The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[sanabas]

Three points - address them and not my 'ignorance of evolution'.

Sure.

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material.

discussed multiple times in this series of threads, I am sure. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate. Whether you believe abiogenesis could happen, did happen, or was done by divine intervention is of zero relevance to how evolution works. If you actually manage to prove abiogenesis didn't happen, that doesn't prove evolution is wrong.

The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. You seem to be saying that there are only two wypes of life, animal and vegetable, and they are so fundamentally different, that there can't possibly be a connection between them. Is that close to your argument?

This is fundamentally wrong. There are plenty of life forms that do not fit into either the animalia or plantae kingdoms. i.e. fungus, protozoa, etc. Many of these are far simpler in structure than any animal or plant. There are also prokaryotes, which have an even simpler cell. If both plants and animals evolved from basic eukaryotes, why should there be the 'plant-like animal' that you claim the absence of proves evolution wrong? Why not look at the plant-like and animal like members of the protista kingdom as your missing links?

Third, between any species of animal or plant and any other species. No case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species.

Much the same as the second point. We shouldn't expect to see the transformation of one species into another. We should expect to see the transformation of one ancestral population into 2 different, descendant species. There's plenty of examples of this occurring, many of them mentioned in this very thread.

Your arguments seem to be fancied-up versions of two of the more basic objections that those with no idea try to present as evidence. The first one says 'you can't show how life started, therefore any theory you come up with about how life has developed after it had already started is null and void'. The second one says 'I don't believe in evolution. I especially don't believe that humans evolved from apes. There's no half man-half monkey missing link alive today, therefore we didn't evolve.' Both these objections are rubbish, no matter how much you try to embellish them.

 

[beingofone]

brennan:

beingofone: For a start you make the same (almost traditional) mistake as many many other Creationists; with your first objection you make the mistake of suggesting that evolution cares where life came from. Evolution requires life, nothing more, whether that life was created or came about through abiogenesis is irrelevant. (Remember: Darwin was a Creationist)

It is fundamental to the essence of the question.

In other words, is life random or designed? Was it a one time event(as is the latest model) or was it across the board, epic, and universal?

The gap between animal and plant life was explained to you before, did you fail to understand the explanation or do you choose the traditional creationist method of ignoring evidence and explanation? Early single-celled organisms (neither plant nor animal) evolved into either plant or animal type cells, one did not evolve into the other, so of course we would not expect to see any organism suddenly cross this 'gap' - it never existed.

Then we go right back to abiogensis that you said was unrelated.

Was abiogensis a single event or a universal catalyst for the original life?

If you mean 'there has been no recorded speciation event' then you are flat out wrong (check the talkorigins website for a list of observed speciation events). However I suspect that you mean something more along the lines of 'a cat has never evolved into a dog' - in which case you show an appalling lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Such an event would disprove evolution.

I have read these "talkorigins website for a list of observed speciation events."

I say; you are flat out wrong.

A cat not evolving to a dog is not the only problem. If gene mutation is random but adaptation is a product of the resources of environment, then we should clearly see no single species as each mutation would and should generate individual advantages of survival(over the course of time).

We would see hybrid, evolving, adaptation with no clear lines of predictible species identification.

Instead we see clearly; species adaptation within distinct lines of predictible classification. A horse is a horse of course. A mule cannot reproduce because it is confined to its species generation.


sanabas:

discussed multiple times in this series of threads, I am sure. Abiogenesis and evolution are separate. Whether you believe abiogenesis could happen, did happen, or was done by divine intervention is of zero relevance to how evolution works. If you actually manage to prove abiogenesis didn't happen, that doesn't prove evolution is wrong.

They are related and cannot be separated.

The reason is; the questions that plants and animals, categories of species are intrinsic and linked.

Just because abiogenesis is a postulate of faith does not mean it is not related to evolution. If abiogenesis is false, the entire idea that evolution is a random mutation of genetic code is false. Therefore evolution is false.

Is DNA random or designed? That is the question.

If DNA is designed, species adaptation occurs through planned programming and therefore, ID is a credible theory.

Beingofone:
The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant.

sanabas:
I'm not sure what the problem is here. You seem to be saying that there are only two wypes of life, animal and vegetable, and they are so fundamentally different, that there can't possibly be a connection between them. Is that close to your argument?

That is an example of two distinct types of life. It once again, boils down to abiogenesis.

Was abiogenesis spontaneous and universal? Did it occur more than once?

This is fundamentally wrong. There are plenty of life forms that do not fit into either the animalia or plantae kingdoms. i.e. fungus, protozoa, etc. Many of these are far simpler in structure than any animal or plant. There are also prokaryotes, which have an even simpler cell. If both plants and animals evolved from basic eukaryotes, why should there be the 'plant-like animal' that you claim the absence of proves evolution wrong? Why not look at the plant-like and animal like members of the protista kingdom as your missing link

Do you mean that protista kingdom do not have the distinctive characters of plants, animals or fungi? You just made my point.

Here we have more than just plants and animals, now we have another species that is unrelated with no clear relation.

Was abiogenesis universal, occuring over a vast amount of time, or was it a one time event? This question must be answered to find the truth of the matter.

Much the same as the second point. We shouldn't expect to see the transformation of one species into another. We should expect to see the transformation of one ancestral population into 2 different, descendant species. There's plenty of examples of this occurring, many of them mentioned in this very thread.

That does not follow at all.

If mutation is random we should see X-men as a common. Instead we see a human race as distinct and intrinsic and cannot be interdicted through mutation.

Therefore; macroevolution is false.

Your arguments seem to be fancied-up versions of two of the more basic objections that those with no idea try to present as evidence.

And your ideas are just dancing around the hard questions.

The first one says 'you can't show how life started, therefore any theory you come up with about how life has developed after it had already started is null and void'.

How is the beginning of the blueprint of DNA unrelated?

The second one says 'I don't believe in evolution. I especially don't believe that humans evolved from apes. There's no half man-half monkey missing link alive today, therefore we didn't evolve.' Both these objections are rubbish, no matter how much you try to embellish them.

