someone else. The book is called "Creation by Design" by Mark Eastman, M.D. with general editor Chuck Smith and is distributed by "The Word for Today" publishing. The web site is www.twft.com. If you go to this link, click on the "products" title on the top of the site, then search for "creation" and you'll see the book I'm talking about. However, this book uses (and sites) 25 other sources from science. I'll list them as I use them. What would you like me to address first? I'll address some facts in another post, since this one is getting a little long. Go ahead. Real quick, though: What's the publishing date? here is a point that you pointed out but probabily didn't notice, science is always having to change its story when proof is found to be put against it, like a lier does. where as the bible has not changed its story over the years and there is always new proof found to be supporting and disproving it but it hasn't changed at all, like a truth teller. Oh my God... eek I'm sorry, I'm just appalled...How on earth...? I mean, do you even look at what you're saying? Ok, deep breath...I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible. I realise that I can be a bit brisk at times and this last statement has made me somewhat exasperated. Ok, here we go...Yes, science changes. It is a man-made creation, of course it is going to be flawed. If science didn't change, we sould still believe the sun revolved around the earth and such. But that's the beauty of science. We realized our mistake and changed it. Science never "lies". It worked best with what it had at the time and, when people like Galileo came along, it edited itself to be as correct as possible. The Bible isn't changed, yes. But that doesn't make it any more true. I could tell you about God's pet monkey Bobo over and over again for millenia, but that doesn't make Bobo any more real. Just repeating something does not make it true. If you don't edit yourself to fit with new discoveries, the fact is that you are wrong. You even admitted it's been disproven. That in itself should show you why science must be edited. Scientists don't hide past mistakes. They openly admit that science has been wrong before. Yes, evolution could be wrong. But it's the best we've got right now and I will believe it until it's disproven like the Bible was centuries ago. The Bible was inspired by God, thus there are no fundamental mistakes. As for "changing with the times," God knows the "beginning from the end," so He knows anything that would change and has written accordingly. The Bible has not changed in centuries, so if you please, show me a time when it has needed to be changed. Are you honestly trying to prove a point for science by saying it is flawed so that makes it better than something that is not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:03 pm
Goldenlici Lethkhar Element is my rp name Lethkhar Goldenlici Alright, I'm not really going to debate every little thing you said, because that is just nit-picking at this point. I am a science student, whether I sound it or not. However, I do see your point about "theories". I believe that could have it's own forum topic, but at this point, it's not that important. Just remember that laws almost always include numbers and a relationship of some sort. Obviously, there is no such thing as a biological law. Quote: About science changing and religion not, you said exactly my point. Science changes when it is flawed. What is to say it's not flawed now and will change again? Do you believe in something you know is flawed? Let me answer this by telling you a very simple fact: I have not voted on the above survey. I do not know if evolution will be proven wrong. It's perfectly possible, in which case I will embrace the change to a more accurate hypothesis. However, given the amount of evidence in its favor I choose to believe in it at the time being over any opposing hypothesis that do not hold nearly as much evidence. Science changes when it is flawed. It does this so it will remain as "correct" as possible. Religion does not. Thus, what is to say that religion is not flawed? In fact, chances are that what you believe is much more wrong than what I believe simply because your belief hasn't changed in thousands of years and mine is constantly editing itself to fit with modern discoveries. Quote: Just as much as the Bible has not changed, the books trying to explain the Bible have. There are thousands of books that try to interpret the Bible, and, yes, honestly, sometimes they are flawed. But, no one has ever found a fundamental flaw in the Bible that can be proven. Simply saying that Jesus did not exist and was not a virgin-born child is not enough to disprove that He existed. No one has ever found the body of a man that could be Jesus, so He could or could not have existed. No flaws in the Bible? lol Surely you jest? I can think of several off the top of my head. But that's another discussion, I suppose. Quote: First off, the book I will be using is actually a compilation of facts already organized by someone else. The book is called "Creation by Design" by Mark Eastman, M.D. with general editor Chuck Smith and is distributed by "The Word for Today" publishing. The web site is www.twft.com. If you go to this link, click on the "products" title on the top of the site, then search for "creation" and you'll see the book I'm talking about. However, this book uses (and sites) 25 other sources from science. I'll list them as I use them. What would you like me to address first? I'll address some facts in another post, since this one