Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)
Printable View
Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)
The return of the "missing link." I've been doing so thinking and reading on this subject and I think the dismissal of the importance of transitional/intermediate forms is more important than (at least some) evolutionists seem to want to admit. First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular. Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a linear progression (as I think he's implying).Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Same applies as I said to Red.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
If you're actually able to believe that a global flood happened, then you clearly have no knowledge of reason, science, or physics and no understanding of what facts or evidence actually are.
There is a level of wilful disregard for scientific fact at which I have no interest. Belief in a the Noah's Ark/global flood far surpasses my tolerance level.
I hope you have a pleasant discussion.
And yet all scientific evidence points to ever-increasing longevity of humans. Funny how all of the remains, bodies from peat-bogs and tombs, which match, or pre-date biblical times have been under 70 years of age at death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reccura
Hi there, Mr. Atheist -
I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."
Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.
agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Well, I personally see no reason for me to stir the pot further than anything that I have said before, which is that I believe that God created the Earth and everything in it and we evolved from that point into what we are today. I cannot believe in chance as the start of all things given that you must give it infinite tries to make it work. I choose to believe in God. You may choose to believe in whatsoever you wish. I do not choose to waste my time in trivial arguments. I think we should start taking care of this planet before we lose our home, no matter how we believe it came to be here. May God bless everyone one of you, even those who do not believe in Him. Adieu.
Pen
There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid.
same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even try to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.
your not going to get brilliant answers from an online forum, so i suggest that you dont use this discussion to bolster belief in creation or evolution. but, there are particles called free radicals which are discussed in gerontology that might be what causes alterations in DNA. cells dont know to improve it happens on accident. then those creatures which gain good changes survive to reproduce more and so do their descendants until the become the common species.
everything just does everything. your hair is part of you, right. do you think about growing it. no, it just does it. just doing it does not mean accidental nor does it mean the "just doing" is not understood. it just means it can't be described effectively with words. you understand how to grow your hair, i know this because you do it. of course you can't explain how you do this, but you do it. same goes with opening and closing your hand. how do you do it? please don't try to explain. you'd have to type for days just to explain exactly what is going on to move your pinky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
why wouldnt a cell guess? what about when a cell's supposed to take a step with its left foot, figuratively speaking (cells have no feet), and there's no left foot there. . .well then, the cell with have to improvise. it will have to hop on its right foot so to speak.
cells arent thinking in terms of "trial and error." that is how we interpret their behavior from our standpoint. each cell is simply doing what it does. saying we lack a knowledge of cell "thought" isnt a hole in the evolutionary argument. its just you being anthropocentric. we know tons of stuff about human pregancy, but that doesnt mean we know if the sperm who almost made it to the egg feels bummed out.
thing is, "it just happens" happens all the time, every day, every moment. it just happens is saying we can't desribe it, but there it is. god creating the universe has only one of these "it just happens qualities." the exact opposite of "it just happens" actually: you can describe it, but there its not.
i'd rather have my beliefs lacking in description than lacking in existence. words are fickle anyways
We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Pass, thanks.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll try to muddle through as best we can.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Hold on, I do believe we're on to something:
As any credible biologist will tell you, there most certainly is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Wonderful. This is exactly what the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki. Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish, and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils. Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life, or b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.
As much as I'd like to impress you, like yourself, I've got far too much reading and - as a liberal arts guy - I have extreme difficulty wading through dense scientific texts. I'll peruse a bit, but I've got papers to grade.
And yes, I may be arguing from ignorance, but how is evolution's arguing from a serious lack of said evidence any more credible? The theory is touted as being "factual" by many - yet the existence of a large and convincing body of transitional form evidence is incomplete - and perhaps, at best, merely suggestive rather than conclusive.
In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.
The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).
Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.
Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).
The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.
But why mutation at all? Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures? Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance. Lots of time + lots of stuff = life. Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Nice analogy - but I don't think we're in disagreement about the fact that nature provides us with an incomplete puzzle in terms of its origins. I think what we disagree upon is what kind of picture the puzzle makes when completed. Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by JGL57
sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things. animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . . these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.
Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.
The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.
I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.
Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
If you are genuinely interested, Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe
I kind of figured you have an answer like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Interesting answers (and I figured you'd have answers for these too). My short response would (predicatably) be that the precision and complexity that is involved at all levels of life - from the solar system down to microbiological entities - argues for a designer. I understand why you will attribute such things to random chance - what other choice is there if you eliminate God? I don't intend to change your position - but the evidence and speculation that props up evolution still requires a significant amount of guesswork about gaps that may/may not suppport your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.
Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude? The timing of all these changes seems too fantastic to be believed. When you consider the numerous things that happen when the birth process begins (heck, the entire process of pregnancy) how can we account for that? How did the species survive whilst all those thousands of chemical/neurological processes worked themselves out?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously? Because if not, then the other developments in isolation would have proved useless, and therefore should not have "carried forward" in the evolution of that particular creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Understandable. But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Then one of us is wasting his time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But "all of the evidence" will never be present - certain realities preclude that from happening - you've admitted that yourself. One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions
Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.
Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I suppose I should have said "all the evidence thus far collected".Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
pardon, one quick thing.
1) i don't buy the whole intelligent being doohicky. that would suggest that god consiously created everything. that means he thought everything. thought happens linearly, one thing at a time in a series. You can only think of one thing at a time, but that is too slow for understanding anything at all and much too slow to understand everything. "it would be like trying to drink the pacific ocean with a one pint beer mug" (watts). a silly method for drinking the ocean, a beer bong would be more feasible. anyways, maybe "intelligent" design isnt the best way to desribe creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) instincts are innate, found in geneology.
the ability to learn is an instinctual behavior--some are naturally better at it than others. although that which is learned during a lifetime is not passed down in the genetic code, that ability to learn is!
3) on the contrary to your claim that a godless world is hostile to life--"what has been the greatest objection to existence so far? god." (N)
*puts on devil's advocate hat*
In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.
Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself. On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals. The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples. Natural selection could and probably did develope the different finch species on the Galapagos, but it cannot create anything more complex than a variation of beak shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
It seems that Red is involved in every theological discussion on this site.
Completely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
"Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind. Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I thought you were Protestant!!!! (here I would add a smiley if not for my dislike of adding smileys)Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
okay. i do not think that this being able to think more than one thing at a time would be called thinking as we know it. it would be more in par with the same kind of intelligence we possess when we breath, grow our hair, fire our nerves, digest our meals, ect....basically, unconscious, or ignored by our consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
point is, this kind of intelligence isnt godly-- at least not in the christian sense--rather, its nature. and if this is what they want to call godliness, i am going to have to call myself god, and you, and red, and everybody and everything because we all have the natural ability to do without knowing how we do or do many things at once.
yea, 10 million years according to some crazy evangelical preacher:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?
Other than christianity, I mean.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Good luck!
Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!
Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.