Macroevolution is rubbish and so is abiogenesis.

It cannot be duplicated, tested, falsified, or proved.

Yet design and intellect are properties of life itself - without a designer? That is embellishment and dishonesty of the first order.

 

[El_Machinae]

We would see hybrid, evolving, adaptation with no clear lines of predictible species identification.

Instead we see clearly; species adaptation within distinct lines of predictible classification.

Do you mean that protista kingdom do not have the distinctive characters of plants, animals or fungi? You just made my point.

lol

A horse is a horse of course.

The offspring is different from the parents in minute, though significant, ways. We just choose to gloss over the differences and focus on the similarities when we can call them both the same thing. Heck, mammals are different in minute, though significant, ways; again, we can gloss over the differences to focus on the similarities to call them the same thing.

The 'sameness' between horses and between mammals is the same beastie, it's just a matter of scale.

 

[ironduck]

ID is a credible theory.

I see that trying to explain things to you is moot. However, I wonder what you mean by the above. Do you mean a scientific theory or just any kind of theory? If you think ID is a scientific theory could you please describe it concisely? Is it falsifiable? How do we test it?

 

[brennan]

In other words, is life random or designed? Was it a one time event(as is the latest model) or was it across the board, epic, and universal?

Life may be 'designed' with the ability to adapt built in or it may arise that way through abiogenesis. Only a poor designer would make an inflexible design.

I have read these "talkorigins website for a list of observed speciation events."

I say; you are flat out wrong.

This would be a fascinating argument..if it was an argument. TalkOrigins has a list of known, observed, recorded speciation events, what reason do you have for simply declaring me wrong?

A cat not evolving to a dog is not the only problem.

erm, stop right there. Did you not read what I said? Cats not evolving into dogs IS NOT A PROBLEM. It is what we expect. A cat giving birth to a litter of dogs would instantly throw serious doubt on the theory of evolution and genetics.

If gene mutation is random but adaptation is a product of the resources of environment, then we should clearly see no single species as each mutation would and should generate individual advantages of survival(over the course of time).

We would see hybrid, evolving, adaptation with no clear lines of predictible species identification.

Instead we see clearly; species adaptation within distinct lines of predictible classification. A horse is a horse of course. A mule cannot reproduce because it is confined to its species generation.

mutations do generate individual advantages, but they get mixed up in the gene pool of a species. For what you are saying to be true speciation would have to occur within a single generation, this is manifestly not the case.

Sometimes the lines between species are blurred, look at your own example of a mule: mules (and Hinnies) are the result of breeding between distinct species, probably showing that donkeys and horses speciated from a common ancestor in the not-too-distant past (maybe a few thousand years). The same holds true for Lions and Tigers, which can interbreed to produce Ligers and Tigons, again showing that Lions and Tigers are probably recently evolved species.

If DNA is designed, species adaptation occurs through planned programming and therefore, ID is a credible theory.

Show that DNA is designed. I note now that you are admitting to species adaptation (when it suits you) this is the evolutionary process and you would be hard pressed to show how natural selection is 'planned'.

Was abiogenesis spontaneous and universal? Did it occur more than once?

Once, in all likelihood. Shall I explain again? Early (bacteria-like) organisms evolved into either plants or animals (or indeed fungi, bacteria and any other distinct groups you care to think of). Despite what you may have read in a science book for 6 year old creationist kids, we do not believe that plants evolved into animals or any other such nonsense.

If mutation is random we should see X-men as a common. Instead we see a human race as distinct and intrinsic and cannot be interdicted through mutation.

This line doesn't deserve an intelligent answer.

Macroevolution is rubbish and so is abiogenesis.

It cannot be duplicated, tested, falsified, or proved.

for 'proof' we can look for speciation events occuring (for a list of such observed events please see TalkOrigins...again). Evolution could easily be falsified by finding modern animals throughout the geologic record ('rabbits in the pre-cambrian') or finding dinosaurs wandering the streets of London. Amazingly such evidence is hard to find.

Yet design and intellect are properties of life itself - without a designer? That is embellishment and dishonesty of the first order.

Think of it as cutting out the middle-man, instead of declaring 'existence is not a property of the universe so a Creator must exist as well' we say 'existence is a property of the universe'. Simple huh?

For evidence that matter appears out of nowhere I suggest you look up the Casimir effect, particle-antiparticle pairs, vacuum fluctuations, stuff like that.

 

[sanabas]

They are related and cannot be separated.

Garbage. Evolution starts from having things able to replicate themselves. Your preferred method for getting these things has no impact on their behaviour once you have them. From memory, you claimed in another thread to be some sort of genius physicist. Here's two scenarios for you: first one, I throw a ball up into the air, it attains a maximum height of 10m, and starts to fall. Second, god works a miracle, and makes a ball magically appear 10m above the ground. Doesn't matter how the ball managed to get in a position 10m above the ground with zero velocity, gravity will have exactly the same effect on it either way.

Just because abiogenesis is a postulate of faith does not mean it is not related to evolution. If abiogenesis is false, the entire idea that evolution is a random mutation of genetic code is false. Therefore evolution is false.

'The entire idea that evolution is a random mutation of genetic code' IS FALSE. Misunderstanding evolution, intentionally or not, then attempting to prove your misunderstood version wrong might convince you, but is irrelevant to anyone else. Never mind the other holes in your argument. It's news to me that abiogenesis has been proved to be impossible. Not proved to have happened != proved to have not happened.

Is DNA random or designed? That is the question.

Was the ball thrown there or miracled there? That is the question.

If DNA is designed, species adaptation occurs through planned programming and therefore, ID is a credible theory.

Wrong again. If the ball was miracled there, then the trajectory of the ball post-miracle occurs through divine intervention, therefore intelligent falling is a credible theory too. If you manage to prove that DNA was designed to start with, that doesn't prove that DNA is changed intentionally after the initial design phase.

That is an example of two distinct types of life. It once again, boils down to abiogenesis.

As you so plaintively asked for before, please address the actual points.