is getting a little long. Go ahead. Real quick, though: What's the publishing date? here is a point that you pointed out but probabily didn't notice, science is always having to change its story when proof is found to be put against it, like a lier does. where as the bible has not changed its story over the years and there is always new proof found to be supporting and disproving it but it hasn't changed at all, like a truth teller. Oh my God... eek I'm sorry, I'm just appalled...How on earth...? I mean, do you even look at what you're saying? Ok, deep breath...I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible. I realise that I can be a bit brisk at times and this last statement has made me somewhat exasperated. Ok, here we go...Yes, science changes. It is a man-made creation, of course it is going to be flawed. If science didn't change, we sould still believe the sun revolved around the earth and such. But that's the beauty of science. We realized our mistake and changed it. Science never "lies". It worked best with what it had at the time and, when people like Galileo came along, it edited itself to be as correct as possible. The Bible isn't changed, yes. But that doesn't make it any more true. I could tell you about God's pet monkey Bobo over and over again for millenia, but that doesn't make Bobo any more real. Just repeating something does not make it true. If you don't edit yourself to fit with new discoveries, the fact is that you are wrong. You even admitted it's been disproven. That in itself should show you why science must be edited. Scientists don't hide past mistakes. They openly admit that science has been wrong before. Yes, evolution could be wrong. But it's the best we've got right now and I will believe it until it's disproven like the Bible was centuries ago. The Bible was inspired by God, thus there are no fundamental mistakes. As for "changing with the times," God knows the "beginning from the end," so He knows anything that would change and has written accordingly. The Bible has not changed in centuries, so if you please, show me a time when it has needed to be changed. First of all, there is no conclusive evidence for God even existing, much less inspiring the Bible. Therefore, you cannot make the claim that the Bible has no fundamental mistakes. Second of all, the Bible actually has been edited numerous times in the past. I've been ignoring this point because I saw it as irrelevant, but I thought you should know. Quote: Are you honestly trying to prove a point for science by saying it is flawed so that makes it better than something that is not? I'm not saying that. I'm saying that both science and the Bible are flawed. The Bible is just way more outdated and therefore probably more flawed than modern science. For instance: Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. This is one of the many references in the Bible that were used to accuse Galileo of heresy and place him under house arrest for the rest of his life because he had suggested that the earth was spherical. Or are you going to present me with conclusive evidence that the earth is, in fact, a rectangle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:06 pm
The Bible has been edited. Yes. I know that. The Bible has been translated and thus lost much of it's original words. Yes. I know that, too. However, the spirit of the Bible is still very much intact and that is the "fundamental" stuff I am talking about. Quote: I'm saying that both science and the Bible are flawed. The Bible is just way more outdated and therefore probably more flawed than modern science. What more do you want me to say? The Bible is old, yes, but that does not make it outdated. The principles established by many ancient cultures are still being practiced today. We have proof that ancient cultures, such as the Mayans, used many of the same scientific principles that we use today. People are so quick to say that our generation is so much smarter than the past, but archeologists are constantly finding ancient civilizations that possed knowledge equal, if not greater than what we know. I have done an indepth study into the entire book of Revelation with my church and here is what I know. True, the Bible was inspired by God, but it was written by a man. John wrote the book as he saw it in his vision from God. He did not posses the vocabulary that we utilize today. There are many references in the book of Revelations to things that could possibly be nuclear weapons, but John would never have known the words "nuclear" or "atomic bomb" or things like that. Also, John mentions a point in his vision in which people all over the world see something at the same time where they are, like television. However, John would not have been able to explain a "television" in any other way. Thus, when he says "I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth," he could have meant four continents or the four hemispheres or simply four angels standing on the four furthest points from where he was standing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:08 pm
Do you have a point for macro-evolution? And, are you going to answer this question: Quote: Where did these "different species [who] hold different roles in their environment" come from? Whether or not you believe in Darwinism, you still have to account for where these species came from originally. For different species to have developed from a variety of organisms, the variety of organisms had to come from somewhere. If these "different species" were evolutions of something else, my point still stands. Thus, you prove my last point. Species can't interbreed because they are too different. Why would they be so completely different if the point of evolution is to find the one "perfect" trait in each organism? If Darwinism was right about this, there would not be such a variety of completely different organisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:20 pm
