Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Perfect!

Maporsche, Interestingly enough, on A2k we had a similar conversation about the interspatial distances of the "layers" of mica clays and their similarities to potential biomolecules. Looking for a primordial soup, may actually be more accurately described as a search for a primordial "soup bowl"

Yeah... Research that old "Micro-evolution" vs. "Macro-evolution" thingy. Your stating of ""see" evolution as a whole" was careless & intriguing. If we have no way to "see" it's occurrence (irregardless of how small the segments of time we are looking at.) The "Big Bang" has been investigated to such small fractions of a second... has there been a 0? We haven't actually ever received any <compelling> to believe this. The evidence for "Micro-evolution" in finch beaks is compelling, irrefutable & extensive. This IS NOT "Macro-evolution" or what people are meaning when they refer to the term "evolution" There haven't been any trans-species evolving (that we've seen). The evidence for your faith has either been unceremoniously knocked out. Or in light of current knowledge, now seen as sooooooooooooo ridiculously unlikely! You've got waaaaay more faith than essentially ANY Bible-Believing Christian. By definition what you believe is a faith. You just seem to have a lot of it. And when you magnify living materials down to the level of molecules, your faith looks pretty dumb.

Bud, do yourself a favor and "DO YOUR [OWN] RESEARCH" Particularly, go ahead & study all your ample molecular-biological research! Is there any since Behe published his book "Darwin's Black Box" (before or after this book) It basically destroyed the basis for your atheistic faith. Can this be proven incorrect? Sorry. Which you'll probably just delete this "Post"

1 WHERE IN THE WORLD DO YOU GET ALL THIS MATTER (PRAY TELL) TO "EVOLVE"?!!!!!!!!!!!!! This question stems from my stating that your faith is simply "unlikely." It's unlikely, but it is still possible. If you have an initial element to "evolve" out occurring is within a (TERRRRRRRIBLY SMALL/FAR-FETCHED) realm of possibility. I have asked that very question of more than 10 (of your faithful college [Science Department] "educated" peeps) Their answers are able to be collated as a collective... "I dunno"

2 It's just not possible for the Universe to have "always existed" Did the completed Universe just "pop" into existence?? Paul Daves put his answer this way "given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course." This raise your faith to an inevitable Maybe... but I call the one responsible for this God though. Technically speaking... He is the only... anything, capable of doing all that Humanity has been able to observe when you get down to the raw basis of life Being that you are so well educated.

3 Perhaps you wouldn't mind on explaing how a cell with all of its functionality could exist without it's cell wall?

4 So the evidence does show that our Universe began with a... Bang. This doesn't actually prove that "evolution" is the answer. It just means that an explosion was in our history.

5 The crux of your problem will ALWAYS be that you need an infinitely existing entity to explain the existence of molecule #1

6 The Universe is expanding, and has an "afterglow" of radiant heat which proceeds from an explosion

7 "Science is good at telling us how, but not so good on the why. Maybe there isn't a why. To wonder why is very human, but perhaps there is no answer in human terms to such deep questions of existence." -Paul Daves

After saying this, Mr. Daves gets a little "Wishy-Washy" in his explanation of the origins of... everything, while never actually answering the question that he says that he is answering. Oh, okay... Quantum Physics has the answer for how "space" & "time" came into being. You can give this question however much "time", "space" or "Cracker Jack Boxes." Sorry but no Complex/"multi-part" systems are gonna arise without one of those 3 systems previously existing.

Please, please prove me wrong.

"Evidence" doesnt prove a l;egend wrong by its own nature, the legends and myths are found to be minus any evidence at all.

Obviously you are a Creationist who is comfortable with the fact that your belief system is supported only by a few lines of a book of legends and has NO real scientific evidence to support itself.


