Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism

1486	249745

offline

Freon

24 posts

Nomad

Posted January 3, '08 8:32am UTC

im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism

1,486 Replies

offline

thisisnotanalt

9,824 posts

Shepherd

Posted December 22, '09 1:32am UTC

There is no proof either way. Even if either one side proved their theory was correct, The other side wouldn't believe them, continuing to believe their own ideas.

Proof and common belief are different things. For example, the original crop circles are an admitted hoax, but some people still believe it was aliens. If one side is proved, the smart people will jump ship and the weak-minded will cling to the sinking ship of their beliefs.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 1:53am UTC

There is no proof either way. Even if either one side proved their theory was correct, The other side wouldn't believe them, continuing to believe their own ideas.

Well if you can prove god exists and he did do what you claim he did, then we can regard it as a plausible explanation.

i want solid proof, not evidence.

Just wanted to try and look at this from the point of view of a crime scene.

Let's say we found a dead body with a bloody knife next to it. We find foot prints leading to a set of tire tracks that appear to have been made round the same time the person died.

Further examination of the body reveals the body was stabbed before death and there was no further damage to the body before that. Also the bloody knife found next to the body can produce the same stab wounds found on the body.

After further investigating we find a person who knew the deceased and they can't account for there whereabouts during the time of the person died. We also find the prints of his shoes and the pattern on his tires match the ones found at the scene. We also find dirt on his shoes and tires that match the dirt at the scene.

Now this is all evidence suggesting the person killed the deceased with a knife then left. But using your logic we can't come to that conclusion because the evidence is meaningless.

no, but why should i care about the past in the 1st place?

It helps us to know where we came from, and in this particular case where all life on this planet came from. It helps us to understand why we are the way we are, again in this case why all life is the way it is.

Why are you posting if you don't even have an interest in the topic?

[quote]There is no proof either way. Even if either one side proved their theory was correct, The other side wouldn't believe them, continuing to believe their own ideas.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWell if you can prove god exists and he did do what you claim he did, then we can regard it as a plausible explanation.\r\n\r\n[quote]i want solid proof, not evidence.[/quote]\r\n\r\nJust wanted to try and look at this from the point of view of a crime scene.\r\n\r\nLet's say we found a dead body with a bloody knife next to it. We find foot prints leading to a set of tire tracks that appear to have been made round the same time the person died.\r\n\r\nFurther examination of the body reveals the body was stabbed before death and there was no further damage to the body before that. Also the bloody knife found next to the body can produce the same stab wounds found on the body.\r\n\r\nAfter further investigating we find a person who knew the deceased and they can't account for there whereabouts during the time of the person died. We also find the prints of his shoes and the pattern on his tires match the ones found at the scene. We also find dirt on his shoes and tires that match the dirt at the scene.\r\n\r\nNow this is all evidence suggesting the person killed the deceased with a knife then left. But using your logic we can't come to that conclusion because the evidence is meaningless.\r\n\r\n[quote]no, but why should i care about the past in the 1st place?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt helps us to know where we came from, and in this particular case where all life on this planet came from. It helps us to understand why we are the way we are, again in this case why all life is the way it is.\r\n\r\nWhy are you posting if you don't even have an interest in the topic?

offline

thepossum

3,035 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 4:14am UTC

I prefer to think about the Evolutionism OF Creationism. Think about THAT.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 4:33am UTC

I don't see why you should get to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true. How is any of it reliable if all of it is not reliable?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 4:37am UTC

I prefer to think about the Evolutionism OF Creationism. Think about THAT.

What?

and can we get the name of the topic changed, evolution is not an ism.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 3:28pm UTC

Wow, your links fail. If you actually read your very first one you'd notice this line: DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

That means they already had those genes, thus it's microevolution, not macro. -didn't watch the videos, didn't really wanna watch biased videos and reading is just so much faster and easier-

To an extent yes you do. This is specially true for other species like lizards. Losing territorial behavior in this case would be like a cat losing it's instinct to stalk small animals.

Again, they were identically similar, meaning they didn't get this trait from there genes. They probably stopped being territorial because they were introduced to a new island, IE having no territory because other organisms had already claimed all of it.

Flat out wrong. Most mutations have no effect. The bad ones usually don't survive to carry it on to the next generation and the good ones usually do survive to carry them on to the next generation. I believe this is referred to as natural selection.

That's true, but I was mainly talking about the mutations that actually did stuff. :/ Yeah, the bad ones don't survive cause their bad. I have yet to see a positive mutation though. And yes, that would be natural selection, which is a part of microevolution.