You seem to be saying that there are only two wypes of life, animal and vegetable, and they are so fundamentally different, that there can't possibly be a connection between them. Is that close to your argument?

Was abiogenesis spontaneous and universal? Did it occur more than once?

Don't know, don't know, and it's irrelevant anyway. And I don't know what you mean by 'spotaneous and universal' anyway.

Do you mean that protista kingdom do not have the distinctive characters of plants, animals or fungi? You just made my point.

I don't know what your point is, much less how the existence of other kingdoms makes it. Does the existence of birds make your point about how mammals and reptiles are fundamentally different?

Here we have more than just plants and animals, now we have another species that is unrelated with no clear relation.

So the inability to draw up an accurate family tree precludes the possibility of species being related, despite clear similarities (i.e. they're all eukaryotes?) I couldn't work out exactly how I'm related to most people I meet, as I don't have an accurate family tree for more than a few generations. But I'm not silly enough to use that as an argument for why I'm not related to them at all.

That does not follow at all.

If mutation is random we should see X-men as a common. Instead we see a human race as distinct and intrinsic and cannot be interdicted through mutation.

Therefore; macroevolution is false.

I'll just c&p from above. Misunderstanding evolution, intentionally or not, then attempting to prove your misunderstood version wrong might convince you, but is irrelevant to anyone else. Never mind the other holes in your argument. To summarise your argument here: 'Macroevolution says there's lots of random mutations, meaning we get lots of x-men in each generation. There's been very little change over the past few generations of humans, therefore macroevolution is false. It's all about abiogenesis.' If I've missed anything, please give us your own concise summary.

The actual argument: 'Macroevolution says that there will not be large changes over a single generation, that all apparent macro changes are the cumulative result of a lot of small changes. There hasn't been macro changes in the past few generations of humans, therefore the theory is still holding up nicely.'

To summarise even further, you appear to be saying 'this theory predicts red, but we have blue.' We're telling you, no the theory predicts blue. The comprehension problem is on your end.

And your ideas are just dancing around the hard questions.

Please ask your hard questions again, the ones that I danced around, concisely & clearly. And we'll have another go at answering them.

How is the beginning of the blueprint of DNA unrelated?

If I use calculus to generate the flight path of a ball after a given point, does how the ball arrived at that point change what its flight path will be?

Macroevolution is rubbish and so is abiogenesis.

It cannot be duplicated, tested, falsified, or proved.

Evolution can be tested, those tests duplicate results of earlier tests. If you're using my definition of proof, then no, it can't be proved. Neither can gravity. It can be falsified. It is easy to give an example of what evidence would falsify it.

Why do you keep using macroevolution rather than evolution, anyway? What's your definition of macroevolution, what's your definition of microevolution, and how are the two different?

 

[beingofone]

El_Machinae:

lol

Same response I get when I ask questions of others concerning their blind belief. Rather than answering the questions I am just derided instead - tells me that I am the one that is cogent here.

The offspring is different from the parents in minute, though significant, ways. We just choose to gloss over the differences and focus on the similarities when we can call them both the same thing. Heck, mammals are different in minute, though significant, ways; again, we can gloss over the differences to focus on the similarities to call them the same thing.

The 'sameness' between horses and between mammals is the same beastie, it's just a matter of scale.

You missed the point by about a trillion light years. And you laugh at me?

A mule cannot reproduce.



ironduck:

I see that trying to explain things to you is moot.

Easy to say when you skip over my questions and statements.

However, I wonder what you mean by the above. Do you mean a scientific theory or just any kind of theory? If you think ID is a scientific theory could you please describe it concisely? Is it falsifiable? How do we test it?

I have tried - over and over, I really do not have the inclination to try to explain the overt obvious and then have it laughed at again because of blind belief.

I say this because of your opening statement - I am not bright enough to 'grasp' your explanations. It is so blatantly obvious you have to be like Thomas Nagle(the philosopher/atheist) in that you do not like the idea of God.

He said that consciousness, without doubt, leads to the proof of God but he denies it, because he does not like the idea of a God. He wrote 'What is it like to be a bat'.


brennan:

beingofone
In other words, is life random or designed? Was it a one time event(as is the latest model) or was it across the board, epic, and universal?

brennan:
Life may be 'designed' with the ability to adapt built in or it may arise that way through abiogenesis. Only a poor designer would make an inflexible design.

Are you saying that life is intrinsically designed?

I agree.

This would be a fascinating argument..if it was an argument. TalkOrigins has a list of known, observed, recorded speciation events, what reason do you have for simply declaring me wrong?

Are you saying the infamous fruitfly? Ones that live in apples and others that live in pears?

Give me an example of a monumental species change; a fossil would help.

beingofone
A cat not evolving to a dog is not the only problem.

brennan:
erm, stop right there. Did you not read what I said? Cats not evolving into dogs IS NOT A PROBLEM. It is what we expect. A cat giving birth to a litter of dogs would instantly throw serious doubt on the theory of evolution and genetics.

I read what you said, it does not make common sense.

1) In order for macroevolution to transpire, there must be hybrid jumps in species. An example would be; a mammal sprouting wings and then learning to fly (which Darwin himself doubted could happen and he doubted his own theory).

2) Once the jump is made it cannot possibly happen again.

Explain how this makes sense please?

mutations do generate individual advantages, but they get mixed up in the gene pool of a species. For what you are saying to be true speciation would have to occur within a single generation, this is manifestly not the case.

And so; it cannot be tested, observed, replicated, or falsified. No skeletal structures, observable species mutations that maintain lasting impact, or enough monkeys on the planet to change into a human no matter millions of years. How old is the earth again?

The time differential for enough change through evolution that hides and escapes this mysterious postulate into obscurity is truly revealing.

It would be the net effect of a bomb blowing up a printing shop and a Websters Dictionary formed from the explosion.

How is that science? At best it is a postulate and with no proof. The mule as an example is proof against species 'jumps'. With proof that species cannot mutate beyond certain curtains - how does it hold water?