Big Bang and cosmology are NOT part of the theory of natural selection, it is, in fact,a red herring in the discussion. Why not try to discuss your above points one by one rather than making it appear that, by loading an unitelligible list of "Apples and grapefruit" you are providing anything worth discussing.Lets start with the cell wall discussion and how did it arise. Weve discussed this so many times before that itd be easy to point you to resources on the web.
Only thing, are you willing to understand real evidence or are you just wanting to re dredge old arguments that have been severely debunked in recent years
like your discussion of Mike Behe , who, by the way, has recently authored a follow-up work that is almost a complete departure form "Black Box"). Hes now quite comfortable with most all of the tenets of natural selection and has so stipulated about an old erth, common descent, macro evolution etc.. He still wants us to blindly accept Irreducible complexity , even though his "molecular creation" has been trashed by several microbiologists . Irreducible complexity" is only ok when noone takes the time to search for antecedents of a biological system or mechanism .In all cases, Behes complexity examples fall apart because we can see that there are several antecedents to his original proposed system. SO what hes done this time is to go back even farther in his systems (like blood clotting enzymatic "cascades") and tries to show that an earlier system IS an example or irreducible complexity. What hes faioled to understand is that hes stipulated that the evolution of blood clotting enzymes have been shown to have been developed in successively lower orders of animals.

Fresh meat.

Before I waste my time with him, lets see if he even bothers to stick around.

T
K
O

good idea.

Yeah--usual tactic. Browbeat the kid with insults, jibes and meaningless bluster.

You guys weren't for sticking around as a fact.

sjmr hasn't had time to scutter into the bushes with his tail between his legs howling righteous indignation as you have and you wimps are presuming he will do before he's even got started properly.

I notice you didn't attempt a response to his post. Just snide remarks. You really do underestimate A2Kers. And there's only one explanation for that.

Wow.. where to begin. Your post is rambling nonsense that drifts back and forth with most of it being incoherent gibberish.

Your argument seems to be nothing more than, "It can't be true because I think it is unlikely". To watch someone counting 1, 2, 3, 4, ... might make it seem unlikely that the person will ever get to 1,000,000,000 but it doesn't make it impossible. It only requires doing the same thing over and over long enough. Each micro-evolution is merely the next digit in the long line to get to 1,000,000,000. Because you only saw the numbers 1-4 doesn't mean the rest of them don't exist and never will.

1. The matter is part of this world. The majority of matter on this world is not involved in evolution. Your question of how it started is not one of evolution. Evolution is concerned with how life changes, not how it came to be. (Elements don't evolve. You might want to learn the difference between elements and molecules. I would guess the college professors stared at you in amazement if you tried to ask how elements evolved when discussing biology.)

2. The origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution. Arguing against the big bang is a typical dodge to avoid discussing evolution.

3. Why? Does evolution require that cell walls not exist? Currently evolution occurs within cell walls.

4. "Explosion" is the wrong word to describe the big bang. It was not an explosion as we know it. (Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.)

5. What does that mean? The first molecule in the universe? The first molecule that evolves? What? You are babbling incoherently or talking in tongues. You certainly aren't making a valid argument.

6. Only if you misuse the word "explosion."

7. Science's job isn't to tell us why from a philosophical aspect. To expect it to shows a lack of research and understanding on your part.

Good work, Parados . . . you show an admirable patience.

What Behe says has nothing to do with the intellectual concept of irreducible complexity. If he "falls apart" it does not mean IR falls apart.

It's a red herring, a non sequitur and apples and grapefruit to try to maintain otherwise. The concept way transcends Behe and anybody else who seeks to make his name in the field.

"Transcendant" concepts are fine for theology, but have no place in scientific investigations that are limited to the natural world.

Don't be so silly wande. Transcends means to go beyond or surpass.

My sentence is perfectly valid. You should read Prof Aidley's The Physiology of Excitable Cells and see how far short of the mark Behe is that he needs to transcend before being taken seriously on this subject.

Theology is way beyond your capacties. And Behe's. You should avoid using words you don't understand. It makes you look like you are trying to impress with little or no effort.

Lingerie transcends biological responses. That's why you lot daren't go near it despite it being in your face.

None of the transcendant concepts you mention have any relevance to evolutionary science.

I never said they did.

The subject is not evolutionary science wande. One can learn the essentials of that in any high-summer holiday resort where hoi polloi youth gathers when released from workaday drudgery in numbers.