I would like to know where your getting your definition of micro and macro evolution?

Personal experience/observations and study, also I refine it a little by taking into account what you guys have to say. I'm not going to just accept some textbook definition of evolution.

That just makes the Bible even less reliable.

Actually, all it's saying is that the Bible can't always be taken literally. Take, for example, Revelations 12. I don't believe a woman will literally appear in space wearing the sun, moon, and stars. Let me also point out 2 Peter 3:8 to you: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So the 6 days could have easily been 6 thousand years.

The Cambrian explosion was a result of environmental changes (we have evidence for), a major evolutionary step (we have evidence for) resulting in a number of new genetic traits developing in a relatively short period of time. (we have evidence can happen)

I highly doubt environmental changes and a major evolutionary step could produce THOUSANDS of new species. Sure it could produce a lot, but not nearly as many in the Cambrian era. Also, take for example those bacteria. Their major evolutionary step let only one new species (if it's classified as a new species) be produced. Not hundreds.

Well, wikipedia has more credibility than you.

Don't forget, ANYBODY can edit wikipedia. Even those trying to spread propaganda. So for all you know, I wrote that article. :P (I didn't, BTW.)

Also, microevolution stuff doesn't deal with existing genes, it modifies the existing genes. Macroevolution is the exact same process as microevolution - before you think another thought on the subject, you need to accept that because the entire paragraph is just saying the same, factually incorrect thing you've said the entire time. You're completely and utterly misinterpreting evolution as a whole. Microevolution is a small step on the evolutionary path, macroevolution is a collection of small steps. Like what wikipedia said, microevolution is simply a reductionist way of looking at the evolutionary process, and macroevolution is a holistic way to look at it.

OK, please tell me then, how the species gaining a larger head via adaptation when they all have the large head genes is genetic modification. This large head refers to most adaptation like moth color (all of one species of moths became black at one point sometime during the Industrial Revolution due to the pollution, and the white moths died out), or beak size. Do you even realize how many steps of microevolution it would take and the luck required to produce the genetic modification needed to make new traits that would actually stay? Very, very low. Cambrian era was when most of the modern/complex species of organisms came to be, compared to it's predecessors that included very early molluscs and other microscopic organisms. Evolution can't just jump from microscopic to macroscopic(is that even a word, lol?). Even by small steps of microevolution, it would require much longer, as they first have to get to away from being microscopic, aka getting much, much larger and then having to form body parts and the like...Maybe body parts first. Anyways, if you read my post carefully, you'd see that I basically DID say that microevolution was small steps of macro (macro being large scale and involving lots of traits, micro being small scale and involving 1 or 2). >.>

Too bad you have no evidence that there'll never be any evidence.

At the rate we're actually discovering stuff, it's highly likely they'll be any evidence, for a very, very long time. (I'm guessing maybe 2700s, if we're lucky. :P)

Also, so? It is quite possible that there's a hyperevolved species out there. But that'd contradict the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran.

How would it contradict the Bible (I'll admit, I haven't read the Torah or Qur'an)? The Bible never says "GOD NEVER CAME FROM A PREVIOUS GOD!!!!1!" It says he never changes and has been around forever, but think about it like this. Around the time of the Big Crunch, God had just finished the last stage of hyper-evolution, aka gaining super powers and immortality and perfection and the like. Being all awesome now, he was the only thing that survived the Big Crunch. Then he caused the Big Bang to happen early or just floated around or something, but eventually he creates the Earth and so on.

I don't see why you should get to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true. How is any of it reliable if all of it is not reliable?

Um...I'm not picking and choosing? I must say, you're rather confusing. D: I guess I'll respond to this by saying what I said earlier: The Bible can't always be taken literally.

and can we get the name of the topic changed, evolution is not an ism.

Evolutionism. Oh the irony of me linking wikipedia. :P

Sounds much like the belief in evolution, eh? Scientists and the like just don't want to use it cause they are all atheist now and it sounds too religious for them or something.