Sometimes the lines between species are blurred, look at your own example of a mule: mules (and Hinnies) are the result of breeding between distinct species, probably showing that donkeys and horses speciated from a common ancestor in the not-too-distant past (maybe a few thousand years). The same holds true for Lions and Tigers, which can interbreed to produce Ligers and Tigons, again showing that Lions and Tigers are probably recently evolved species.

How can it be blurred or distinct for the theory to work? First, this ambitious postulate is combined into a single 'spark' - it then separates and can never repeat the original divergance?

Look; first we have a single beginning of life. Then it separates into a multiplicity of organisms. The complex organisms, once formed, can never mutate beyond the boundaries required for macroevolution to take place in the first place.

It postulates that a mutation is advantages to an individual life form, which then spreds its genes because of the survivability. How distinct is this mutation to allow for life extension? If it is so beneficial, it must be observed before blending into the species.

In other words, the mutation must be distinct enough to lend a hand to are being able to observe say, a wing sprouting or a lung forming from a gill. Yet we cannot detect these changes, why?

This is absurd.

It contradicts itself in such epic magnitude - the gap in logic is so wide, it is difficult to see because of its breadth.

How can animal life begin, separate, then never mutate into a plant again? If the postulate is true, plant survivability is dominate in certain environments.

The earth is not old enough for macroevolution to be true if it cannot be observed. Sure, we have wooly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers that more than likely were the grandparents of modern day cats and elephants - but we do not have a sabare tooth mammoth.

A mule cannot reproduce.

beingofone
If DNA is designed, species adaptation occurs through planned programming and therefore, ID is a credible theory.

brennan:
Show that DNA is designed.

Okay - not ten thousand of the very best microbiology engineers in the world can map DNA. It functions, it programs, and is encoded. How could it possibly be random?

I note now that you are admitting to species adaptation (when it suits you) this is the evolutionary process and you would be hard pressed to show how natural selection is 'planned'.

I know life adapts, it is why there are different colors of pigmentation.

I just proved it was designed; DNA is so complex that a random functional code is not in the ballpark of probability. If it is a random program that operates, why can we not map it?

beingofone
Was abiogenesis spontaneous and universal? Did it occur more than once?

brennan:
Once, in all likelihood. Shall I explain again? Early (bacteria-like) organisms evolved into either plants or animals (or indeed fungi, bacteria and any other distinct groups you care to think of). Despite what you may have read in a science book for 6 year old creationist kids, we do not believe that plants evolved into animals or any other such nonsense.

Then why is there not a single example of an animal ussuming the function of a plant? One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends.

If there was such a magnitude of divergent life forms, why is there no cross breed between animal and plant?

In order for the theory to work - it assumes a capability that was only available in the initial abiogenesis. It then leaps the track and is no longer able to mutate beyond the boundaries of lineage.

Despite you making fun of me - it is you that are a blind believer. It does not make any sense at all.

The 'theory':
Life was magical when it began - it could spring into a multiplicity of life forms, because it was less complex - it now cannot do that and never will again because it is now complex.

If we now have complex organisms - they should be more likely to mutate and on a consistent basis if this mind numbing plea to ignorance were true.

for 'proof' we can look for speciation events occuring (for a list of such observed events please see TalkOrigins...again). Evolution could easily be falsified by finding modern animals throughout the geologic record ('rabbits in the pre-cambrian') or finding dinosaurs wandering the streets of London. Amazingly such evidence is hard to find.

Oh of course not - because when life is not complex, it has less to work with, and therefore, is able to make gigantic leaps of faith into plants, animals, and fungi.

When life becomes more complex, it has evolved beyond evolving because it has so much more to work with - nonsense and absurd.

If macroevolution is true - we should be experiencing exponential mutation beyond what is possible for a single cell.

Common sense that a child can understand.

beingofone
Yet design and intellect are properties of life itself - without a designer? That is embellishment and dishonesty of the first order.

brennan:
Think of it as cutting out the middle-man, instead of declaring 'existence is not a property of the universe so a Creator must exist as well' we say 'existence is a property of the universe'. Simple huh?

Right - we pretend we do not have intellect and we cannot plan anything, that way we can say the universe is not being observed by you?

I understand, you do not have intellect and you do not design your day.
That way you cut out the middle man.


sanabas:

Garbage.

Blah -blah blah blog

Evolution starts from having things able to replicate themselves.

Who are you talking to?

Your preferred method for getting these things has no impact on their behaviour once you have them.

Could you translate this?

From memory, you claimed in another thread to be some sort of genius physicist.

Your memory is flawed - I never claimed that at all.

Go back and check.

Here's two scenarios for you: first one, I throw a ball up into the air, it attains a maximum height of 10m, and starts to fall. Second, god works a miracle, and makes a ball magically appear 10m above the ground. Doesn't matter how the ball managed to get in a position 10m above the ground with zero velocity, gravity will have exactly the same effect on it either way.

And that means?

The entire idea that evolution is a random mutation of genetic code' IS FALSE.

So genes are designed?

I agree.

Misunderstanding evolution, intentionally or not, then attempting to prove your misunderstood version wrong might convince you, but is irrelevant to anyone else. Never mind the other holes in your argument.

Could you do us all a solid and point out these mysterious 'holes' in my argument rather than making vague claims?

It's news to me that abiogenesis has been proved to be impossible. Not proved to have happened != proved to have not happened.

Because the enregy it takes to form amino acids decompses them all at the same time.

Understand?

bo1:
Is DNA random or designed? That is the question.

sanabas:
Was the ball thrown there or miracled there? That is the question.

I think throwing the ball is a miracle - what do you think?

bo1:
If DNA is designed, species adaptation occurs through planned programming and therefore, ID is a credible theory.

sannabas:
Wrong again. If the ball was miracled there, then the trajectory of the ball post-miracle occurs through divine intervention, therefore intelligent falling is a credible theory too. If you manage to prove that DNA was designed to start with, that doesn't prove that DNA is changed intentionally after the initial design phase.