Goldenlici Lethkar, you may have "overestimated" my understanding. I'll concede that. I will take whatever information you give and consider it. I have already told you I do not know the specifics of everything. Evolution. Very well, by your definition I do believe in "evolution" as the change within a species; but, I do not believe in the theory Darwin wrongly called "evolution." Darwinism claims more than the scope of your definition of "evolution." Where did these "different species [who] hold different roles in their environment" come from? Whether or not you believe in Darwinism, you still have to account for where these species came from originally. For different species to have developed from a variety of organisms, the variety of organisms had to come from somewhere. If these "different species" were evolutions of something else, my point still stands. Quote: Thus, you prove my last point. Species can't interbreed because they are too different. Why would they be so completely different if the point of evolution is to find the one "perfect" trait in each organism? If Darwinism was right about this, there would not be such a variety of completely different organisms You have yet to disprove this point. You are spouting facts about Darwinism, but you have yet to figure them out for yourself. 1. Evolution as Darwin defined it almost 200 years ago is long outdated. 2. I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. You have to remember that evolution isn't really guided. It's more or less random, with the only control coming from the environment and the traits it favors. Organisms are different because environments are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:26 pm
Goldenlici The Bible has been edited. Yes. I know that. The Bible has been translated and thus lost much of it's original words. Yes. I know that, too. However, the spirit of the Bible is still very much intact and that is the "fundamental" stuff I am talking about. Quote: I'm saying that both science and the Bible are flawed. The Bible is just way more outdated and therefore probably more flawed than modern science. What more do you want me to say? The Bible is old, yes, but that does not make it outdated. The principles established by many ancient cultures are still being practiced today. We have proof that ancient cultures, such as the Mayans, used many of the same scientific principles that we use today. People are so quick to say that our generation is so much smarter than the past, but archeologists are constantly finding ancient civilizations that possed knowledge equal, if not greater than what we know. Did the Mayans launch rockets? Not that I know of. I believe most of that empire died out. Quote: I have done an indepth study into the entire book of Revelation with my church and here is what I know. True, the Bible was inspired by God, but it was written by a man. John wrote the book as he saw it in his vision from God. He did not posses the vocabulary that we utilize today. There are many references in the book of Revelations to things that could possibly be nuclear weapons, but John would never have known the words "nuclear" or "atomic bomb" or things like that. Also, John mentions a point in his vision in which people all over the world see something at the same time where they are, like television. However, John would not have been able to explain a "television" in any other way. Thus, when he says "I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth," he could have meant four continents or the four hemispheres or simply four angels standing on the four furthest points from where he was standing. It's all up to interpretation, isn't it? Science doesn't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:30 pm
Goldenlici Do you have a point for macro-evolution? "Macro-evolution" isn't a scientific term. I don't even think it's a word. So no, I don't. Quote: And, are you going to answer this question: Where did these "different species [who] hold different roles in their environment" come from? Whether or not you believe in Darwinism, you still have to account for where these species came from originally. For different species to have developed from a variety of organisms, the variety of organisms had to come from somewhere. If these "different species" were evolutions of something else, my point still stands. What was that point again? Quote: Thus, you prove my last point. Species can't interbreed because they are too different. Why would they be so completely different if the point of evolution is to find the one "perfect" trait in each organism? That isn't the point of evolution. The point of evolution is gene variation and adaption. Quote: If Darwinism was right about this, there would not be such a variety of completely different organisms. Actually, evolution implies that there is a variety of different organisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:26 am