Wow, your links fail. If you actually read your very first one you'd notice this line: [i]DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were [b]genetically identical[/b] to the source population on Pod Kopiste.[/i]\r\n\r\nThat means they already had those genes, thus it's microevolution, not macro. -didn't watch the videos, didn't really wanna watch biased videos and reading is just so much faster and easier-\r\n\r\n[quote] To an extent yes you do. This is specially true for other species like lizards. Losing territorial behavior in this case would be like a cat losing it's instinct to stalk small animals. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, they were identically similar, meaning they didn't get this trait from there genes. They probably stopped being territorial because they were introduced to a new island, IE having no territory because other organisms had already claimed all of it.\r\n\r\n[quote] Flat out wrong. Most mutations have no effect. The bad ones usually don't survive to carry it on to the next generation and the good ones usually do survive to carry them on to the next generation. I believe this is referred to as natural selection. [/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's true, but I was mainly talking about the mutations that actually did stuff. :/ Yeah, the bad ones don't survive cause their bad. I have yet to see a positive mutation though. And yes, that would be natural selection, which is a part of microevolution.\r\n\r\n[quote] I would like to know where your getting your definition of micro and macro evolution? [/quote]\r\n\r\nPersonal experience/observations and study, also I refine it a little by taking into account what you guys have to say. I'm not going to just accept some textbook definition of evolution.\r\n\r\n[quote] That just makes the Bible even less reliable. [/quote]\r\n\r\nActually, all it's saying is that the Bible can't always be taken literally. Take, for example, Revelations 12. I don't believe a woman will literally appear in space wearing the sun, moon, and stars. Let me also point out 2 Peter 3:8 to you: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So the 6 days could have easily been 6 thousand years.\r\n\r\n[quote] The Cambrian explosion was a result of environmental changes (we have evidence for), a major evolutionary step (we have evidence for) resulting in a number of new genetic traits developing in a relatively short period of time. (we have evidence can happen)[/quote]\r\n\r\nI highly doubt environmental changes and a major evolutionary step could produce THOUSANDS of new species. Sure it could produce a lot, but not nearly as many in the Cambrian era. Also, take for example those bacteria. Their major evolutionary step let only one new species (if it's classified as a new species) be produced. Not hundreds.\r\n\r\n[quote] Well, wikipedia has more credibility than you. [/quote]\r\n\r\nDon't forget, ANYBODY can edit wikipedia. Even those trying to spread propaganda. So for all you know, I wrote that article. :P (I didn't, BTW.)\r\n\r\n[quote] Also, microevolution stuff doesn't deal with existing genes, it modifies the existing genes. Macroevolution is the exact same process as microevolution - before you think another thought on the subject, you need to accept that because the entire paragraph is just saying the same, factually incorrect thing you've said the entire time.  You're completely and utterly misinterpreting evolution as a whole. Microevolution is a small step on the evolutionary path, macroevolution is a collection of small steps.  Like what wikipedia said, microevolution is simply a reductionist way of looking at the evolutionary process, and macroevolution is a holistic way to look at it. [/quote]\r\n\r\nOK, please tell me then, how the species gaining a larger head via adaptation when they all have the large head genes is genetic modification. This large head refers to most adaptation like moth color (all of one species of moths became black at one point sometime during the Industrial Revolution due to the pollution, and the white moths died out), or beak size. Do you even realize how many steps of microevolution it would take and the luck required to produce the genetic modification needed to make new traits that would actually stay? Very, very low. Cambrian era was when most of the modern/complex species of organisms came to be, compared to it's predecessors that included very early molluscs and other microscopic organisms. Evolution can't just jump from microscopic to macroscopic(is that even a word, lol?). Even by small steps of microevolution, it would require much longer, as they first have to get to away from being microscopic, aka getting much, much larger and then having to form body parts and the like...Maybe body parts first. Anyways, if you read my post carefully, you'd see that I basically DID say that microevolution was small steps of macro (macro being large scale and involving lots of traits, micro being small scale and involving 1 or 2). >.>\r\n\r\n[quote]Too bad you have no evidence that there'll never be any evidence. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAt the rate we're actually discovering stuff, it's highly likely they'll be any evidence, for a very, very long time. (I'm guessing maybe 2700s, if we're lucky. :P)\r\n\r\n[quote] Also, so? It is quite possible that there's a hyperevolved species out there.  But that'd contradict the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran. [/quote]\r\n\r\nHow would it contradict the Bible (I'll admit, I haven't read the Torah or Qur'an)? The Bible never says "GOD NEVER CAME FROM A PREVIOUS GOD!!!!1!" It says he never changes and has been around forever, but think about it like this. Around the time of the Big Crunch, God had just finished the last stage of hyper-evolution, aka gaining super powers and immortality and perfection and the like. Being all awesome now, he was the only thing that survived the Big Crunch. Then he caused the Big Bang to happen early or just floated around or something, but eventually he creates the Earth and so on.\r\n\r\n[quote] I don't see why you should get to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true.  How is any of it reliable if all of it is not reliable? [/quote]\r\n\r\nUm...I'm not picking and choosing? I must say, you're rather confusing. D: I guess I'll respond to this by saying what I said earlier: The Bible can't always be taken literally.\r\n\r\n[quote] and can we get the name of the topic changed, evolution is not an ism. [/quote]\r\n\r\n[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism]Evolutionism. Oh the irony of me linking wikipedia. :P [/url]\r\n\r\nSounds much like the belief in evolution, eh? Scientists and the like just don't want to use it cause they are all atheist now and it sounds too religious for them or something.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 7:38pm UTC

Wow, your links fail. If you actually read your very first one you'd notice this line: DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

The second video points out that fallacy in trying to disprove it.