Does it matter? If so, could you explain how?

bo1:
That is an example of two distinct types of life. It once again, boils down to abiogenesis.

brennan:
As you so plaintively asked for before, please address the actual points.

Well; when you mix up the posts and the context of the conversation, of course it does not make sense.

bo1:
Was abiogenesis spontaneous and universal? Did it occur more than once?

brennan:
Don't know, don't know, and it's irrelevant anyway. And I don't know what you mean by 'spotaneous and universal' anyway.

Does all life share a common beginning and link?

spontaneous means to begin abrupt in a way that does not appear to have a cause.

Universal means was it planet wide or isolated.

I don't know what your point is, much less how the existence of other kingdoms makes it. Does the existence of birds make your point about how mammals and reptiles are fundamentally different?

Okay; does life mutate and is it common? How signifigant must the change be to become species wide?

So the inability to draw up an accurate family tree precludes the possibility of species being related, despite clear similarities (i.e. they're all eukaryotes?) I couldn't work out exactly how I'm related to most people I meet, as I don't have an accurate family tree for more than a few generations. But I'm not silly enough to use that as an argument for why I'm not related to them at all.

You cannot mate with a bird and get offspring.

The actual argument: 'Macroevolution says that there will not be large changes over a single generation, that all apparent macro changes are the cumulative result of a lot of small changes. There hasn't been macro changes in the past few generations of humans, therefore the theory is still holding up nicely.'

Of course; it hides itself from being tested. Life can mutate dramatically when it is single celled but cannot when given more tools to work with.

Absurd.

To summarise even further, you appear to be saying 'this theory predicts red, but we have blue.' We're telling you, no the theory predicts blue. The comprehension problem is on your end.

I am certain it is on your end.

bo1:
How is the beginning of the blueprint of DNA unrelated?

brennan:
If I use calculus to generate the flight path of a ball after a given point, does how the ball arrived at that point change what its flight path will be?

No; but we can give a more accurate prediction of the ball's flight path and destination when we know its momentum and force that propelled it.

Evolution can be tested, those tests duplicate results of earlier tests. If you're using my definition of proof, then no, it can't be proved. Neither can gravity. It can be falsified. It is easy to give an example of what evidence would falsify it

Go ahead and give an example of how it can be falsified.

Why do you keep using macroevolution rather than evolution, anyway? What's your definition of macroevolution, what's your definition of microevolution, and how are the two different?

Minor mutation within reproducing species is a fact.

Mutation beyond reproducing species is macroevolution. A mule is the farthest reaches of the reproducible horse species.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I read what you said, it does not make common sense.

1) In order for macroevolution to transpire, there must be hybrid jumps in species. An example would be; a mammal sprouting wings and then learning to fly

So if there was a flying mammal you would believe in macroevolution?

Something like a bat?

 

[warpus]

So if there was a flying mammal you would believe in macroevolution?

Something like a bat?

Or a mammal that can live underwater, like the whale?

 

[Lord Parkin]

No; science begins with an assumption, that is how a hypothesis is formed. What I think is nonsense is the concept that there is 'only' the material when our very experience of life itself demonstrates otherwise.

Your argument does not make sense. A hypothesis is defined as 'a suggested explanation or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena'. The scientific method requires that a scientific hypothesis can be tested by previous observations or extensions of scientific theories.

Regardless of how a hypothesis came to be, the fact is that it must be substantiated by observational or scientific evidence in order for it to be scientific in nature. A scientific hypothesis, above all, must be scientifically testable. If you wish for ID to be taken as a scientific theory, it must conform to the rules established for a scientific theory. If ID chooses to redefine those rules, then it is no longer science.

Like macroevolution - it begins with a work of fiction ie: abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis and macroevolution are scientific theories. They may or may not be correct; after all, science is falsifiable. However, you are incorrect in stating that abiogenesis is a work of fiction. Where is your evidence? Merely because something cannot currently be proven beyond any doubt to be true does not automatically qualify it as utterly false.

Then it moves to a select bunch of individuals asserting, insisting, and twisting facts by whatever means necessary to try desperately make the increasingly contradictory observations conform with the work of fiction. Macroevolution and abiogenesis does not change, cannot be questioned, and is completely rigid - not tentative.

Hooboy. Where do we start here. Your childish method of responding by repeating my own words back to me makes your argument completely illogical.

"Select bunch of individuals" - Would that be referring to the entire wider scientific community, at every scientific research institute all over the world? That's hardly a "select bunch of individuals".
"Twisting facts" - Give examples of the facts you believe scientists are twisting.
"Increasingly contradictory observations" - This is laughable when applied in reverse like you have done. Name one observation which conclusively contradicts abiogenesis.
In fact, all of the observations which are being made, and which have been made in the past, support science. To claim the reverse is utterly absurd.
Macroevolution and abiogenesis are two scientific theories which do change and grow as new scientific evidence is discovered, and as we question those theories. They are far from rigid.

Oh yes; ID is just as credible if not more so than the postulate of macroevolution. ID can clearly demonstrate intelligence and design as properties of the universe and therefore, has predictive power.

Amusing. Okay, go for it then - give examples of how ID demonstrates intelligence and design as properties of the universe. What does ID predict?

That means it is science, Intelligent Design can be used for predictive power and can be tested.

Can evidence for it be observed? No. Does it predict anything? No. Does propose any new hypotheses? No. Does it satisfy parsimony? No. Can it be empirically tested? No. Can it be repeated? No. Is it consistent? No. Is it tentative, so that it can be falsified or corrected? No.

That alone would seem to demonstrate quite clearly that it is not science.

For example: Is DNA designed or is it random?

A typical "black or white" creationist question. Either DNA is designed by God OR it is utterly random.

For your information, DNA is most definitely NOT designed. However, if you believed it was utterly random you would be flawed in your reasoning as well. The structure of DNA can be predicted to some degree. It is not entirely random.

Same response I get when I ask questions of others concerning their blind belief. Rather than answering the questions I am just derided instead - tells me that I am the one that is cogent here.

Non sequitur. "I am laughed at and scorned often; therefore, I am right."

A mule cannot reproduce.

