Evolution - True Or False

It's

  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
river-wind said:
Understood. Funny how easily that happens when one person writes and another reads. Unfortunate it isn't more of an exact science, this written communication thing.
Click to expand...

I take for granted what the other person will understand from my post. It's my short comming.



Those people are dealing with probabilities and likelyhoods of unknowns. If you do not see the value in that, or see the existance of those things, it *won't* make any sense to you.
Click to expand...

I haven't gotten to the probability yets. Maybe you were here when I first post the odds of a chromosome coming into existance of it's own...

1 in 9 trillion...
Now at this point we have progenitors of the spontaneous evolutionary theory prefacing the unilikely hood of life coming about on it's own with disclaimers. Not one but two.


We can't know what happened, but even without any further information, we can asertain one of the more likely causes of the current situation.
Click to expand...

Some of you behave as though the theory of evolution is a concrete concept.

Idle Mind said:
Saquist, the theory of evolution does not seek to explain how life came from non-life. It seeks to explain how life has changed after it had already come to be.
Click to expand...

And some of you don't agree with exactly what is evolution...and what it includes.

When asked of Ophiolite : What isn't evolution: He didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about. There is division in your ranks that you're not even aware of. river-wind you don't agree with Dawkins or Thorpe...and it seems for good reason and yet I'm tracing back origins from these people.

This is going back a long way. According to you there were somethings that were the result of evolution and somethings that had nothing to do with it on a biological level...Yet the great Geologist Ophiolite couldn't see that....suggesting that you know something more than him...or that you're wrong and he's right to not know what I was talking about.

This confusion is the reason why he fled the topic. It wasn't possible for him to answer some of the most simplest question about evolution.

Ophiolite will be my standard for knowledge on these forums hense forth. You obviously are attempting to follow in his foot steps and he has earned your devotion to some extent. It is fitting
 
drop your act arrogant [ENC]troll[/ENC].

Go to pubmed and find some articles on evolution. Scientists know exactly what they mean when they talk about evolution. what? they don't agree always on the details?? so effing what. It's science *******.

Your effed up brain just can't cope with something that isn't written in stone.

Go find a mental crutch somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saquist said:
And some of you don't agree with exactly what is evolution...and what it includes.

When asked of Ophiolite : What isn't evolution: He didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about. There is division in your ranks that you're not even aware of. river-wind you don't agree with Dawkins or Thorpe...and it seems for good reason and yet I'm tracing back origins from these people.
Click to expand...

Such is the nature of humanity. Evolution is a general term, there is no concrete definition, even in science itself.

Take, for instance, the idea of god. Everyone has their own idea of what god is, but there are billions of people who believe in god.
 
No concrete definition of what you think is a fact...that means it hasn't been proved or substaniated.

In essence you're saying you have faith in evolution?
 
Saquist said:
When asked of Ophiolite : What isn't evolution: He didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.
Click to expand...
I understood precisely that you were asking a deviant, irrelevant, question, designed to deflect attention from the central weaknesses of your argument.
I reply again evolution is not a billiard table; evolution is not a Shakespearean sonnet; evolution is not the nine o'clock news.

If this response fails to reflect a proper understanding of your original question I recommend you make a more determined effort to be understood. (Reducing the supercilious content of your posts would be a good place to start.)
Saquist said:
river-wind you don't agree with Dawkins or Thorpe...and it seems for good reason and yet I'm tracing back origins from these people.
Click to expand...
Point 1: River Wind has stated he does not agree with everything that Dawkins says; that is quite different from saying he does not agree with Dawkins. Either your English is not good enought to understand this distinction or you are bieng deliberately obtuse. Hopefully, whatever the cause, you now stand corrected.
Point 2: You are 'tracing back origins from these people'. It is not clear what you mean by this. You appear to mean that these are your source for understanding current theories on the origin of life. I am at something of a loss as to why you would invest any serious time in Dawkins if you are trying to understand the origin, as opposed to the evolution, of life. Thorpe, I presume, is William Thorpe, the Cambridge Professor. His is not a name I am especially familiar with. I was unaware that he had dabbled in explanations of abiogenesis. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
Saquist said:
Yet the great Geologist Ophiolite couldn't see that....This confusion is the reason why he fled the topic. It wasn't possible for him to answer some of the most simplest question about evolution.
Click to expand...
Dear pipsqueak saquist. I have not fled the topic. There are some questions so infantile they do not merit a reply. There are others so obscure they are unanswerable. I freely confess that I have huge difficulty interpreting your rambling, error filled, syntactically compromised writing. WHy don't you try asking your question again, in clear manner? I suspect you won't. You are afraid that if the question is clear cut I might actually answer it, and then where would you be? (That last question was rhetorical by the way, but why don't you fail to surprise us all by making it one of the few questions you actually deign to answer.)
 