Now why do I consider these videos worth posting. They are made by a biologist who uses evolution in his day to day job. Since you didn't bother watching I will quote it for you.

"By genetically identical the author means there from the same species meaning the same ancestral population they have the same genetic markers."

That means they already had those genes, thus it's microevolution, not macro. -didn't watch the videos, didn't really wanna watch biased videos and reading is just so much faster and easier-

Again quoting the second video.

"If the gene was latently present we would expect one of many other populations which eat plant matter to display this trait."

This particular lizard has many subspecies non of them have this gene or have expressed it in any way. These particular lizards are the only ones to demonstrate this particular trait.

"no members of even the same genus display this trait, regardless of environment."

Some species lizards closely related to this particular one also live in areas eating plant matter. But non of them have ever display this trait. So this genetic trait would seem to have never even existed before in this genus of lizard.

Considering how much information has been presented to you there's no way you can claim ignorance so I must assume your just stupid at this point. Considering you still insist on using the same inaccurate definition of micro and macro evolution, that has been repeatedly, by numerous posters shown to you not to be correct.

Again, they were identically similar, meaning they didn't get this trait from there genes. They probably stopped being territorial because they were introduced to a new island, IE having no territory because other organisms had already claimed all of it.

This deserves a facepalm.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/StarTrekFacePalm.gif

That's true, but I was mainly talking about the mutations that actually did stuff. :/ Yeah, the bad ones don't survive cause their bad. I have yet to see a positive mutation though. And yes, that would be natural selection, which is a part of microevolution.

Yes you have you just refuse to see whats going on around you.

Personal experience/observations and study, also I refine it a little by taking into account what you guys have to say. I'm not going to just accept some textbook definition of evolution.

So basically this is a definition you made up yourself?

2 Peter 3:8 to you: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So the 6 days could have easily been 6 thousand years.

But you just got done saying we can't take it all literally.

I highly doubt environmental changes and a major evolutionary step could produce THOUSANDS of new species. Sure it could produce a lot, but not nearly as many in the Cambrian era. Also, take for example those bacteria. Their major evolutionary step let only one new species (if it's classified as a new species) be produced. Not hundreds.

The evolutionary step that was take allows for everything from flat worms all the way up to us to exist. Leaving out things like jellys, sponges, and coral. So yes I would think such a step could produce the numbers we see.

Anyways, if you read my post carefully, you'd see that I basically DID say that microevolution was small steps of macro (macro being large scale and involving lots of traits, micro being small scale and involving 1 or 2). >.>

Then why do you keep referring to them as different things, saying macro doesn't happen?

It says he never changes and has been around forever, but think about it like this. Around the time of the Big Crunch, God had just finished the last stage of hyper-evolution

So your saying he has never changed but he just finished changing?

Evolutionism. Oh the irony of me linking wikipedia. :P

"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are not used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.

The Institute for Creation Research, however, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief. The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in order to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

So basically it's an out dated term used by creationist idiots.

