|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:22 pm
Grave's right. We don't know. So its wrong to assert evolution as fact (Which is done in schools, not saying that you've done it Kas) based on evidence we don't have. Going back to the fossil record, let me (MS) Paint you a picture.  The red represents what the fossil record should look like to back up evolution, as far as species deviation is concerned. Or something like it at least. The blue is what we currently have. Based upon that, the information we have right now, where does that put evolution? And how exactly did the flagellum evolve, in your opinion? I just don't see how a series of gradual mutations could have created something that needs certain key components before it even begins to function in any sort of a way that would benefit the organism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:18 pm
Not sure what you're getting at with the picture.
For the flagellum, It could have started out as plain tail, and then those parts that help it move around evolved into it as time went on. If that plain tail itself weren't able to move on it's own, then maybe it first showed up in a organism that was in the water, and it gave it some stability while moving with the current.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:32 am
Gravechylde kacisko Warrior of Metal What are the other naturalistic explanations? The fact that we don't know this naturalistic explanation today doesn't mean there's none. Assume you lived 500 years ago. Would you imagine you could be talking to other people who are at the same time located thousands of miles away from you? Would you imagine this possible without using of some supernatural power? And yet, we're right here, thousands of miles away from each other and we're discussing using natural powers called physics. So, don't say it's impossible, until you are sure that is the truth.That argument could be applied to support Intelligent Design, just because we don't know how god used his powers, or can't measure them today, doesn't necessarily prove it wrong. Yes, indeed. But I never said intelligent design didn't happen. The thing is - we don't know now, and we cannot exclude either possibility. And this very argument supports both of them. The thing is: science is about empirical understanding, human understanding. ID is about trying to understand God. And understanding God is not science... @fossil record graph: perhaps that's how it is, now. But that's yet another example of the 500 years ago argument. We are now 500 years before that graph looks like it should look. Plus there's one thing: Darwin didn't take genetics into consideration. Hence he was not able to formulate the current best proof for evolution: some organism being the grandgrandfather of some other. This will help to show better how evolution is true (or not true) - but this process has only just started, and it started with analyzing the human, the homo sapiens himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:45 pm
kacisko Gravechylde kacisko Warrior of Metal What are the other naturalistic explanations? The fact that we don't know this naturalistic explanation today doesn't mean there's none. Assume you lived 500 years ago. Would you imagine you could be talking to other people who are at the same time located thousands of miles away from you? Would you imagine this possible without using of some supernatural power? And yet, we're right here, thousands of miles away from each other and we're discussing using natural powers called physics. So, don't say it's impossible, until you are sure that is the truth.That argument could be applied to support Intelligent Design, just because we don't know how god used his powers, or can't measure them today, doesn't necessarily prove it wrong. Yes, indeed. But I never said intelligent design didn't happen. The thing is - we don't know now, and we cannot exclude either possibility. And this very argument supports both of them. The thing is: science is about empirical understanding, human understanding. ID is about trying to understand God. And understanding God is not science... @fossil record graph: perhaps that's how it is, now. But that's yet another example of the 500 years ago argument. We are now 500 years before that graph looks like it should look. Plus there's one thing: Darwin didn't take genetics into consideration. Hence he was not able to formulate the current best proof for evolution: some organism being the grandgrandfather of some other. This will help to show better how evolution is true (or not true) - but this process has only just started, and it started with analyzing the human, the homo sapiens himself. ID can be a method of understanding God to the science-minded religious person, but really, it is a way to understand the origins of life and the way our species came to be. It can have nothing to do with understanding God, if say, you believe that God created the universe and then left it. As far as the genetics are concerned, it doesn't really prove that much to me, because that can be taken as common design as well. And my issue with even considering genetics is that there has never been a case that showed how the genome of a species has been expanded. Mutations act on the genes already in place, NOT add on to it. The only thing close to it that we see today is an extra replica chromosome, and all that can result in is down syndrome or instant fatality, neither of which are necessarily preferable to reproduction. And even if he wasn't considering genetics, to get the PHYSICAL differences you see today the fossil record would show PHYSICAL differences, and would still fill out in the general < shape regardless of genetics. A monkey doesn't go through several genetic changes and then all of the sudden change physically drastically, it would progress slowly, and with that and any other species, there's no evidence to back it up. Also, yes, it could be filled in in 500 years, but that is where it stands now. And could doesn't make a convincing argument. So until every inch of the Earth is excavated, we have to deal with what we have now, and what does the current fossil record tell you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrior of Metal Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:26 am
Warrior of Metal kacisko Gravechylde kacisko Warrior of Metal What are the other naturalistic explanations? The fact that we don't know this naturalistic explanation today doesn't mean there's none. Assume you lived 500 years ago. Would you imagine you could be talking to other people who are at the same time located thousands of miles away from you? Would you imagine this possible without using of some supernatural power? And yet, we're right here, thousands of miles away from each other and we're discussing using natural powers called physics. So, don't say it's impossible, until you are sure that is the truth.That argument could be applied to support Intelligent Design, just because we don't know how god used his powers, or can't measure them today, doesn't necessarily prove it wrong. Yes, indeed. But I never said intelligent design didn't happen. The thing is - we don't know now, and we cannot exclude either possibility. And this very argument supports both of them. The thing is: science is about empirical understanding, human understanding. ID is about trying to understand God. And understanding God is not science... @fossil record graph: perhaps that's how it is, now. But that's yet another example of the 500 years ago argument. We are now 500 years before that graph looks like it should look. Plus there's one thing: Darwin didn't take genetics into consideration. Hence he was not able to formulate the current best proof for evolution: some organism being the grandgrandfather of some other. This will help to show better how evolution is true (or not true) - but this process has only just started, and it started with analyzing the human, the homo sapiens himself. ID can be a method of understanding God to the science-minded religious person, but really, it is a way to understand the origins of life and the way our species came to be. It can have nothing to do with understanding God, if say, you believe that God created the universe and then left it. As far as the genetics are concerned, it doesn't really prove that much to me, because that can be taken as common design as well. And my issue with even considering genetics is that there has never been a case that showed how the genome of a species has been expanded. Mutations act on the genes already in place, NOT add on to it. The only thing close to it that we see today is an extra replica chromosome, and all that can result in is down syndrome or instant fatality, neither of which are necessarily preferable to reproduction. And even if he wasn't considering genetics, to get the PHYSICAL differences you see today the fossil record would show PHYSICAL differences, and would still fill out in the general < shape regardless of genetics. A monkey doesn't go through several genetic changes and then all of the sudden change physically drastically, it would progress slowly, and with that and any other species, there's no evidence to back it up. Also, yes, it could be filled in in 500 years, but that is where it stands now. And could doesn't make a convincing argument. So until every inch of the Earth is excavated, we have to deal with what we have now, and what does the current fossil record tell you?Well, it doesn't tell me Intelligent Design is science. And it doesn't matter whether God is still around here or he left. It's still trying to understand supernatural powers that humans cannot possess and comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