Nobody said it did. How is it relevant, anyway?

I see that trying to explain things to you is moot. However, I wonder what you mean by the above. Do you mean a scientific theory or just any kind of theory? If you think ID is a scientific theory could you please describe it concisely? Is it falsifiable? How do we test it?

I have tried - over and over, I really do not have the inclination to try to explain the overt obvious and then have it laughed at again because of blind belief.

Please explain it again; I for one have not seen you describe ID concisely as a scientific theory, give evidence that it is falsifiable, or give evidence that it is testable.

I say this because of your opening statement - I am not bright enough to 'grasp' your explanations. It is so blatantly obvious you have to be like Thomas Nagle(the philosopher/atheist) in that you do not like the idea of God.

He said that consciousness, without doubt, leads to the proof of God but he denies it, because he does not like the idea of a God. He wrote 'What is it like to be a bat'.

I looked up Thomas Nagle and could find no such person. I assume you mean Thomas Nagel.

As for what you misquote of him, what he actually said was this. "If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done." I do not see how this leads to proof of God. Non sequitur.

Give me an example of a monumental species change; a fossil would help.

Certainly - Australopithecines to Homo. Chimps to us. We have plenty of fossils.

And so; it cannot be tested, observed, replicated, or falsified. No skeletal structures, observable species mutations that maintain lasting impact...

Tested, observed = FOSSILS.
Replicated = of course, not over the course of a single mere lifetime.
Falsified = find one single fossil out of place in the timeline of the Earth, and you have falsified evolution.

[Not] enough monkeys on the planet to change into a human no matter millions of years.

Eh? You make no sense. Not enough monkeys to change into a human?

Assuming that you mean not enough monkeys to change into humankind, then you might recall that the population of humans on the earth has not always been so high; indeed, at times it has been estimated as low as a mere few thousand.

How old is the earth again?

Billions of years.

It would be the net effect of a bomb blowing up a printing shop and a Websters Dictionary formed from the explosion.

How is that science? At best it is a postulate and with no proof.

I agree, it is not science. It is an irrelevant straw man argument that you have set up, which proves nothing.

The mule as an example is proof against species 'jumps'. With proof that species cannot mutate beyond certain curtains - how does it hold water?

Once again, you show a lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with interbreeding between different species to produce immediate and noticeable changes in the very next generation. It is a process which is extremely gradual, over lengths of time incomparable to our own human lifetimes. The mule example is, once again, irrelevant.

The earth is not old enough for macroevolution to be true if it cannot be observed.

Argument from ignorance. "I cannot observe macroevolution to be true, therefore it is false".

And a logical fallacy. "Half a century is not enough to observe macroevolution, therefore billions of years is not enough either." How on earth does that conclusion follow?

Sure, we have wooly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers that more than likely were the grandparents of modern day cats and elephants - but we do not have a sabare tooth mammoth.

Who said we should see a sabre toothed mammoth? Mammoths and tigers are related to each other... how?

A mule cannot reproduce.

The third time you've stated the same irrelevant piece of information, which nobody is arguing against. Boy, you sure enjoy repeating yourself don't you.

Okay - not ten thousand of the very best microbiology engineers in the world can map DNA. It functions, it programs, and is encoded. How could it possibly be random?

I just proved it was designed; DNA is so complex that a random functional code is not in the ballpark of probability. If it is a random program that operates, why can we not map it?

Another non sequitur. "We do not currently have the ability to map DNA; therefore it is designed." Anyway, we can map DNA to some degree.

Despite you making fun of me - it is you that are a blind believer. It does not make any sense at all.

No, your first sentence does not, I agree.

'The entire idea that evolution is a random mutation of genetic code' IS FALSE.

So genes are designed?

I agree.

Straw man, again. You are taking the quote out of context, then applying a conclusion which is non sequitur. What sanabas said is that evolution IS NOT a random mutation of genetic code. If you actually listened and understood when people explained to you what evolution was, you'd have realised this by now.

Well; when you mix up the posts and the context of the conversation, of course it does not make sense.

Listen to your own advice.

You cannot mate with a bird and get offspring.

How observant of you.

Of course, that has nothing to do with disproving evolution.

Go ahead and give an example of how it [evolution] can be falsified.

Gladly. Find a single fossil out of place in the timeline of the Earth, and the glory of falsifying evolution is all yours.

A mule is the farthest reaches of the reproducible horse species.

Four times.

Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me so I can try to see where you're coming from, beingofone. You show clearly that you believe to the point of absolution in Creationism, or Intelligent Design - okay. That's your choice. So, in that case, do you believe that the Bible must be taken completely literally (ie "Young Earth Creationism"), or otherwise (ie "Old Earth Creationism")? Or do you believe something different again to this? Please take the time to address these questions directly, so that you can clarify your position to me (and probably quite a few others).

 

[ironduck]

Easy to say when you skip over my questions and statements.

Your so-called questions have been addressed several times. Having seen how you responded to people who pointed out your errors in the other thread I saw no point wasting time going through the same motions. I do have a suggestion though - try to read some biology books on the topics. That's not meant as an insult, I just think it would save you for a lot of headaches because right now you're actually arguing for evolution a lot of the time you think you're arguing against it.

I have tried - over and over, I really do not have the inclination to try to explain the overt obvious and then have it laughed at again because of blind belief.

Well, since no one has posted anything remotely scientific about ID in any of these evolution threads to my knowledge you would have the advantage of being the first one. Considering how long your posts are I cannot believe that typing up a few lines regarding such properties as falsifiablity and predictions would be much of an extra effort.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, we have a real miscommuncation here. To continually insist that different species cannot reproduce with each other, as proof against evoltuionary theory seems ... to be why there is no progress being made. Nowhere in the theory does it state that we think eventually a cat will be able to reproduce with a rabbit.

The fact that the horse and donkey are diverging is part of evolutionary theory. Since they can still reproduce amongst themselves, evolutionary thoery states that they will continue to change (according to natural selection) and the donkey and horse will become less similar over time.

