Evolution? How?

Quote:

Chronological ordering:
1.Darwin goes to Galapolas.
2.Darwin sees many different species.
3.Darwin "makes up" Darwinism/Evolution to explain different species.
4.Does Darwin see the species EVOLVE from one into another? No.

Wrong, dead wrong. Im getting a strange feeling that you are some undergrad student , whose got a "sort of " knowledeg of the major subject but has not spent time in considering what you write.
Darwin began with copious notes well before the Galapogos . His acquaintence with his own grandfathers work, his own dabbling in the clergy, his time on the pampas, his time on the Galapogos, his detailed and copious notes and specimens of finches that he pored over for about 30 yeARS. fINALLY , HIS friends mediate a term of agreement for publication between hhe and Wallace. Then, the years of modification of his theory and 2 more publications and a revision.

Without the benefit of detailed understanding of genetics this man came up with, what is arguably the most important discovery of the millenium.

0 Replies

Quote:

Evolution might fit *some* facts, that much i will agree with you.
Creation also fits *some* facts.

I guess I have to repeat this ad naseum. WHAT FACTS DOES IT FIT? BE SPECIFIC.

Geez. Some of the facts point to the world was created by me only 14 days ago but does that mean it is the logical explanation?

0 Replies

Darwin also understood the uproar he would create with in findings; and he was lambasted by many religious leaders and heads of states.

0 Replies

Quote:

translation of above paragraph:
"mutating a fly that originally had 4 bristles into a fly with 36 bristles is a new species"

Not even close to being correct.

There you go again, changing the meaning of the word "species" to fit your argument. You do this consistently. It is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. There are over 3000 known species of fruit flies. If one has 4 bristles or 36 or 10,000 doesn't matter. The key is the definition of the word. A species is a species is a species. Species is not limited to "frog or fruit fly." It is specifically defined as unable to mate.

0 Replies

Quote:

You wish.

Chronological ordering:
1.Darwin goes to Galapolas.
2.Darwin sees many different species.
3.Darwin "makes up" Darwinism/Evolution to explain different species.
4.Does Darwin see the species EVOLVE from one into another? No.

it is NOT the same as:
1.Newton observes gravity happen (sitting under a tree.......)
2.Newton sees it everywhere
3.Newton "makes up" Gravity to explain gravity.
4.Newton "makes up" experiments to test it. Newton replicates it for ALL for friends and family to see and play with themselves.

The difference? no.4.

The difference is your categorical denial.

4. Lots of lab experiments have been done. Lab experiments show that a species can become a species unable to breed with other descendents from the same ancestor.

If we use your analogy I can say gravity doesn't work as a theory because we have never tested the sun's attraction to the earth in a lab experiment. You are still using your "semantics" to attempt to skirt the issue. WHen in doubt you change the meanings.

0 Replies

Some information on "species" research.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/sfcb-jhm052303.php

0 Replies

Quote:

farmerman wrote:

Buried deeply within Behe is a stipulation that Ive always found a bit troubling to his "hypothesis". Irreduscible Complexity requires a system to be fully functional with all its parts from the getgo (Of course thats his definition , not his finding) BUT, Once IC has established the form, Behe then says it can be modified through time (so he says it cant evolve to get there, but once a system is "created" , it can evolve ) might I say DUUUHHH?

thus your theory of evolution, that in the very beginning, life spawned from non-animated objects, has been proven wrong.

How silly are you? , can you even read? even BEHE himself admits that evolution is happening once the irreducibility point is passed. DARWIN himself had nothing to say about origins of life .so THESE ARE 2 DIFFERENT TOPICS.
by whom has the various hypotheses of the origins of life been disproven? and which hypotheses? all of them?,?Has this DISPROVING, by any chance been accomplished by one of the shiny suit hucksters from the ICR? I submit that most of those ICR clowns and clones (including your Mike Behe) wanted a smaller pond in which to be bigger fish. I can understand religious zeal, but not to the point that it blinds you to the laws and theories of science.

PS there are NO areas of evidence that do NOT fit evolutionary theory. Match that sport.

As far as saying that fossils do not represent life millions of years old-youre blind as a bat,mule stubborn , dead wrong and have probably never spent any quality time with any field data.Its wonderful to be so positive, but to be defenseless is a shame. Youve obviously taken on yourself to purposefully ignore objective data and turn such data around to suit some pre selected purpose.

Your Mike Behe didnt do so well at the ID conference in E'town Pa a few weeks ago. Like a bad comedian he posted his irreduceability crap and got his head handed to him by a Jesuit geologist from a Philadelphia College.Go see Behe and ask questions about how deep his thought process has gone,.
You sound like a young fella and Id suggest that you get closer to yourCreationist "heroes" before you decide to pitch your tent. With the exception of Duane Gish, who just shouts people down, the Creationists who try to pose as original scientists like Wise, Austen , Humphreys, appear a little nervous when asked about Deep time and absolute ages , as well as the concept of the concept of "how far is intra species variation gone before its considered evolution?"
What about extinction and the obvious multiple progressions of whole families that occur after mass extinctions?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

PS there are NO areas of evidence that do NOT fit evolutionary theory. Match that sport.