I am just going to make one post in response to all of your posts, otherwise, I think it would get confusing. So, let me know if I missed something. Evolution defined by Darwin is outdated. I wish you would get over semantics. Fine, I'll use the correct word for the current theory: the neo-Darwinian synthesis. All the arguments I have been using are for this latest theory. Quote: Did the Mayans launch rockets? How do we know they didn't? I have watched shows on the robots created by ancient Greeks. The mayan empire died out. Yes. So, did all the other empires that followed, and soon, I'm sure the current empires are going to die out as well. I know there are descendents of the mayans in the world, but the empire itself is dead. Science not up to interpretation? Science is all about how a human interprets the data it observes. Check out A Different Light's topic "a good video" for more of my argument on that particular topic. Quote: And, are you going to answer this question: Where did these "different species [who] hold different roles in their environment" come from? Whether or not you believe in Darwinism, you still have to account for where these species came from originally. For different species to have developed from a variety of organisms, the variety of organisms had to come from somewhere. If these "different species" were evolutions of something else, my point still stands. What was that point again? That was a response to A Different Light's point. You'll have to go read his point to understand it. Quote: That isn't the point of evolution. The point of evolution is gene variation and adaption. Adaption to what? An environment which would be the same for all the species in it. Then, why would all the species in that environment develope different adaptations to the same environment. If there was truly a gene that provided the most beneficial survival for an environment, the animals would look more similar then they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:44 pm
Goldenlici I am just going to make one post in response to all of your posts, otherwise, I think it would get confusing. So, let me know if I missed something. Evolution defined by Darwin is outdated. I wish you would get over semantics. Fine, I'll use the correct word for the current theory: the neo-Darwinian synthesis. All the arguments I have been using are for this latest theory. Quote: Did the Mayans launch rockets? How do we know they didn't? Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Quote: I have watched shows on the robots created by ancient Greeks. I'm sure you have. rolleyes You honestly expect me to believe that the same people who believed Hell was in the general area of the Pacific Ocean invented robots? I believe the Library of Alexandria was probably greatest intellectual achievement of the ancient Greeks. Correct me if I'm wrong. Quote: Science not up to interpretation? lol Surely you jest? Science is all about how a human interprets the data it observes. Check out A Different Light's topic "a good video" for more of my argument on that particular topic. Do I really want to know? xd Quote: Quote: That isn't the point of evolution. The point of evolution is gene variation and adaption. Adaption to what? An environment which would be the same for all the species in it. Then, why would all the species in that environment develope different adaptations to the same environment. If there was truly a gene that provided the most beneficial survival for an environment, the animals would look more similar then they do. Not at all. Just because a particular gene gives one oragnism an edge over others, that doesn't mean all the others die out. The organisms with that particular mutation start their own strand and branch out from the original, but the originals still continue along through the generations, eventually branching out more and more until each of the strands are very distant cousins. Eventually, the different strands aren't even recognizable as being related. After a few hundred million years, you get foxes eating rabbits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:09 pm
About the robot thing, I am dead serious. They used techniques such as hydrolics, gears, and air pressure to create complex robots. The ancient civilizations aren't as stupid as we want to think. The Bible wasn't written by primitive people. I argued evolution better in the other topic, but I'll restate my point here. Quote: The organisms with that particular mutation start their own strand and branch out from the original, but the originals still continue along through the generations, eventually branching out more and more until each of the strands are very distant cousins. Then why aren't there even more organisms? There should be lizards with partial wings, Fish with legs, and so on. The intermediate organisms wouldn't group together for the reason I discussed in the macro-evolution topic. The intermediate organism are actually less effective than what they evolved from, thus no one would mate with it because the species would not want to let this detrimental trait contine. The lizard with the longish scales would be slow and clumsy and according to "survival of the fittest" would die. (Again, I am far more specific in my other post, but if you want me to copy and paste the entire argument verbatum, let me know. Or, you can just read it there.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:44 pm
