Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#693 Nov 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't FULLY have the answers yet. They probably will within our lifetimes.
Not too much different than what Darwin said...

When Darwin wrote about natural selection in "Origin of Species," he noted that the actual fossil record did not support this theory. Darwin thought that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. He was wrong, here is how he explained it...

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Today, about 120 years later, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, we now have millions of fossils representing over a quarter of a million species and we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time, and even when new ones are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's imagination than a transitional species.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#694 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, such anger and hatred, is that part of your evolution science training? Does it work? Are you actually able to convince people you are a genius with that stuff? Maybe something is missing in your life :)
The Big Bang theory and all the current science does not say the "universe came from nothing."
Really? So where do you and "all the current science" say it came form?
I looked up that "fool" thing for you...
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools...(Romans 1:19-22)
There are several hypotheses on where the universe came from. Lawrence Krauss has a series of YouTube lectures and a book where he explains that "nothing" is impossible and how the universe may have begun. Other physicists think that the Big Bang may have been the result of the collision of two branes, and don't ask me what a brane is, I don't know. Others believe that the mass of the universe may have been always here. In regards to the last one when Christians ask who made the mass that can be answered with the question "who made your god?" A bit snooty but it should get the point across. If your god could always exist why couldn't the universe have always existed.

Seriously there may be some questions that we never know the answer to. That does not mean that "god did it". Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way.

And if you want to learn more about the origin of life you might want to explore this website:

http://exploringorigins.org/rnaworld.html
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#695 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
My, my, such anger and hatred, is that part of your evolution science training? Does it work? Are you actually able to convince people you are a genius with that stuff? Maybe something is missing in your life
No "anger and hatred." You are just stupid and uneducated, and yet you dare open your yap and criticize science. Fool, fool, fool.
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big Bang theory and all the current science does not say the "universe came from nothing."
Really? So where do you and "all the current science" say it came form?
An infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity is not :nothing." Do some reading, Gomer.
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked up that "fool" thing for you...
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools...(Romans 1:19-22)
Who is "they"? You are taking this quote completely out of context and using it to club your enemies over the head (all the while playing the cheesy passive-aggressive game of claiming that "God is saying this to you.") Angry much yourself? LOL!

If you REALLY thought your Buybull was the holy "Word of God," I would think you would treat it with much more respect. I know I would if I were in your shoes.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#696 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
When Darwin wrote about natural selection in "Origin of Species," he noted that the actual fossil record did not support this theory.
It does now, 150 years and millions of fossils later. And Darwin was RIGHT, even without complete fossil evidence and even without knowing a thing about DNA!

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#697 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
edit, you were doing fine up until this point:<quoted text>
That was not the point of the first experiment, nor was it the observation.
Really?

"Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:

1.The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
2.This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3.These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
4.By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

Moving goal posts? How about Darwinism morphing into Neo-Darwinism?

Neo-Darwinism

What evolution scientists did find was that species did not appear in the fossil record spread out evenly over time as Darwin theorized, but rather new species appeared in clumps. This was named "punctuated equilibrium," meaning in a short amount of time, many new species appear, then for long periods of time very few new species appear on the earth for the first time.

According to Neo-Darwinism, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutations make small changes in DNA, bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, create new meaning in DNA by LUCKY ACCIDENTS.

Lucky accidents? Really? One problem with this story is that it is implausible. It is the same as saying that a great work of literature, such as Moby Dick, could emerge from lesser pre-existing books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way.

Well, this lucky accident theory belongs right in there with the entire universe popping into existence from nothing, without cause, and the theory that life sprang into existence, without cause, from a bunch of chemicals in a primordial soup.

Interesting but false... Given enough time a thousand monkeys typing at random on a thousand typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#698 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Not too much different than what Darwin said...
When Darwin wrote about natural selection in "Origin of Species," he noted that the actual fossil record did not support this theory. Darwin thought that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. He was wrong, here is how he explained it...
"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Today, about 120 years later, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, we now have millions of fossils representing over a quarter of a million species and we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time, and even when new ones are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's imagination than a transitional species.
No, he noted at that time that there was not enough evidence yet in the fossil record to fully support his theory. Do you think that we have not dug up any new fossils in the last 150 years? And your logic is incredibly faulty, how could we have fewer transitional fossils if we have found more fossils?

Actually scientists have realized that the term "transitional" is rather misleading since all life is constantly evolving therefore all fossils by definition are transitional. We have more fossils that show the change from dinosaur to bird, from the ancestors of whales to modern day whales, that show the evolution of the horse, and that show the evolution of man, than we did in Darwin's time. Many many more "transitional" forms than we had then.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#699 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Today, about 120 years later, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, we now have millions of fossils representing over a quarter of a million species and we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time, and even when new ones are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's imagination than a transitional species.
Your Christian lie doesn't get any truer by you repeating it over and over again. The only people who say this are fundamentalist Christian yobs who are working an agenda against real science.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#700 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting but false... Given enough time a thousand monkeys typing at random on a thousand typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Not a good analogy.

A better "monkeys typing" analogy to biological evolution would go something like this:

Every time one of those million monkeys were to randomly type a sequence of letters like "Ham" or "let" or "to be or," that sequence would be KEPT and added to the collection. This part of the analogy mimics the working of natural selection in biological evolution, which keeps random mutations that are beneficial to the life of that organism.