Of course, the horse and donkey are strange examples, since they are domesticated, so the selection takes entirely different path (we don't expect much divergence between Arabian horses and American horses, since sperm can be express-mailed. However, the fruit-fly example shows that one species can become two non-interbreeding species, while each species can continue to be pressured in its own environment to change over time.

 

[sanabas]

1) In order for macroevolution to transpire, there must be hybrid jumps in species. An example would be; a mammal sprouting wings and then learning to fly (which Darwin himself doubted could happen and he doubted his own theory).

Last attempt from me, and I'm going to keep the amount I quote as short as possible. The quote above seems to be the cornerstone of your misunderstanding. EVOLUTION DOES NOT PREDICT THAT THERE WILL BE HYBRID JUMPS IN SPECIES. EVOLUTION PREDICTS THAT THERE WILL NOT BE MACRO CHANGES OVER A SINGLE GENERATION. You repeatedly say that without evidence of a macro change over 1 generation, evolution is obviously wrong. This is wrong. The existence of a macro change over 1 generation, like a land mammal giving birth to a mammal with wings, would immediately prove evolution to be false.

Minor mutation within reproducing species is a fact.

Mutation beyond reproducing species is macroevolution. A mule is the farthest reaches of the reproducible horse species.

And here it is again. You accept that microevolution, as you've defined it here, happens. You've accepted that macroevolution, as you've defined it here, doesn't happen. Both of these are correct. Microevolution happens, macroevolution doesn't. Macro changes that result in new species, or that result in single cell eukaryotes eventually becoming both animals and plants, are the cumulative result of lots of small, micro changes over a number of generations.

 

[brennan]

brennan:

Are you saying that life is intrinsically designed?

I agree.

Time and time again you say that people are dodging your questions, so why do you fail to respond to the points I make? I was saying that even if life was intrinsically designed it would not mean that it could not be designed with the ability to adapt, change and evolve. Hence a 'creation' event is just as compatible with evolution as abiogenesis.

Are you saying the infamous fruitfly? Ones that live in apples and others that live in pears?

Give me an example of a monumental species change; a fossil would help.

Please define a 'monumental' species change - bearing in mind that the theory of evolution states that major changes happen extremely slowly and so it is in line with that theory that we would only have seen a small amount of unspectacular speciation events in the short time-frame we have been looking for them. Of course, this is exactly what has been observed.

Go look up 'transitional' fossils'. Here's a tip - don't look on creationist websites, they like to show the first ever find of a 'transitional' fossil, crow about how incomplete it is and say 'look at the poor state science is in - there's no way this proves their case'. They then fail to show the next dozen complete fossils that get turned up. Dishonesty? You decide...

I read what you said, it does not make common sense.

1) In order for macroevolution to transpire, there must be hybrid jumps in species. An example would be; a mammal sprouting wings and then learning to fly (which Darwin himself doubted could happen and he doubted his own theory).

2) Once the jump is made it cannot possibly happen again.

Explain how this makes sense please?

As has been pointed out already, mammals have 'sprouted' wings and learned to fly - they are called bats. You want a transitional fossil, look at a flying squirrel - halfway evolved to a flying form. I will talk more about your own personal strawman version of evolution later...

And so; it cannot be tested, observed, replicated, or falsified.

I'll not aim an ad Hom at this, merely point out that I just gave you a falsification method or two, you appear to have ignored or not understood, so i'll repeat:

Evolution can be observed by looking for speciation events (talkorigins...), which even you admit have been observed, although for some reason you instantly declare this insufficient. The observed events are exactly what we would expect to see given our current understanding of evolution. Events such as you describe (cats evolving into dogs overnight, mammals 'sprouting wings', tigers and elephants interbreeding) would have the opposite effect, disproving (falsifying) evolutionary theory.

Evolution can be falsified extremely easily, find a rabbit fossil in the same geologic layer as a T-rex. This principle applies for any other combination of prehistoric & contemporary remains. Amazingly no-one has ever found any.

How can it be blurred or distinct for the theory to work? First, this ambitious postulate is combined into a single 'spark' - it then separates and can never repeat the original divergance?

Look; first we have a single beginning of life. Then it separates into a multiplicity of organisms. The complex organisms, once formed, can never mutate beyond the boundaries required for macroevolution to take place in the first place.

It postulates that a mutation is advantages to an individual life form, which then spreds its genes because of the survivability. How distinct is this mutation to allow for life extension? If it is so beneficial, it must be observed before blending into the species.

In other words, the mutation must be distinct enough to lend a hand to are being able to observe say, a wing sprouting or a lung forming from a gill. Yet we cannot detect these changes, why?

This is absurd.

The evolutionary strawman: you think we should see all these massive changes all around us, this is nonsense. No such thing is postulated by the ToE, as pointed out above (and again): such observations would disprove evolutionary theory as it stands.

The changes are tiny. Invisibly small, a creationist challenged once to 'prove that mutations occur' or somesuch. I found a piece of research where thousands of mutations could be found in just one small part of a chromosone. To clarify: there were differences between the parent and child DNA that could not come about through a perfect reproductive process, therefore they were all considered to be random changes in the DNA - mutations.

You are a mutant Beingofone, a study of your own DNA would show maybe millions of mutations, all of which have an invisibly small effect upon your appearance. Large scale dramatic changes are seen sometimes and they tend to result in the death of the organism in question.

Look up diagrams of bat evolution, the changes are all subtle ones, bones lengthening, flaps of skin appearing and enlarging. Taken generation by generation these changes can be infinitesimal, invisible, easily seen only as variations upon a theme, but add them all together and you have a bat instead of a small mouse-like creature.

It contradicts itself in such epic magnitude - the gap in logic is so wide, it is difficult to see because of its breadth.

How can animal life begin, separate, then never mutate into a plant again? If the postulate is true, plant survivability is dominate in certain environments.

The earth is not old enough for macroevolution to be true if it cannot be observed. Sure, we have wooly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers that more than likely were the grandparents of modern day cats and elephants - but we do not have a sabare tooth mammoth.