You forgot the bible.

0 Replies

Bible as evidence? How about the rig veda? How about the myths of the Navajo or the Inuit or the Yohimbe?

0 Replies

No, I think the Bible is the only thing that could be considered proof.

The Bible and Pompei.

0 Replies

Biliskner-

You said this;

Quote:

"mutating a fly that originally had 4 bristles into a fly with 36 bristles is a new species"

correct?

The answer is;

If those two types of fly are no longer capable of breeding with each other to produce non sterile offspring, yes.

Now if you would answer a question for me. Why don't you believe the scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth? As simple an answer as you would like is fine.

0 Replies

Most scientists will admit to you that they know perhaps less than one percent of all there is to know about humans or any other "species"...

This one percent is quite a bit though considering the complexity of life. About the Bible, let's hope that the level of learning in this discussion is above one percent. Smile

Genesis does not say, "God created the animals on such and such day". It says God "formed and made" them... well made/formed "includes" evolution (do not forget this). God formed man/woman too (according to Genesis), from the dust of the ground...(Formed from the dust of the ground, that is evolution!). What is "form" but shape and that is what evolution is the changing of shapes...

After the initial creation mentioned taking place (big bang) "in the beginning" (genesis 1:1) after that God did not create anything till it comes down to the human "spirit". He did not "create" the animals he "formed and made" them... It does not say he "created" the world in seven days it says that in seven days the only thing that God "created" was God's image in humans. The big bang took about seven days too perhaps...

So God did not create anything in the garden of Eden that was not "before" or the Bible would say, God "created" this and God "created" that... The only thing that had not been "before" Eden was the "spirit" of humans(God's own image).

Six to eight thousand years ago was when humans according to both science and the Bible came out of the jungles and built cities and became what is called today "civilized". So what is the rub? Civilized = The Image of God

So (according to the Bible) God did not "create" the bodies of Adam and Even in the garden, it says he "formed" them... And he took Eve from Adams rib? (this means she evolved beside him). Their spirits were of a substance that had not been before though(the image of God). To "create" is to bring something into being that has never been before. This human spirit, because it was not part of the initial creation, cannot be measured by physics

So there is no contradiction between science or the Bible on this issue only in the lack of understanding of both or either disciplines.

0 Replies

Biliskner wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I have read the Bible, and I have been on a Jury, and the one thing which matters more than a witness is physical evidence.

Science builds theories from evidence. Creation builds theories from stories. If countless rocks are dated using well understood known techniques, and they all say the Earth is billions of years old, then it's billions of years old. I don't care how many books with accounts of witnesses you can find which disagree, they are wrong.

Wrong. there is no physical evidence for the people who died in the Napoleon Conquest, Alexandra the Great battles, the multitude of wars between Assyria and Egypt. Yet they still happened.

Probably, but even so, those events don't conflict with physical evidence. And that was the point. Instead of trying to convince me that *some* things in history are correct (which we already know), who don't you address the point, which is that some of the Bible stories are in direct conflict with physical evidence.

Biliskner wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Fossils are routinely found embedded in rocks which we know for a fact are millions of years old.

We don't.

Well maybe you don't, but everyone else does.

But allright, I'll bite... Why do you say we don't know this?

0 Replies

Scoates-

The bible fits into evolution just fine. It is a collection of stories, written a long time ago, by humans that evolved. Quite simple....or am I missing your point?

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Scoates-

The bible fits into evolution just fine. It is a collection of stories, written a long time ago, by humans that evolved. Quite simple....or am I missing your point?

The Bible does fit into evolution... you have perceived my point well... other than science's ineptitude to analyze "spirit".

0 Replies

Adrian
I believe SCoates point is that the bible isn't statements of literal fact but rather can be considered a moral guide based on allegory and in some cases out right myth. Many believe that the bible doesn't preclude the facts of evolution or of other science. You just have to look past the literal to see the figurative.

One school of thought is that science is an attempt to explain how God does things. It isn't in contradiction to him but is an attempt to better understand him.

0 Replies

We've gone full circle; evolution supports the bible. he he he he...

0 Replies

Actually, I was being sarcastic, since few would consider the Bible proof.

0 Replies

RedRex, you have no "spirit".

Can you prove me wrong?

0 Replies

Well I knew you were being sarcastic Scoates, hence my own sarcasm.

RexRed, I will give you credit for understanding that the intelligent design variant of creationism is the only defendable one.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know