Saquist said:
No concrete definition of what you think is a fact...that means it hasn't been proved or substaniated.

In essence you're saying you have faith in evolution?
Click to expand...

Everything is faith-based to some extent. But we should really only have faith in our own senses. And science is the ideal that comes closest to this.

I mean that there is no concrete ideal in that we all have different opinions on what the facts mean. Scientists are interested in different aspects of the idea of evolution, which causes them to come to different, yet basically similar, conclusions. They all agree that DNA inevitably changes from generation to generation when faced with new environments. As of yet, there has been no discovery of anything inherent in the environment or in DNA to cause it to stop changing at any point. This means that organisms will inevitably change drastically, causing the variation of organisms we see today.
 
Faith is required to believe in God, because there is no objective evidence of his existance.

Only logic is required to believe in evolution; there *is* external evidence for it which can be objectivly assesed and logically constructed into a predictable framework.
 
@ Roy Lenningan
An honest answer.
Certainly you have a balanced view of your world.

I belive that it's evident that animals can adapt into new breeds and that can exclude other breeds. It happens to dogs but to the point of a entirely new creature...no...that defies what I've come to know about the nature of DNA and life in general not to mention a biblical perspective.
 
Except that we have seen speciation in both the lab and in the wild - breeds that have diverged so much that they cannot or won't mate successfully any longer.

So you statement appears to to be incorrect based on observation of the world.
 
Again you misunderstood...I'm sure it's my fault...



I belive that it's evident that animals can adapt into new breeds and that can exclude other breeds.
Click to expand...


Yes new species of dog and animals can be created but that does not create a new family of animals but a new species of the animal it came from yes. Diveristy is evident in nature.
 
Saquist said:
Yes new species of dog and animals can be created but that does not create a new family of animals but a new species of the animal it came from yes. Diveristy is evident in nature.
Click to expand...

No worries about syntax confusion, I know how difficult it is to try and converse in other languages. You are much better at English than I am at Spanish or Chinese!!!

So we agree that animal lines can form new breeds and new species.

Why then, do you think that they can't diverge more dramatically? If change over time can go from point A to point B, why do you exclude point C? Simply because we haven't seen it happen yet?
 
river-wind said:
No worries about syntax confusion, I know how difficult it is to try and converse in other languages. You are much better at English than I am at Spanish or Chinese!!!

So we agree that animal lines can form new breeds and new species.

Why then, do you think that they can't diverge more dramatically? If change over time can go from point A to point B, why do you exclude point C? Simply because we haven't seen it happen yet?
Click to expand...


1: Insuffiecient data to such a conclusion: Hense speculation
2: Data to the contrary: DNA has observed limitations.

You propose to redefine those limitation as unlimited where a cells ability to mutate is indeed limited. Adaptation is a set of control variables...like adjusting the brightest or contrast on your TV...just because you can change such factors doesn't mean the brand of the TV can change with a turn of the nob either.
 
i was watching an anti-evolution documentary and they were saying that there should be evidence of "step" species and then put up a "joke" drawing of what these might look like.there were two creatures one was a fish which has grown legs and one was a reptile with the beginnings of wings.
the funny thing is is that there is evidence that one of these creatures did exist in the past,and the fish with legs is alive and well and living in australia i believe.
 
Saquist said:
What do you know of the Law of reoccuring variations? And what do you think of it?
Click to expand...

I know it isn't googable. Or pubmedable. Hence i think it is one of those things creationist freaks make up to perpetuate the false idea that evolution cannot be true because something they made up can be challenged.

But please. Show us a biology text book with this law. Edition and page number please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top