With this kind of "filter" in place, it probably wouldn't take the monkeys that long at all to type the complete works of Shakespeare. 10 years? 100 years? 1,000? Not long at all in the context of the 4.5 BILLION years the world has been around.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#701 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
What evolution scientists did find was that species did not appear in the fossil record spread out evenly over time as Darwin theorized, but rather new species appeared in clumps.
Some quotes from Darwin that indicate that he acknowledged the probability of some form of punctuated equilibrium.

"Natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed" (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (Darwin 1872, 152).

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10)."

"It might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world." (Darwin 1872, 433).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#702 Nov 20, 2012
By the way, when it comes to the "transitional" fossil between man and other apes that was identified by a couple of doofuses from your side. Homo erectus qualifies as a transitional since it was Gish himself who said that H.e. was definitely a man and another creatard who said H.e. was definitely an ape. When your side cannot decide what camp to put a fossil in it definitely qualifies as a transitional between the two camps.

Much of the "controversy" about fossils is of the same order. In reality there is no hard line between bird and dinosaur, fish and amphibian, mammal and reptile, etc.. Some of the discoverers and classifiers would prefer that certain fossils be classified as one group and others argue that they should be in another. That is evidence that they are transitional right there.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#703 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Moving goal posts? How about Darwinism morphing into Neo-Darwinism?
It's called advancing science as we learn more and more with new technology.

Interestingly, each new advance CONFIRMS Darwin's initial principles. It doesn't in any way REFUTE them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#704 Nov 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy.
A better "monkeys typing" analogy to biological evolution would go something like this:
Every time one of those million monkeys were to randomly type a sequence of letters like "Ham" or "let" or "to be or," that sequence would be KEPT and added to the collection. This part of the analogy mimics the working of natural selection in biological evolution, which keeps random mutations that are beneficial to the life of that organism.
With this kind of "filter" in place, it probably wouldn't take the monkeys that long at all to type the complete works of Shakespeare. 10 years? 100 years? 1,000? Not long at all in the context of the 4.5 BILLION years the world has been around.
And using that sort of filter some researchers have reproduced Shakespeare's works using a computer analog for thousands of monkeys. Applying the laws of evolution to the monkeys typing randomly has very positive results. That is one of the reason that creationists drop either random variation or natural selection when describing evolution. It is true that you cannot evolve by natural selection alone or by random variation alone. But put them together and you really have something.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#705 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And using that sort of filter some researchers have reproduced Shakespeare's works using a computer analog for thousands of monkeys. Applying the laws of evolution to the monkeys typing randomly has very positive results. That is one of the reason that creationists drop either random variation or natural selection when describing evolution. It is true that you cannot evolve by natural selection alone or by random variation alone. But put them together and you really have something.
Agreed! They usually change the subject at this point, don't they?:)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#706 Nov 20, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
To shamelessly plagiarise Dawkins ... It's like playing chess with a pidgeon .... He knocks over the pieces, craps over the board - then flies back to claim victory.
But agree - Russell has shown no capability/inclination to engage - and less to actually understand the subject.
I know you're hurting
But time heals all wounds...
..and hey
You've got millions of years to lick your's
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#707 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're hurting
But time heals all wounds...
..and hey
You've got millions of years to lick your's
Whatever
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#708 Nov 20, 2012
Pinky Minus The Brain wrote:
Evolution > Creation
Oh a man or woman of few words...
Not enough testosterone to jump in help your flailing evo-god fellow worshippers?
They're being blitzed
And you just smirk and walk past?
No compassion....

C'mon they need CPR...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#709 Nov 20, 2012
Ron, the first experiments were done merely to see if amino acids would form naturally:http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_e xperiment

They were somewhat wrong in what they thought that the original atmosphere was and it looks like they would have had even better results if they had used what is thought to be the early atmosphere today, and not only that but part of the chirality problem would have been answered too:

"Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.[citation needed] Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear."[21] However, in nature, L amino acids dominate; later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible."

If you read Gillette's post of Darwin quotes you will see that he foresaw that punctuated equilibrium might be the case. So you can hardly call "Neo-Darwinism" any different because of that.

By the way, both Darwinism and NeoDarwinism are pretty much cretinist terms. Darwin's theory has been tweaked and had minor corrections over the years, but it is still essentially the same today as when he published it. The man was no slouch.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#710 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh a man or woman of few words...
Not enough testosterone to jump in help your flailing evo-god fellow worshippers?
They're being blitzed
And you just smirk and walk past?
No compassion....
C'mon they need CPR...
Russell, ever the Black Knight. "Come back here so I can chew your legs off!!"

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#711 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Russell, ever the Black Knight. "Come back here so I can chew your legs off!!"
"Waddya gonna do, bleed on me?!?!"

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#712 Nov 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
An infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity is not :nothing." Do some reading, Gomer.
The singularity in the description of black holes is a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist, it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly.

Have a nice day :)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Blitzking 161,707
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 38 min Kong_ 1,640
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 18,841
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr Kong_ 178,597
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 3
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of Sat Chimney1 14
More from around the web