[quote]Wow, your links fail. If you actually read your very first one you'd notice this line: DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe second video points out that fallacy in trying to disprove it. \r\n\r\nNow why do I consider these videos worth posting. They are made by a biologist who uses evolution in his day to day job. Since you didn't bother watching I will quote it for you.\r\n\r\n"By genetically identical the author means there from the same species meaning the same ancestral population they have the same genetic markers."\r\n\r\n[quote]That means they already had those genes, thus it's microevolution, not macro. -didn't watch the videos, didn't really wanna watch biased videos and reading is just so much faster and easier-[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain quoting the second video.\r\n\r\n"If the gene was latently present we would expect one of many other populations which eat plant matter to display this trait."\r\n\r\nThis particular lizard has many subspecies non of them have this gene or have expressed it in any way. These particular lizards are the only ones to demonstrate this particular trait.\r\n\r\n"no members of even the same genus display this trait, regardless of environment."\r\n\r\nSome species lizards closely related to this particular one also live in areas eating plant matter. But non of them have ever display this trait. So this genetic trait would seem to have never even existed before in this genus of lizard. \r\n\r\nConsidering how much information has been presented to you there's no way you can claim ignorance so I must assume your just stupid at this point. Considering you still insist on using the same inaccurate definition of micro and macro evolution, that has been repeatedly, by numerous posters shown to you not to be correct. \r\n\r\n[quote]Again, they were identically similar, meaning they didn't get this trait from there genes. They probably stopped being territorial because they were introduced to a new island, IE having no territory because other organisms had already claimed all of it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis deserves a facepalm.\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/StarTrekFacePalm.gif[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]That's true, but I was mainly talking about the mutations that actually did stuff. :/ Yeah, the bad ones don't survive cause their bad. I have yet to see a positive mutation though. And yes, that would be natural selection, which is a part of microevolution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes you have you just refuse to see whats going on around you.\r\n\r\n[quote]Personal experience/observations and study, also I refine it a little by taking into account what you guys have to say. I'm not going to just accept some textbook definition of evolution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo basically this is a definition you made up yourself?\r\n\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/StarTrekFacePalm.gif[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]2 Peter 3:8 to you: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So the 6 days could have easily been 6 thousand years.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBut you just got done saying we can't take it all literally.\r\n\r\n[quote]I highly doubt environmental changes and a major evolutionary step could produce THOUSANDS of new species. Sure it could produce a lot, but not nearly as many in the Cambrian era. Also, take for example those bacteria. Their major evolutionary step let only one new species (if it's classified as a new species) be produced. Not hundreds.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe evolutionary step that was take allows for everything from flat worms all the way up to us to exist. Leaving out things like jellys, sponges, and coral. So yes I would think such a step could produce the numbers we see.\r\n\r\n[quote]Anyways, if you read my post carefully, you'd see that I basically DID say that microevolution was small steps of macro (macro being large scale and involving lots of traits, micro being small scale and involving 1 or 2). >.>[/quote]\r\n\r\nThen why do you keep referring to them as different things, saying macro doesn't happen?\r\n\r\n[quote]It says he never changes and has been around forever, but think about it like this. Around the time of the Big Crunch, God had just finished the last stage of hyper-evolution[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo your saying he has never changed but he just finished changing?\r\n\r\n[quote]Evolutionism. Oh the irony of me linking wikipedia. :P[/quote]\r\n\r\n"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are not used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.\r\n\r\nThe Institute for Creation Research, however, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief. The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in order to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."\r\n\r\nSo basically it's an out dated term used by creationist idiots.

offline

sonicheroes95

13,701 posts

Peasant

Posted December 22, '09 8:38pm UTC

So basically it's an out dated term used by creationist idiots.

the idiot remark was highly unneeded if you ask me.

anyway, what created the 1st lifeform? how do you get that trough evolution if their was nothing before it.

offline

deserteagle

1,633 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 8:44pm UTC

anyway, what created the 1st lifeform? how do you get that trough evolution if their was nothing before it.

Have ever heard of abiogenesis?

Its the process where at the bottom of the ocean floor, where volcanic hot spots spew out elements essential for life. Those elements *carbon, oxygen, nitrogen etc.* bond together to form proteins. Proteins make up cells, and the cells reproduce asexually... and the rest is history.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 8:53pm UTC

"By genetically identical the author means there from the same species meaning the same ancestral population they have the same genetic markers."

How can you mean anything different by genetically identical? Identical means they are exactly the same. Either fail wording by the magazine, or that guy is just making excuses.

This particular lizard has many subspecies non of them have this gene or have expressed it in any way. These particular lizards are the only ones to demonstrate this particular trait.

Yet your other sources claimed they were genetically identical. Contradiction? I think so.

Considering how much information has been presented to you there's no way you can claim ignorance so I must assume your just stupid at this point. Considering you still insist on using the same inaccurate definition of micro and macro evolution, that has been repeatedly, by numerous posters shown to you not to be correct.

Numerous posters really only being you and alt, and he just C/P another definition from wikipedia.

Yes you have you just refuse to see whats going on around you.

Alright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab.

So basically this is a definition you made up yourself?

Using that logic, Darwin just made up his definition of natural selection and evolution. Dalton just made up his atomic theory. Again, you ridicule theists cause they just 'make stuff up', yet isn't that what Dalton and Darwin had to do to achieve some of the most widely believed theories to date? (As in, first Darwin had to see all the finches and then think "Hm..I think all these birds came from a common ancestor, but I don't have proof yet. I'll go find some later.", etc.)