Or, should I say, could. It's all a bit PC now I gather so a brief essay, 20 lines or so, ought to suffice. Sanitised evolutionary science.

The subject, wande, is whether or not to replace what feeble strands of religious thought still exist in your schools with this very severe science. Some say it is a fork in the road. That Manifest Destiny calls and waits.

They cannot co-exist. Not without compromise and once there the debate becomes simply a power struggle about where to compromise. Only a pretention of intellectual discussion can then take place. And that discussion becoming, mutating into, the subject of the discussion. And jolly interesting it is too and it has evolutionary tendencies as do all aspects of "life".

The production worker (shuddershudder) on whom it all feeds and the kids to whom it is said to be directed become mere abstract concepts and outside this wonderful circular network. It becomes a branch of the Chattering Class. And thus obviously seeks to make its discussion more important than other discussions and even disparaging some of them and pointedly ignoring them. Even sport discussions. Everybody else is trolling. Just by dint of it being said so.

And each side needs the other. The dispassionate observer is ignored. What's the sense of charging upfield all padded up and with helmets on with walkie-talkies and there being nobody defending the goal line. It's okay for a movie scene but with 70,000 roaring fans it would just be silly. And if they had paid $30 apiece they might burn the stadium down.

This thread is a rivulet in the tributary of a mighty river.

And the production workers, the silly sods section, look up in awe at this display of mumbo-jumbo, and it is mumbo-jumbo to them as well as to those spouting it, and they resolve to emulate it and to see their kids do the same and hey-presto the CC comes to embrace the whole nation.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're interested in learning. This is normally not the case for people who so vociferously deny evolution, but there's always the chance...

Let's begin with one of the main functional words in your claim: species. Biologists often shudder at the term 'species-concept', because while categorizing life can be very useful, life as a whole and interbreeding/relations can be so nuanced that deeper meaning to the word 'species' can be lost.

What am I talking about, exactly? Well, there are a number of different ways in which species are defined. You can look them up on wikipedia if you're interested, but just to give a taste there is the idea of a sexual species, a population which can interbreed to the exclusion of life with which it can't interbreed. This seems relatively straightforward, but then you come across ring species and the like, etc. So you get the idea: the word species is handy, but the actual description of reality is the deeper picture.

So now we get to the point. Because the word 'species' is defined as such, there can be different ways in which a new species arises, in our lifetimes (and they have). Reproductive isolation between populations has been confirmed repeatedly and on a short time-scale, whether it's polyploidy in plants or fruit flies in a lab. And don't give me any crap about a lab not being 'natural', the conditions that led to the speciation were simple to the extent that it would be ludicrous to say it couldn't happen in nature. If we now jump to another kind of 'species', in this case a strain, we have the arrival of nylon-eating bacteria. I'm sure you could search a creationist website for some (likely completely misguided) rationalizations, but the point is clear and simple: we witness speciation happening right now, all over the world.

And please, don't say something silly like, 'but it's not a dog turning into a cat'. That would be missing the entire point and expose a misunderstanding of what a species and speciation are.

You should avoid giving lectures on English, spendius. It might make you look like a pompous and hypocritical ass, to say nothing of your other valueless contributions.

No, the point of the thread is not your fantasy of a grand battle/river/phallic object/<insert unnecessary metaphor here>. If you can't handle that, start your own thread.

That was pointless. Just a diatribe.

That was a neat trick though. When you can't think of a metaphor you instruct your reader to insert an unnecessary one himself.

And I can handle it. Piece of piss actually. So I needn't start my own thread.

It wasn't pointless, it was a simple message: you should stop being inane (trolling) in science threads. It's an easy message to grasp, yet it eludes you.

You've never seen <insert X here>? You say you've been here four years? I suppose it's also too much to expect you go grasp that in this case it's a poorly-veiled criticism.

We'll see if you can really 'handle it'.

Interested reader can find great discussion on evolution and creation with lots real scientific evidences and questions raised in an online book, written in the U.K :

REVELATION, RATIONALITY, KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH (easliy searchable)