A mule cannot reproduce.

More of the strawman. Animal life did not mutate into plant life, nor did plants mutate into animals, we have explained this to you several times over. Why don't you read what we write?

Sabre-toothed mammoths?!?! Laughable. No such creature is postulated by evolution, nor does/did it exist.

One of the central pillars of evolution is that once species have diverged that is it, they are on their own, cats never breed with dogs, or with elephants.

Okay - not ten thousand of the very best microbiology engineers in the world can map DNA. It functions, it programs, and is encoded. How could it possibly be random?

Who said it was random? What does that mean in the context of a molecule? It came about as the result of complex chemical processes. It is as random as rust... you do believe rust exists, right?

I just proved it was designed; DNA is so complex that a random functional code is not in the ballpark of probability. If it is a random program that operates, why can we not map it?

You proved nothing, you described DNA using a word that has no meaning in this context.

Then why is there not a single example of an animal ussuming the function of a plant? One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends.

If there was such a magnitude of divergent life forms, why is there no cross breed between animal and plant?

Because there shouldn't be! See above. More of the same strawman.

If we now have complex organisms - they should be more likely to mutate and on a consistent basis if this mind numbing plea to ignorance were true.

What plea to ignorance? All I see is more strawman...

Oh of course not - because when life is not complex, it has less to work with, and therefore, is able to make gigantic leaps of faith into plants, animals, and fungi.

What has this got to do with my point?

When life becomes more complex, it has evolved beyond evolving because it has so much more to work with - nonsense and absurd.

Strawman. He pops up a lot doesn't he?

If macroevolution is true - we should be experiencing exponential mutation beyond what is possible for a single cell.

Common sense that a child can understand.

Strawman.

Right - we pretend we do not have intellect and we cannot plan anything, that way we can say the universe is not being observed by you?

I understand, you do not have intellect and you do not design your day.
That way you cut out the middle man.

Meaningless sophistry.

Beingofone: your understanding of evolution is deeply flawed. I suggest you listen to what some of us are saying because all you seem to do is attack strawmen.

 

[beingofone]

Beingofone: your understanding of evolution is deeply flawed. I suggest you listen to what some of us are saying because all you seem to do is attack strawmen.

That is because macroevolution wants its cake and eats it to and as such, is a gigantic strawman.

Here is the scarecrow that is so easy to see. A first grader, before the propaganda of blind belief sets in, can see the nonsensical contradictions.

The Magnificent Theory:

Less developed, simple single cell organisms are capable of gigantic assumptions of forming all kinds of divergent life under a single, nonreproducible, one time event that can never, under any circumstances be repeated.

Once these single cell organisms mutate into highly developed and complex( some self sentient life forms) they are no longer capable of highly complex mutations because the life forms that developed are no longer simple.

Thus; only the simple can evolve into the complex and the highly complex is no longer capable of evolving. This can never happen in any other known science - macroevolution is the one exception because we want it to be.

Ubsurd and ludicrous no matter the hyperbole.

I am done - cya.

 

[El_Machinae]

Once these single cell organisms mutate into highly developed and complex self sentient life forms, they are no longer capable of highly complex mutations because the life forms that developed are no longer simple.

Thus; only the simple can evolve into the complex and the highly complex is no longer capable of evolving.

Given that ToE posits that land mammals evolved into whales (land mammals being 'complex' and (decently) 'intelligent'); and that the shift from land animal to whale is (I would think) drastic - it seems that you're misunderstanding the theory.

 

[Phlegmak]

Are you saying the infamous fruitfly? Ones that live in apples and others that live in pears?

Give me an example of a monumental species change; a fossil would help.



I read what you said, it does not make common sense.

1) In order for macroevolution to transpire, there must be hybrid jumps in species. An example would be; a mammal sprouting wings and then learning to fly (which Darwin himself doubted could happen and he doubted his own theory).

2) Once the jump is made it cannot possibly happen again.

Explain how this makes sense please?

FYI, there are no such things as species. People made them up. Taxonomy doesn't exist in nature, people made it up to classify organisms. Start from that point. "Jumps in species" don't really make sense when considering that.

 

[warpus]

Hahahha

Discussing evolution with beingofone is like discussing astrophysics with a 3rd grader. I can only hope that he can get over his own ignorance and pride someday and that he learns what the theory of evolution actually is and what it claims.

I commend everyone on their patience - I would have given up a long time ago.

 

[Masquerouge]

That is because macroevolution wants its cake and eats it to and as such, is a gigantic strawman.

Here is the scarecrow that is so easy to see. A first grader, before the propaganda of blind belief sets in, can see the nonsensical contradictions.

The Magnificent Theory:

Less developed, simple single cell organisms are capable of gigantic assumptions of forming all kinds of divergent life under a single, nonreproducible, one time event that can never, under any circumstances be repeated.

Once these single cell organisms mutate into highly developed and complex( some self sentient life forms) they are no longer capable of highly complex mutations because the life forms that developed are no longer simple.

Thus; only the simple can evolve into the complex and the highly complex is no longer capable of evolving. This can never happen in any other known science - macroevolution is the one exception because we want it to be.

Ubsurd and ludicrous no matter the hyperbole.

I am done - cya.

To sum it up: That which I do not understand must be false.

 

[brennan]

...a single, nonreproducible, one time event that can never, under any circumstances be repeated.

Two points: first that abiogenesis is not required for the ToE to be true; second, that you are making a major, and unwarranted, assumption about it's impossibility.

Once these single cell organisms mutate into highly developed and complex( some self sentient life forms) they are no longer capable of highly complex mutations because the life forms that developed are no longer simple.

Who on earth says that? 'Complex' life forms have been around for hundreds of millions of years and have never stopped evolving, this is another of your Strawmen.

Thus; only the simple can evolve into the complex and the highly complex is no longer capable of evolving. This can never happen in any other known science - macroevolution is the one exception because we want it to be.

Ubsurd and ludicrous no matter the hyperbole.

I am done - cya.

You base every argument you make upon a strawman, hence your conclusion has no merit - cya.