But you just got done saying we can't take it all literally.

Kinda hard to take that quote figuratively. Really, how do you even take something like that figuratively? "The days OBVIOUSLY represent my fingers." Yeah, it just doesn't work, no matter which angle you look at it from.

The evolutionary step that was take allows for everything from flat worms all the way up to us to exist. Leaving out things like jellys, sponges, and coral. So yes I would think such a step could produce the numbers we see.

Really? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.

Then why do you keep referring to them as different things, saying macro doesn't happen?

I've never said macro doesn't happen, I've been saying that micro and macro are different things.

So your saying he has never changed but he just finished changing?

More of a theory showing God's plausibility than anything, but being around forever is a matter of perspective. God could've started counting after the new universe was formed through Big Bang. And that didn't really "just happen" (in a time sense) now did it?

So basically it's an out dated term used by creationist idiots.

Yes, but it was first used by the scientists who believed in evolution. Anyways, the principle is still the same. Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."

[quote] "By genetically identical the author means there from the same species meaning the same ancestral population they have the same genetic markers." [/quote]\r\n\r\nHow can you mean anything different by genetically identical? Identical means they are exactly the same. Either fail wording by the magazine, or that guy is just making excuses.\r\n\r\n[quote] This particular lizard has many subspecies non of them have this gene or have expressed it in any way. These particular lizards are the only ones to demonstrate this particular trait. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYet your other sources claimed they were genetically identical. Contradiction? I think so.\r\n\r\n[quote] Considering how much information has been presented to you there's no way you can claim ignorance so I must assume your just stupid at this point. Considering you still insist on using the same inaccurate definition of micro and macro evolution, that has been repeatedly, by numerous posters shown to you not to be correct. [/quote]\r\n\r\nNumerous posters really only being you and alt, and he just C/P another definition from wikipedia.\r\n\r\n[quote] Yes you have you just refuse to see whats going on around you. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAlright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab.\r\n\r\n[quote]So basically this is a definition you made up yourself? [/quote]\r\n\r\nUsing that logic, Darwin just made up his definition of natural selection and evolution. Dalton just made up his atomic theory. Again, you ridicule theists cause they just 'make stuff up', yet isn't that what Dalton and Darwin had to do to achieve some of the most widely believed theories to date? (As in, first Darwin had to see all the finches and then think "Hm..I think all these birds came from a common ancestor, but I don't have proof yet. I'll go find some later.", etc.)\r\n\r\n[quote] But you just got done saying we can't take it all literally. [/quote]\r\n\r\nKinda hard to take that quote figuratively. Really, how do you even take something like that figuratively? "The days OBVIOUSLY represent my fingers." Yeah, it just doesn't work, no matter which angle you look at it from.\r\n\r\n[quote] The evolutionary step that was take allows for everything from flat worms all the way up to us to exist. Leaving out things like jellys, sponges, and coral. So yes I would think such a step could produce the numbers we see. [/quote]\r\n\r\nReally? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.\r\n\r\n[quote] Then why do you keep referring to them as different things, saying macro doesn't happen?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI've never said macro doesn't happen, I've been saying that micro and macro are different things.\r\n\r\n[quote] So your saying he has never changed but he just finished changing? [/quote]\r\n\r\nMore of a theory showing God's plausibility than anything, but being around forever is a matter of perspective. God could've started counting after the new universe was formed through Big Bang. And that didn't really "just happen" (in a time sense) now did it?\r\n\r\n[quote] So basically it's an out dated term used by creationist idiots. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYes, but it was first used by the scientists who believed in evolution. Anyways, the principle is still the same. Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."

offline

deserteagle

1,633 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 9:22pm UTC

Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."

Its more correct to say "I accept evolution"

Really? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.

humans and birds probably share some similar genes. Its just that humans have traits for thumbs, while birds have the genes for wings ect. Its like humans and chimps. only a 2% difference in DNA.

(As in, first Darwin had to see all the finches and then think "Hm..I think all these birds came from a common ancestor, but I don't have proof yet. I'll go find some later.", etc.)

He did have proof. Different beaks for different diets. All of them share a common ancestor. Maybe Darwin didn't have the fossils to support this, but it was fairly obvious that the finches were similar.

Alright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab.

omfg! If it wasn't for mutations, you couldn't be typing right now. I thought that thumbs were a mutation of digits. Mutations give you blue eyes, and different hair color. Many important enzymes are a result of mutations as well.