Goldenlici About the robot thing, I am dead serious. They used techniques such as hydrolics, gears, and air pressure to create complex robots. The ancient civilizations aren't as stupid as we want to think. The Bible wasn't written by primitive people. I would love to see your sources, if you don't mind. Present me with evidence that the ancient Greeks had access to hydrolics, gears, and air pressure to create robots and then please explain to me why that technology dissappeared later on. Quote: I argued evolution better in the other topic, but I'll restate my point here. Quote: The organisms with that particular mutation start their own strand and branch out from the original, but the originals still continue along through the generations, eventually branching out more and more until each of the strands are very distant cousins. Then why aren't there even more organisms? There should be lizards with partial wings, Fish with legs, and so on. And I'm sure there are. There are quadrillions of organisms on the planet. Quote: The intermediate organisms wouldn't group together for the reason I discussed in the macro-evolution topic. The intermediate organism are actually less effective than what they evolved from, thus no one would mate with it because the species would not want to let this detrimental trait contine. Then an organism with that mutation would die without having bred. The mutation has to either be beneficial or have no effect on the organism's chances of breeding for it to pass on that gene to its offspring. Either that or it has to be really lucky. Quote: The lizard with the longish scales would be slow and clumsy and according to "survival of the fittest" would die. (Again, I am far more specific in my other post, but if you want me to copy and paste the entire argument verbatum, let me know. Or, you can just read it there.) That would probably be why there aren't a whole lot of lizards with longish scales. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:20 pm
Quote: I would love to see your sources, if you don't mind. Present me with evidence that the ancient Greeks had access to hydrolics, gears, and air pressure to create robots and then please explain to me why that technology dissappeared later on. I have watched several shows on it on the history channel, so I don't have the specific titles. But, if you want to look on the histroy channel website: http://www.history.com/minisites/ancientdiscoveries/Quote: There are quadrillions of organisms on the planet. Then there should be at least thousands of organisms between a lizard and a bird. Quote: That would probably be why there aren't a whole lot of lizards with longish scales. The theory on the evolution of birds is that they evolved from lizards whose scales grew long and eventaully turned into feathers. Thus, the lizards with the longish scales are said to be an intermediate organism between lizards and birds. I'm just going to give you the post from the other topic because it would take to long to retype. Quote: First off, the book I will be using is actually a compilation of facts already organized by someone else. The book is called "Creation by Design" by Mark Eastman, M.D. with general editor Chuck Smith and is distributed by "The Word for Today" publishing. The web site is www.twft.com. If you go to this link, click on the "products" title on the top of the site, then search for "creation" and you'll see the book I'm talking about. However, this book uses (and sites) 25 other sources from science. I'll list them as I use them. Mark Eastman, M.D., Creation by Design, Costa Mesa; The Word For Today: 1996. (I'm not sure if that's the exact way to cite, but all the information you need is there.) pg 56-58 Quote: "Let's examine the notion of natural selection and the origin of flight. According to evolutionists, birds evolved from a reptile-like creature some 60-100 million years ago. Evolutionists propose that the forelimb of the reptile evolved into wings as the scales were gradually transformed into feathers. This process, taking millions of years, occurred as random mutations caused the scales of the reptile to be gradually lengthened. Eventually, the scales were converted to fully developed feathers and flight emerged. "On the surface, this scenario may seem reasonable. However, the supposed creative force of natural selection is, in fact, a tremendous stumbling block to the evolution of flight. An illustration will help to drive home the point. "Imagine a population of lizards that are highly skilled in running and hunting. Then one day a "litter" of lizards is hatched who have, in their genetic code, a mutation that caused their scales to be four times longer than normal. At this point the lizards cannot fly because the scales do not provide any significant aerodynamic lift. "These lizards, in turn have offspring which have an additional mutation which lengthens the scales even further. From an evolutionary viewpoint the scales are well on their way to evolving into feathers. "Over the next 1,000 generations hundreds of additional mutations occur which cause further lengthening of the scales. The scales are now about half the size necessary to allow for fligh. However, there is a problem. "The long stiff scales now begin to hinder the lizards ability to run and climb. As the scales continue to lengthen in succeeding generations the problem worsens. "What was once a swift runner and climber has become a clumsy creature that cannot run nor climb as well as its adversaries. So natural selection, which allows for the 'survival of the fittest,' becomes the enemy of this transitional form. "Since it cannot run as it once did, this transitional form cannot catch its prey as efficiently as a true lizard. And because it cannot climb as well as it once could, it cannot evade its predators. Natural selection then wipes out the evolutionary experiment because it is not as fit as its predecessors or its competition."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