[quote]Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."[/quote] \r\n \r\nIts more correct to say "I accept evolution" \r\n\r\n[quote]Really? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.[/quote]  \r\n\r\nhumans and birds probably share some similar genes. Its just that humans have traits for thumbs, while birds have the genes for wings ect. Its like humans and chimps. only a 2% difference in DNA. \r\n\r\n[quote](As in, first Darwin had to see all the finches and then think "Hm..I think all these birds came from a common ancestor, but I don't have proof yet. I'll go find some later.", etc.) [/quote] \r\n\r\nHe did have proof. Different beaks for different diets. All of them share a common ancestor. Maybe Darwin didn't have the fossils to support this, but it was fairly obvious that the finches were similar. \r\n\r\n[quote]Alright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab. [/quote] \r\n\r\nomfg! If it wasn't for mutations, you couldn't be typing right now. I thought that thumbs were a mutation of digits. Mutations give you blue eyes, and different hair color. Many important enzymes are a result of mutations as well.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 9:32pm UTC

Hair color and eye color is not caused by mutations, though it can be (albinos.....). Most of the time it's not though. And do we have proof that thumbs came through a mutation? Also, I generally don't use my thumbs to type (I just like to use my right index finger for space for some odd reason.).
-
He did have some proof, but when he was noticing the finches for the first time and thinking of that thought, he didn't have all the proof that he gathered later. So when he thought up of evolution for the very first time, he lacked the evidence to prove it. He then went out and got said evidence.
-
Yes, similar, but not all the same. Humans and chimps are more similar than humans and birds (obviously). Some examples of bird genes being drastically different from a person's: feathers (color and length within that), wings, beaks, size, even their eyes, etc.
-
Accept, believing in, same thing really.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 9:48pm UTC

Hair color and eye color is not caused by mutations, though it can be (albinos.....).

The blue eye gene spacifically was caused by a mutation.

Yes, similar, but not all the same. Humans and chimps are more similar than humans and birds (obviously). Some examples of bird genes being drastically different from a person's: feathers (color and length within that), wings, beaks, size, even their eyes, etc.

Organisms have existed for an extreamly long time on earth (Hard to put a number on it..) and the world has changed a ton... Thus evelution happened alote making extreamly different species such as humans and birds.

offline

SilentQ

601 posts

Nomad

Posted December 22, '09 9:53pm UTC

The blue eye gene spacifically was caused by a mutation.

The blue eye gene is also recessive. I stop considering it a mutation when it's common for people to be heterozygous for black and blue eyes (aka when everyone has the gene). Also, would that be an example of evolution? Does that mean that we should not be Homo sapiens sapiens, but Homo sapiens sapiens <insert whatever advanced is in Latin here>?

Organisms have existed for an extreamly long time on earth (Hard to put a number on it..) and the world has changed a ton... Thus evelution happened alote making extreamly different species such as humans and birds.

But deserteagle was saying that humans and birds are similar because of the vertebrae genes and stuff, and MageGrayWolf said that it was because of an evolutionary step that allowed humans and birds and many other vertebrates to suddenly pop up.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,470 posts

Farmer

Posted December 22, '09 11:22pm UTC

the idiot remark was highly unneeded if you ask me.

Considering it's as stupid as saying accepting gravity exists is gravityism. Considering creationism is propagated solely on quote mines, logical fallacies, and flat out lies. As apposed to actual evidence (which I know you don't except so there's no need to go there again). I think the term "creationist idiot" is rather fitting.

How can you mean anything different by genetically identical? Identical means they are exactly the same. Either fail wording by the magazine, or that guy is just making excuses.

I would have to say a fail of the magazine, considering it leads stupid people to conclude reproduction works similarly more or less to cloning.

Point in case.

Identical means they are exactly the same.

Alright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab.

I pointed out the Nylonase, which you refuse to see as a mutation.

I pointed out the lizards, which your arguing over with me.

The moths changing color is a result of a mutation activating/deactivating certain genes.

While we can't point this this is an observed instance, the mutations that allowed for our brains to develop the way they did is an example that is helpful to you. Though I'm beginning to suspect you might have missed a few mutations there.

Using that logic, Darwin just made up his definition of natural selection and evolution. Dalton just made up his atomic theory.

Unlike you, their definitions were evaluated and excepted.

I mean what the hell are you trying to say we should throw out the excepted definition and use yours?

you ridicule theists cause they just 'make stuff up', yet isn't that what Dalton and Darwin had to do to achieve some of the most widely believed theories to date?

I guess you fail on understanding the basics of peer review.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/jesus-facepalm.jpg

Kinda hard to take that quote figuratively. Really, how do you even take something like that figuratively? "The days OBVIOUSLY represent my fingers." Yeah, it just doesn't work, no matter which angle you look at it from.

Considering some believe in a literal 6 day (day=24 hours), some believe it means millions of years= 1 God day. It would seem it can be taken figuratively.

Really? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.

I do mention this change in a previous post.

for example before the Cambrian explosion we see the development of trploblasty instead of just diploblasty in germ layers during development.

I've never said macro doesn't happen, I've been saying that micro and macro are different things.

And we've been constantly pointing out that definition is a load of bull*&^%!

Yes, but it was first used by the scientists who believed in evolution. Anyways, the principle is still the same. Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."

See my first reply.

But deserteagle was saying that humans and birds are similar because of the vertebrae genes and stuff, and MageGrayWolf said that it was because of an evolutionary step that allowed humans and birds and many other vertebrates to suddenly pop up.

Never said humans and bird just suddenly popped up. It was an evolutionary step that allows these forms to eventually exist. Wait, do you think the Cambrian explosion included humans and birds?

It is possible that the descendants of humans and birds once shared a common ancestor.

[quote]the idiot remark was highly unneeded if you ask me.[/quote]\r\n\r\nConsidering it's as stupid as saying accepting gravity exists is gravityism. Considering creationism is propagated solely on quote mines, logical fallacies, and flat out lies. As apposed to actual evidence (which I know you don't except so there's no need to go there again). I think the term "creationist idiot" is rather fitting. \r\n\r\n[quote]How can you mean anything different by genetically identical? Identical means they are exactly the same. Either fail wording by the magazine, or that guy is just making excuses.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI would have to say a fail of the magazine, considering it leads stupid people to conclude reproduction works similarly more or less to cloning.\r\n\r\nPoint in case.\r\n[quote]Identical means they are exactly the same.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]Alright then, please point out a genetic mutation that is helpful too me. Besides your bacteria, cause that could've very well been faked, as it was in the lab.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI pointed out the Nylonase, which you refuse to see as a mutation.\r\n\r\nI pointed out the lizards, which your arguing over with me.\r\n\r\nThe moths changing color is a result of a mutation activating/deactivating certain genes.\r\n\r\nWhile we can't point this this is an observed instance, the mutations that allowed for our brains to develop the way they did is an example that is helpful to you. Though I'm beginning to suspect you might have missed a few mutations there.\r\n\r\n[quote]Using that logic, Darwin just made up his definition of natural selection and evolution. Dalton just made up his atomic theory.[/quote]\r\n\r\nUnlike you, their definitions were evaluated and excepted.\r\n\r\nI mean what the hell are you trying to say we should throw out the excepted definition and use yours?\r\n\r\n[quote]you ridicule theists cause they just 'make stuff up', yet isn't that what Dalton and Darwin had to do to achieve some of the most widely believed theories to date?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI guess you fail on understanding the basics of peer review.\r\n\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/jesus-facepalm.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]Kinda hard to take that quote figuratively. Really, how do you even take something like that figuratively? "The days OBVIOUSLY represent my fingers." Yeah, it just doesn't work, no matter which angle you look at it from.[/quote]\r\n\r\nConsidering some believe in a literal 6 day (day=24 hours), some believe it means millions of years= 1 God day. It would seem it can be taken figuratively.\r\n\r\n[quote]Really? You think one gene mutation, let's say the genes for a veterbrae, can really produce the difference between people and birds and everything in between? And this is the same thing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI do mention this change in a previous post.\r\n[quote]for example before the Cambrian explosion we see the development of trploblasty instead of just diploblasty in germ layers during development.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]I've never said macro doesn't happen, I've been saying that micro and macro are different things.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd we've been constantly pointing out that definition is a load of bull*&^%!\r\n\r\n[quote]Yes, but it was first used by the scientists who believed in evolution. Anyways, the principle is still the same. Belief in evolution. It's so much easier to say "I'm an evolutionist." rather than saying "I support and believe in evolution."[/quote]\r\n\r\nSee my first reply.\r\n\r\n[quote]But deserteagle was saying that humans and birds are similar because of the vertebrae genes and stuff, and MageGrayWolf said that it was because of an evolutionary step that allowed humans and birds and many other vertebrates to suddenly pop up.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNever said humans and bird just suddenly popped up. It was an evolutionary step that allows these forms to eventually exist. Wait, do you think the Cambrian explosion included humans and birds?\r\n\r\nIt is possible that the descendants of humans and birds once shared a common ancestor.

Showing 856-870 of 1486

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism