A Question for Atheists

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Question for Atheists

 Since many of you revel in your perceived rational superiority when compared to theists please answer the following question: How does nothing produce something?

To me its seems more rational to hold theist views on creation. We at least have an answer. Now, many will not accept any notion of creation but its the only logical conclusion. Give me your answer to the question and many will see the irrationality of your explanations. Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God. So try as you might to answer the question and be thorough. For example, don't just say the Big Bang. Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion. I look forward to the ridiculous explanations that make a mockery of this web site's name. William of Occam was correct.... the simplest explanation for creation is God.


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I understand your

I understand your frustration with the fact that we really don't want to read your explanations for the existence of god. The reason why is that we have read hundreds of them. And I doubt that you, out of every other person claiming the god of the bible is real, has found the proof. 

 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:scuppers

Marquis wrote:

scuppers wrote:

How does nothing produce something?

 

Your flaw is a very basic one; which perhaps may be - somewhat humorously - summed up in the sentence "nature abhors a vacuum".

Most people who have done some abstract studies will have noticed that increased knowledge leads to increased awareness of own ignorance. This, I presume, creates an emotional vacuum in the not-so-robust personalities, and thus it collapses into "faith". As you yourself seem to be a fine example of. I fear that the East Kentucky gentleman may come over and spank me for this... but isn't it a Buddhistic concept which is called being aware of vacuity? From what I understand, it doubles for the classical Greek discipline of philosophy (which has later come to be associated with "speculation" ). Either way, my point is that it takes a disciplined mind to be able to navigate the unknown. A child, or a slave, or a simpleton; they will all instinctively seek protection in the more or less volitional bliss of ignorance.

Again, the humility of stating "I don't know" seems to be too much to bear for the elaborate kind of fool who thinks that a human being can understand how this world, the universe, or even yourself, is working. Personally, I am somewhere inbetween amused and annoyed at the blasphemous arrogance of all you people who are willing to substitute the noble quest for knowledge and understanding (which still remains void of hope for ever getting there) with a ridiculous "explanation" that ought to have been tossed on the scrap heap of history during medieval times.

As for the quoted question:

 

A "space-time-quantum-foam-kinda-something" isn't nothing is it. I wonder what created that. I know. Its your own personal god. Man, that was a ridiculous attempt.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote:I

marshalltenbears wrote:

I understand your frustration with the fact that we really don't want to read your explanations for the existence of god. The reason why is that we have read hundreds of them. And I doubt that you, out of every other person claiming the god of the bible is real, has found the proof. 

 

continue reading from half-way on pg. 2 to the top of three. I realized I made a mistake. Challenge my notions on your faith.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:How does

scuppers wrote:
How does nothing produce something?

It doesn't.

scuppers wrote:
Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God.

Quite ironic, as the entire field of apologetics is dedicated to twisting logic in an effort to defend and justify the existence of God and the truthfulness of the religion in question.

scuppers wrote:
Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion.

It didn't.

There is no current scientific consensus, but if you don't know something, the best answer is that you don't know. So, I don't know what happened before the Big Bang. I don't pretend to know what I actually don't know. 

But, of course, it's the beating-a-dead-horse, decrepit strawman version of the Big Bang that I've seen thousands of times.

And, I fully expect, that if I peruse further into this thread, I'll run into beating-a-dead-horse, decrepit strawmen versions of evolution. Why aren't there any transitional fossils? Why don't dogs turn into cats? Isn't evolution analogous to a tornado creating a commercial airliner? And, of course, I'm certain that an exasperatingly ignorant understanding of scientific concepts will be repeatedly demonstrated via statements such as, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of angular momentum. It does not comfort me in the least that you've professed an "expertise" in anthropology (ha). All this indicates is that you lurked on a few Young Earth Creationist websites and read a few kiddy books. You could not possibly have genuine expertise in any field of hard science. Your first post shows it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I'm a physics major. Go back and study some more, you ignorant fundamentalist.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
scuppers

scuppers wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:

I understand your frustration with the fact that we really don't want to read your explanations for the existence of god. The reason why is that we have read hundreds of them. And I doubt that you, out of every other person claiming the god of the bible is real, has found the proof. 

 

continue reading from half-way on pg. 2 to the top of three. I realized I made a mistake. Challenge my notions on your faith.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:scuppers

butterbattle wrote:

scuppers wrote:
How does nothing produce something?

It doesn't.

scuppers wrote:
Before you counter with the inevitable "Who created God" argument I'll oblige with an answer..... God did as he exists beyond our human perceptions of reality. If he was subject to the limitations in human reasoning he wouldn't be God.

Quite ironic, as the entire field of apologetics is dedicated to twisting logic in an effort to defend and justify the existence of God and the truthfulness of the religion in question.

scuppers wrote:
Explain how the matter formed out of nothing before the explosion.

It didn't.

There is no current scientific consensus, but if you don't know something, the best answer is that you don't know. So, I don't know what happened before the Big Bang. I don't pretend to know what I actually don't know. 

But, of course, it's the beating-a-dead-horse, decrepit strawman version of the Big Bang that I've seen thousands of times.

And, I fully expect, that if I peruse further into this thread, I'll run into beating-a-dead-horse, decrepit strawmen versions of evolution. Why aren't there any transitional fossils? Why don't dogs turn into cats? Isn't evolution analogous to a tornado creating a commercial airliner? And, of course, I'm certain that an exasperatingly ignorant understanding of scientific concepts will be repeatedly demonstrated via statements such as, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of angular momentum. It does not comfort me in the least that you've professed an "expertise" in anthropology (ha). All this indicates is that you lurked on a few Young Earth Creationist websites and read a few kiddy books. You could not possibly have genuine expertise in any field of hard science. Your first post shows it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I'm a physics major. Go back and study some more, you ignorant fundamentalist.

Please do pursue the thread further. Start half-way down page two. I'm new to religion and made a mistake. I think you'll find my examples quite different from a typical theist. I look forward to your response. I hope you know a lot about evolution. I've been waiting for someone who does. Next time you assume don't comment till ya know for sure. You unintentionally provided me with another example of atheist faith with such presumptions. Not one of your expectations is present. Your arrogance is astounding.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: suggesting is

Quote:

suggesting is critical to theory. Its called a hypothesis

 

A hypothesis is a guess answer to a thesis question.  It is not a suggestion.  A hypothesis can agree with a conclusion if the conclusion arrives at the hypothesis.  The conclusion is what matters, and it comes about from experimentation and evidence.  Neither a hypothesis nor a suggestion can prove anything.

 

Quote:

It was merely to illustrate that variation doesn't mandate species evolution. Genetic or physical variation. The point is no one has ever observed a population isolated for a long enough time to lose breeding capabilities with another pop. What we have observed led me to suggest (hypothesize) variation is rampant in the natural world but in no way automatically means eventual evolution. And I used all this evidence to support it.

 

Wrong.  Link

 

Quote:

Ya see though the only instances of beneficial mutation ever to be observed are in bacteria and viruses.

 

"For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[36] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[37] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague."  -Wiki

 

 

Quote:

This is simple. The contest is time. 1.5 BILLION yrs saw tremendous environmental change everywhere on the globe and provided ample tie for beneficial and harmful mutations to arise on multiple occasions. That is of course you assume that the earth 4.5 bya and i'm sure ya do.

 

Realize that their existence and lack of change only means that some out of each of those environmental changes needed to survive and not change (any that did change were no longer in that species).  I would also be curious to see how we know that kind of detail from a fossil from 1.5 billion years ago.

 

Quote:

There is a huge gap in the fossil record. Anthropologists presume they had to come from Africa because of physical traits in the fossils such as dental formula, bone shape, etc. Its like they force puzzle pieces together because they are the same color instead of fitting comfortably together.

 

Don't be so quick to judge, you are continually citing supposed LACK of evidence in support of your claims.  That is not scientific.  You seem to think that the puzzle doesn't exist because pieces are missing.  It goes both ways.  Regardless, this is nowhere near sufficient enough data to deny evolution on the whole.

 

About 40 million years ago the Simiiformes infraorder split into parvorders Platyrrhini (New World monkeys—in South America) and Catarrhini (apes and Old World monkeys—in Africa).[8] The Platyrrhini are currently conjectured to have migrated across the Atlantic Ocean to South America on a raft of vegetation similar to the vast pieces of floating mangrove forest that storms occasionally break off from the tropical African coast.[9] At that time the Atlantic Ocean was less than the present 2,800 km (1,700 mi) wide. - Wiki

 

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but certainly plausible.

 

Quote:

 Fauna fossils have been found in deep layers of geological time that show similar disturbance from catastrophe taking place on the topsoil at the time.

 

What is underlined is the same thing, so you are simply saying that what happened so many years ago is reflected in the fossil record.  This supports evolution.

 

Quote:

 Thats not true. In fact one line is rare. Dogs serve as a good example of multiple lines. Some of the more racist evolutionists will say ethnicity can amount to lines but genetics and the acceptance of the Out of Africa hypothesis refute them. Unless you hold to the Candelabra Theory the human race has only one. The only special thing about humanity many of the atheists hold on this board is the trust of themselves (this isn't directed at you. I just couldn't resist to prod the others). I feel we are special and science supports or suggests my interpretation

 

Phyletic -

Of or relating to the evolutionary descent and development of a species or group of organisms; phylogenetic.- thefreedictionary.com Regardless of the species or group under discussion, there can only be one line.  That is a facet of the definition.  You are touting our trait of intelligence is making us special.  We don't fully understand our brains yet, so you cannot conclude that we aren't just a more complex version of our relatives. Also, the genetics of a black person, an asian person, a nordic person, a european person, a native american person, an inuit person etc. ARE different at some point in their genetics, just not different enough for speciation.  (Note, with the exception of twins, EVERYONE has different genetics compared to one another)  
Quote:
If ya hold to the LCA (last common ancestor) aspect of evolution it would be more linear. The randomness showed in kingdoms, orders, genus, etc.. doesn't mesh with the straightforwardness of evolutionary lines as it relates to specie progress.
 Again, it doesn't matter.  What made two groups out of a common ancestor could have been some members developing a varied pattern as opposed to a constant one.  You are simply asserting that, based on your interpretation, evolution should be more linear.

 

 

Quote:

I'm not either. Just a historian who dabbled in anthropology for awhile.

 

No offense, but you are offering the same old argument against evolution:  A conclusion that a few spots of less or controversial evidence suggesting evolution is wrong.  You fail to weigh the ways in which evolution is correct to the ways you think it wrong.  There are plenty of things in evolution that make a ton of sense and are backed up by evidence.  Some small spots with less evidence are not a sufficient reason to scrap the whole thing.  Also, what alternative do you have?  God did it?  How, then, did God do it?  And how is your theory more correct than evolution?  I can personally guarantee that it won't be more correct scientifically, because it will fall onto the non-physical (supernatural) as a cause.  Consequently, it will never be a scientific theory.  (Scientific theory validates truths on external observation; it is impossible to externally observe the supernatural, by definition that that observation will be of nature)


mohommed (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 hmm a gap in the fossil

 hmm a gap in the fossil record? what about the complete lack of any evidence for creation?

also as Dawkins points out in his most recent book the fossil record is a bonus and not the most important evidence for evolution.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 lol a gap in the fossil

 lol a gap in the fossil record?!?! what about the complete lack of any evidence for "God"? 

Also Richard Dawkins points out in his latest book that the fossil record is "BONUS" evidence and is not even needed to prove evolution.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, let's give you chance.

Okay, let's give you chance. Maybe you're different from all the other Creationists. Let's see what v4ultingbassist quoted in the very next post!

Quote:
The point is no one has ever observed a population isolated for a long enough time to lose breeding capabilities with another pop.
 

This is wrong. 

Quote:
Ya see though the only instances of beneficial mutation ever to be observed are in bacteria and viruses.

This is wrong.

Quote:
That is of course you assume that the earth 4.5 bya and i'm sure ya do.

It's not assumed. It's measured. There are dozens of independent, reliable, mutually corroborating dating methods. 

So again, you're wrong. 

Quote:
Anthropologists presume they had to come from Africa because of physical traits in the fossils such as dental formula, bone shape, etc. Its like they force puzzle pieces together because they are the same color instead of fitting comfortably together.

Or, maybe, in addition to morphological evidence, geographical evidence, genetic evidence, etc., it's because archeologists found those fossils in Africa and discovered that they were older than other fossils!

Wrong again (surprise!).

Aright, so now that I have verified that you are indeed as ignorant as I had inferred from your OP, I will probably ignore you until you choose to develop an open mind on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Butters and v4ault, I'm

 Butters and v4ault, I'm wrong? Really.....

"In this respect we are still very much at the beginning in evolutionary biology. We are still utterly unable to answer questions such as these: Why have certain blue-green algae (Cyanophycea) hardly changed in 1 1/2 billion years? Why have the faunas of certain geological periods been exposed to great catastrophes and why have these catastrophes occurred simultaneously in the ocean and on land and at other times in one or the other? Or: What were the special conditions that permitted only a single phyletic line to become man among probably more than a billion phyletic lines that existed on earth? Such questions indicate some of the problems that currently preoccupy the evolutionary biologist.

"Molecular biology has posed some highly interesting new questions. I shall mention merely the riddle posed for us by the amount of DNA in each nucleus. We have been wondering for a good many years why there is evidence for only 5000 to 50,000 genes among higher animals, even though there is enough DNA for 5 million genes. More recently, it has been found that DNA can be rather heterogeneous, but that only some of it, perhaps not more than 25 percent, is clearly repetitive. As yet, we have no idea what the physiological and evolutionary significance of this heterogeneity is."

"The structure of the chromosomes in the eucaryotes likewise poses many puzzles. Why is the number of chromosomes relatively constant in many groups of animals and variable in others? Why is the number of chromosomes high in certain groups of animals and plants and low in others? Why are nearly all chromosomes approximately the same size in some groups of animals, whereas in others there is an enormous range of size? Even though we are convinced that all these phenomenon are controlled by natural selection, we must nevertheless admit that we still lack clues to the reason of all these difficulties. "

"Unsolved puzzles exist at every level of integration. The mutation process itself is not entirely explained. The phylogenetic rate of change in in macromolecules is highly controversial and uncertainties exist at every succeeding level of organization, up to animal and plant communities." —Sussman, Robert W. The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999, 6.

 

You guys sure know your stuff. My question to you is why you have not shared it with the scientific community? After all, it would help your argument if it gets published outside of wikipedia. Congrats on your personal evolutionary breakthroughs but I'll hold off on taking your word for it. 

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 You guys probably know

 You guys probably know about Alfred Russell Wallace but some may not http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Quote:Ya

butterbattle wrote:
Quote:
Ya see though the only instances of beneficial mutation ever to be observed are in bacteria and viruses.

This is wrong.

I just drank a glass of my favorite example of this. See, I suffer from a beneficial mutation, the one which allows me to process lactose as an adult.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 More..          

 More..

  1. Heat is needed to create the aminoacids  required for life, but that same heat destroys them. In the lab, when scientists create amino acids, they remove them from the heat before they can be damaged. In a natural setting this would never happen.

  2. In the lab, two types of amino acids are always created, so called right and left handed amino acids. however, only left handed amino acids are found in living things. Right handed amino acids actually wreck amino acid chains. Since they are only able to create both in the lab, this is a failure.

  3. Evolutionists also have a problem with oxygen.. In the lab, oxygen is not included in their experiments because it would destroy the molecules they are trying to make. The problem is that as soon as a cell is created, it needs oxygen to live. so if life really could be created in a test tube, there needs to be both oxygen and no oxygen at the same time. Many times origin of life scientists assume that the early earth had no oxygen on it, but there is geologic evidence that disputes that. Scientists look for two types of rock, pyrite and hematite. Both these rocks contain iron. Hematite is made when oxygen is present, pyrite is made when oxygen is not present. When oxygen is added to the hematite at creation, it turns the rock red from the iron oxidizing. Scientists have found this type of rock in some of the oldest rocks known, that are dated to be precambrian. This shows that there most likely WAS oxygen in Earth’s early atmosphere.

  4. The final dilemma  are the ingrediants needed to make amino acids. Formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide,and sugars are used to artificially create amino acids. Even if scientists succeeded in making life it would die instantly from the toxic chemicals!

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I'll keep em

 I'll keep em coming......

 

 

Life Span

 

The extreme variation in life spans between similar species was immediately noted as a conflict following publication of Origin. If species were designed to have a species specific life span, a design that purposely limited life span, that observation conflicted with traditional mechanics. If not, why did similar species have different life spans? Wouldn't evolution be pushing for ever increasing life span such that species (at least similar species) would all have the same life span. If fundamental unavoidable natural forces limited life span would they not apply equally at least to similar species?

 

Biological Suicide

 

Various plants and animals were observed to die suddenly following reproduction. Semelparous organisms die following their first reproduction and include a mammal, the male marsupial mouse, which dies following mating. Salmon and octopus have similar behavior. Biological suicide represented a more explicit violation of traditional mechanics theory. There was no way to blame this behavior on fundamental deteriorative processes.

 

Darwin responded regarding the above conflicts that there must be some hidden compensating benefit that offset the adverse nature of a design-limited life span. He did not specify the benefit. Theorists have been looking for and arguing about the compensating benefits ever since.

 

Altruism

 

Biologists noted that some animals had behavior patterns leading them to protect unrelated members of their species at the expense of personal risk. According to traditional mechanics an animal should only defend itself, its mate, and its direct descendents in order to best propagate its personal design so this behavior conflicted. This is the "dog eat dog" or "red of tooth and claw" aspect of traditional mechanics theory. For some reason animal altruism, an obscure behavior of wild animals, has historically attracted more interest than the other discrepancies.

 

Delayed Sexual Maturity

 

Many animals, especially males, have sexual maturity that occurs at a late age relative to what appears to be biologically necessary from a functional, growth or development perspective, a reproductive disadvantage. In animals that nurture or protect their young, this could result in compatible compensating benefit to direct descendents because older animals would be more able to perform those functions. In animals that do not nurture or protect young, purposely late male sexual maturity appears to conflict.

 

Sexual Reproduction

 

Sexual reproduction is massively reproductively adverse relative to asexual reproduction. Only females can bear young (instead of all the organisms), reproduction requires the additional effort of finding a mate and mating. If as traditional theory suggests the goal of every organism is to propagate its personal design, sexual reproduction appears to be a step backward. Because it is sharing genetic responsibility with a mate, its descendents do not express its personal design to the extent they would under asexual reproduction. And yet sexually reproducing organisms evolved from asexually reproducing organisms. Theorists have been arguing for 150 years as to the origin and purpose of sexual reproduction.

 

Inheritance Mechanism Issues

 

Inheritance mechanisms are critical to any evolutionary mechanics theory because mutational changes occur in a single individual and then propagate into a population by means of biological inheritance. Genetics, or the study of mechanisms whereby organisms inherit their designs has advanced enormously since Darwin. Some genetics discoveries (some of them recent) suggest that the ways that mutational changes are handled by inheritance mechanisms affect the evolution process. Two of the three categories of alternate mechanics theories (evolvability and gene-oriented mechanics theories) specifically propose that these discoveries support alternative theories.

 

Evolvability Issues

 

Traditional theory assumes that all organisms posses the capacity for further evolution and that this capacity is a constant that does not vary between populations or species. There is growing evidence (much from recent genetics science) that this is not true leading to evolvability theories of evolutionary mechanics.

 

Science Schism Regarding Evolutionary Mechanics

 

The observations described above have resulted in a schism in the bioscience community regarding evolutionary mechanics. Some theorists still insist on the validity of traditional mechanics and contend that the relatively small number of conflicting observations can be explained within that framework. Non-programmed theories of aging are part of this effort.

 

The other faction believes that the combined net effect of all of the apparently conflicting observations demands at least some adjustment to traditional mechanics and has produced proposed alternative mechanics theories including dependent theories of aging (the programmed theories). Needless to say, both factions cannot be simultaneously correct. Major efforts by the second faction only started in 1962. Recent trends have been toward more observational evidence that conflicts with traditional mechanics and supports alternatives. However, there is no current consensus among this faction as to which or which combination of alternative theories is correct.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Yawn....I really didn't want

Yawn...okay, now I'll give you an argument and you try to respond.

Explain a ring species.

Edit: Huh? Where's my other post? Aww, I screwed up and lost it, didn't I. Crap. Now the Creationist will have more time to think that his arguments aren't ignorant.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 well, I kinda like ring

 well, I kinda like ring species for my hypothesis. I believe natural selection leads to variation and nothing more. These birds and salamanders offer some of the best observable evidence for it. They encompass the limits of the spectrum and flow back and forth between traits. I've written about my variation hypothesis about six months ago if ya wanna look it up. Its an E-How article entitled "How to Disprove Evolution Using Science" by scuppers. I didn't use ring species in it but I will edit it in the near future to include it. Thank you for the piece of evidence as it will prove useful. Please read the article. (@ehow.com search for title or scuppers) particular relevance is in step 2.

 

p.s. I've taken a lot of crap for suggesting traits flow back and forth according to environmental circumstance within a species.

duh...http://www.ehow.com/how_5271222_disprove-evolution-using-science.html


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:Kapkao

scuppers wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

scuppers wrote:
But you admit that you do throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof because you don't automatically believe everything that can't be disproved. So, sometimes you should throw out possibilities in the absence of disproof right?

I admit nothing.... I tolerate all ideas, assimilate them into my own beliefs/knowledge, and favor NONE of it.

Good misquote. This was directed at me not from me. Congratulations on the dishonest rhetoric. Credibility's slippin man.

I honestly don't give a flying fuck what you think of my credibility... that was as close to the truth as I know how to type. And if it sounds egotistical to you, who honestly cares? To me, your posts sound like flamebait.

Thank you, that is all.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: lol a gap

mohammed wrote:

 lol a gap in the fossil record?!?! what about the complete lack of any evidence for "God"? 

Also Richard Dawkins points out in his latest book that the fossil record is "BONUS" evidence and is not even needed to prove evolution.

 

You want to prove evolution on circumstantial evidence alone? You must have a Martyrdom Complex. I, on the other hand, am not nearly as masochistic....

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 if ya don't care why so

 if ya don't care why so hostile? move on. Oh, I remember you now. Kapkao the closet Hindu. (p.s. I added more evidence and the monkey thing was not my only piece of original evidence. try reading all before speaking. you guys sure talk with assuredness but your assumptions about me never pan out Sticking out tongue)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: if ya don't

scuppers wrote:

 if ya don't care why so hostile? move on. Oh, I remember you now. Kapkao the closet Hindu. (p.s. I added more evidence and the monkey thing was not my only piece of original evidence. try reading all before speaking. you guys sure talk with assuredness but your assumptions about me never pan out Sticking out tongue)

"Closet Hindu?" Needless projecting on to other people........... I now have NO fucking clue of what you speak. I post on the off chance that your tiny, proto-mammalian brain will produce some sort of useful information, appraisal, proseletyzation, word of inspiration, divine providence, amusing (inane) ramblings, and what-have-you... but now, not even I can continue to be amused. You couldn't pay me to care about any of this...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:scuppers

Kapkao wrote:

scuppers wrote:

 if ya don't care why so hostile? move on. Oh, I remember you now. Kapkao the closet Hindu. (p.s. I added more evidence and the monkey thing was not my only piece of original evidence. try reading all before speaking. you guys sure talk with assuredness but your assumptions about me never pan out Sticking out tongue)

"Closet Hindu?" Needless projecting on to other people........... I now have NO fucking clue of what you speak. I post on the off chance that your tiny, proto-mammalian brain will produce some sort of useful information, appraisal, proseletyzation, word of inspiration, divine providence, amusing (inane) ramblings, and what-have-you... but now, not even I can continue to be amused. You couldn't pay me to care about any of this...

If ya read my response to your other post about "the cosmic egg"  ya would. It seems to me here many substitute reading with assuming. And I already admitted my mistake about using any religious undertones here. I am not well versed  in such matters cause I'm new to it. I'm sticking to history and science for now.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:They

scuppers wrote:
They encompass the limits of the spectrum and flow back and forth between traits.

Lol.

One of the main points of a ring species is that the populations that are furthest removed from each other cannot interbreed. It's not that they can just barely interbreed, like they're on the limit or something. It's a fact that they can't interbreed because there is no limit. They are, thus, different species by definition. Furthermore, they don't just "flow back and forth between traits." If populations become isolated, their genetics differences will multiply. 

Heck, not only is the entire concept of 'kinds' an unjustified assumption, it doesn't even make any sense in light of what we know about genetics. The entire genome is subject to deletions, insertions, on-off switching, etc. , Creationism would only be viable if we had some genes that determined the "kind," which were immune to mutations, and another set of "within the kind" genes that were not immune.

Okay, your cognitive dissonance probably prevented you from understanding that, so let's dumb it down for you. Let's say that you have a ring species, and, hypothetically, a massive extinction occurs that claims all the populations near the middle of this spectrum. What would happen? Well, if you're open-minded (which you're not), it's obvious that since the remaining populations could not interbreed, that they would almost certainty develop greater and greater variation, assuming that their environments have some differences. In other words, evolution.

scuppers wrote:
Butters and v4ault, I'm wrong? Really.....

Btw, yes, you're wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, and it's not because we're starting from different assumptions. Evolution has been established beyond reasonable doubt for over half a century, and all respectable biologists accept it as the unifying theory of biology. 

If you don't accept evolution, then you're either ignorant or you're practicing cognitive dissonance or both. Survey says that's it's both in your case.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Hey butters, I've been

 Hey butters, I've been thinking about those ring species and have become extremely intrigued. They could possibly explain the problems in modern evolutionary theory. Examples 7 and 8 in my original list can possibly be addressed. The randomness in chromosomes and the lack of use for most DNA genes within a nucleus may be a product of natural selection causing traits to flow back an forth. This won't result in new species, rather, it could suggest that organisms have a biological makeup that can allow for a range of adaptations to environment within limitations. I am going to research if any genetic studies have been undertaken on ring species. If these animals display a genetic code within their variations that encompasses most or all of the genes within their nuclear DNA than they very well may be evidence of the limitations of natural selection. This could explain why higher forms of animals alive today use only a fraction of the DNA in their genetic code. Its a biological safety net against extinction due to environmental change. This would mean the animals roaming the planet today are not here because of evolution. Instead it would suggest that these animals have the ability to produce variations that will allow for adaptation within a limited spectrum that was able to cope with the various environmental conditions that have manifested throughout earth's natural history which has allowed for these particular creatures to survive up until current times. In fact, I might call my theory the Limited Variation Theory or Spectral Variation. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers

scuppers wrote:
—Sussman, Robert W. The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999, 6.

Lol.

Robert Sussman is a proponent of evolution. And, since he's fairly knowledgeable and a proponent of evolution, we would expect virtually all of his "problems" with evolution to be technically true, but trivial, hardly undermining the theory of evolution, which is what we find in this giant excerpt.

The fact that you didn't even understand what the hell he's talking about, so you or some other Creationist decided to "OMG, evilution has probrems, bold, underline," is not a valid argument against argument. We could, however, using this post, make the argument that you're ignorant.

I don't think he would appreciate you using his writing to send a message that he obviously did not intend to send.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I prefer to critically

 I prefer to critically think and try to apply evidence to my thoughts. You butters blindly follow what your told. I try to solve problems and you brush them off as insignificant. Now that's ignorance in its purest form. BTW, do you have any thoughts on how to solve those problems? 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: 1. Heat

scuppers wrote:

1. Heat is needed to create the aminoacids  required for life, but that same heat destroys them. In the lab, when scientists create amino acids, they remove them from the heat before they can be damaged. In a natural setting this would never happen.

2. In the lab, two types of amino acids are always created, so called right and left handed amino acids. however, only left handed amino acids are found in living things. Right handed amino acids actually wreck amino acid chains. Since they are only able to create both in the lab, this is a failure.

3. Evolutionists also have a problem with oxygen.. In the lab, oxygen is not included in their experiments because it would destroy the molecules they are trying to make. The problem is that as soon as a cell is created, it needs oxygen to live. so if life really could be created in a test tube, there needs to be both oxygen and no oxygen at the same time. Many times origin of life scientists assume that the early earth had no oxygen on it, but there is geologic evidence that disputes that. Scientists look for two types of rock, pyrite and hematite. Both these rocks contain iron. Hematite is made when oxygen is present, pyrite is made when oxygen is not present. When oxygen is added to the hematite at creation, it turns the rock red from the iron oxidizing. Scientists have found this type of rock in some of the oldest rocks known, that are dated to be precambrian. This shows that there most likely WAS oxygen in Earth’s early atmosphere.

4. The final dilemma  are the ingrediants needed to make amino acids. Formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide,and sugars are used to artificially create amino acids. Even if scientists succeeded in making life it would die instantly from the toxic chemicals!

Wow, you copy and pasted this one too. Way to go! You're putting in so much effort making all these arguments </sarcasm>. Where'd you get this one?

Here?

http://scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/problems-with-evolution/

Please tell me that you're "Bullbasket," so then I know you didn't plagiarize the whole thing without any understanding of what it even means.

1. I don't know about this one, so I'll leave it for someone else to respond to. 

2. Your argument doesn't make any sense. What are you saying, that they have to be made at the same time?

Btw, some bacteria use right-handed amino acids. 

http://www.hhmi.org/news/waldor20090918.html

3. One of the current prevailing theories is that life first arose underwater, probably near vents. If this is true, then the atmospheric content is essentially irrelevant. 

But, they did discover iron oxides....about 2.5 billion years ago, ditto, after photosynthesis evolved. You know why? Because oxygen is a by-product of photosynthesis. And, of course, it was before the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian explosion was only about 530 million years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035_1.html 

4. Formaldehyde and most types of cyanide are harmful to humans. Obviously, it doesn't follow that first organisms would die from them, especially considering that they are important building blocks of life. You assumed this. You're wrong again.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:You butters

scuppers wrote:
You butters blindly follow what your told.

No, I don't.

Well, now we're just arguing 4th grade style.

(I know you are, but what am I?)

scuppers wrote:
I try to solve problems and you brush them off as insignificant. Now that's ignorance in its purest form.

Haha. No, you're not. 

You have so much cognitive dissonance that you can't even see what you're doing. You're not trying to solve these problems at all. You copy and paste crap that you don't even understand without even bothering to check if these arguments have been refuted for decades. You automatically label these problems as unsolvable so that you can skip back to your precious religious beliefs.

And no, these problems are not insignificant. There are lots of things that we don't know about biology, and everything we don't know is significant. The fossil record is filled with gaps, significant gaps, and every time we find a fossil, we make another gap (lol). There are things that we don't know about virtually every scientific theory. However, the problems presented by Sussman are trivial in the sense that they are not strong arguments against evolution, just like "gaps in the fossil record" are not strong arguments against evolution. 

scuppers wrote:
BTW, do you have any thoughts on how to solve those problems? 

I'm not a biologist. But, of course, I have thoughts. Observation. Hypothesis. Experiment. Conclusion. Don't forget the null hypothesis. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Scuppers, don't bring up new

Scuppers, don't bring up new points without discussing the ones on hand first.  You need to address my post, point by point, if you want me to continue in this discussion.  You clearly did not comprehend what I said regarding fauna fossils, so if I can't trust you to understand that point then this entire discussion is fruitless.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Scuppers, don't bring up new points without discussing the ones on hand first.  You need to address my post, point by point, if you want me to continue in this discussion.  You clearly did not comprehend what I said regarding fauna fossils, so if I can't trust you to understand that point then this entire discussion is fruitless.

I apologize for wording it the way I did. I see how you came to your conclusion. Those fossil fauna were already embedded in deep geological layers at the time catastrophe was taking place on the land and in the ocean. Its strange that they they seem to be affected by the same catastrophe even though they were already fossilized.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:scuppers

butterbattle wrote:

scuppers wrote:
You butters blindly follow what your told.

No, I don't.

Well, now we're just arguing 4th grade style.

(I know you are, but what am I?)

scuppers wrote:
I try to solve problems and you brush them off as insignificant. Now that's ignorance in its purest form.

Haha. No, you're not. 

You have so much cognitive dissonance that you can't even see what you're doing. You're not trying to solve these problems at all. You copy and paste crap that you don't even understand without even bothering to check if these arguments have been refuted for decades. You automatically label these problems as unsolvable so that you can skip back to your precious religious beliefs.

And no, these problems are not insignificant. There are lots of things that we don't know about biology, and everything we don't know is significant. The fossil record is filled with gaps, significant gaps, and every time we find a fossil, we make another gap (lol). There are things that we don't know about virtually every scientific theory. However, the problems presented by Sussman are trivial in the sense that they are not strong arguments against evolution, just like "gaps in the fossil record" are not strong arguments against evolution. 

scuppers wrote:
BTW, do you have any thoughts on how to solve those problems? 

I'm not a biologist. But, of course, I have thoughts. Observation. Hypothesis. Experiment. Conclusion. Don't forget the null hypothesis. 

 

 

Lol, I am going to stop writing and just start Posting Jesus and Mo cartoons in response to all of the threads I run into.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What were the special

Quote:

What were the special conditions that permitted only a single phyletic line to become man among probably more than a billion phyletic lines that existed on earth?

 

I have already explained to you what phyletic means.  Do not think that throwing the question at me again constitutes debate.  Quote my earlier response to inform me why I am wrong.  (The same goes for all of the questions I already addressed.)

 

Quote:

quote 2

 

I have already addressed why a lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

Quote:

quote 3

 

Again, I already responded to this.  Don't ask me again; I gave my answer.

 

Quote:

quote 4

 

See response to quote 2.

 

Quote:

My question to you is why you have not shared it with the scientific community?

[/quote]

 

Your quote is 11 years old.  That's pretty old in the information age.

 

Quote:

You guys probably know about Alfred Russell Wallace but some may not http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/essays/ARWPAMPH.htm

 

Evolution and spiritualism are unrelated, so I am not going to read this.

 

Quote:

Heat is needed to create the aminoacids  required for life, but that same heat destroys them. In the lab, when scientists create amino acids, they remove them from the heat before they can be damaged. In a natural setting this would never happen.

 

Wrong.  Our current process of amino acid creation requires heat.  That does not mean that the natural process does.  Also, this is an argument against abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

 

Quote:

In the lab, two types of amino acids are always created, so called right and left handed amino acids. however, only left handed amino acids are found in living things. Right handed amino acids actually wreck amino acid chains. Since they are only able to create both in the lab, this is a failure.

 

This doesn't follow.  And again, what is done in the lab doesn't mean that is how it happened.  There is more than one method to split a hydrogen atom.

 

Quote:

 

Evolutionists also have a problem with oxygen.. In the lab, oxygen is not included in their experiments because it would destroy the molecules they are trying to make. The problem is that as soon as a cell is created, it needs oxygen to live. so if life really could be created in a test tube, there needs to be both oxygen and no oxygen at the same time. Many times origin of life scientists assume that the early earth had no oxygen on it, but there is geologic evidence that disputes that. Scientists look for two types of rock, pyrite and hematite. Both these rocks contain iron. Hematite is made when oxygen is present, pyrite is made when oxygen is not present. When oxygen is added to the hematite at creation, it turns the rock red from the iron oxidizing. Scientists have found this type of rock in some of the oldest rocks known, that are dated to be precambrian. This shows that there most likely WAS oxygen in Earth’s early atmosphere.

 

ButterBattle addressed this.

 

Quote:

4

 

BB got it.

 

Quote:

If species were designed to have a species specific life span

 

Um, design isn't a part of evolution?

 

Quote:

Biological Suicide

 

Who ever said that the suicide is beneficial?  It more likely is an adverse effect of reproduction that had never been overcome by that species.

 

Quote:

Biologists noted that some animals had behavior patterns leading them to protect unrelated members of their species at the expense of personal risk. According to traditional mechanics an animal should only defend itself, its mate, and its direct descendents in order to best propagate its personal design so this behavior conflicted. This is the "dog eat dog" or "red of tooth and claw" aspect of traditional mechanics theory. For some reason animal altruism, an obscure behavior of wild animals, has historically attracted more interest than the other discrepancies.

 

Social interaction is applicable to animals and humans.  It's not like animals don't know which animals are their type of animal.

 

Quote:

Delayed Sexual Maturity

[/quote]

 

Same deal with the suicide, since when does evolution claim every trait ever is beneficial? 

 

Quote:

Sexual reproduction is massively reproductively adverse relative to asexual reproduction.

 

I've heard the complete opposite.  Source, please.

 

Quote:

these discoveries support alternative theories.

 

I asked what the other theories were earlier.  You haven't provided any.  Creationism is not a valid option, either.  (If you suggest it, this will merely degrade into a debate about whether or not a creation god exists)

 

Quote:

There is growing evidence (much from recent genetics science) that this is not true leading to evolvability theories of evolutionary mechanics.

 

The universe is dynamic.  Why would such a complex process be a linear one?  I would've thought that that line of thinking in evolutionary theory died out awhile ago.  Maybe that's why it's considered traditional.

 

[quote]

Recent trends have been toward more observational evidence that conflicts with traditional mechanics and supports alternatives. However, there is no current consensus among this faction as to which or which combination of alternative theories is correct.

 

This is silly, seeing as the evolutionary model will be made to fit observation (that is what science does), so creating these other theories is rather pointless.

 

Quote:

I believe natural selection leads to variation and nothing more.

 

Natural selection could lead to constant-ness.  Why would a change arise if there wasn't a cause for it?

 

Quote:

I apologize for wording it the way I did. I see how you came to your conclusion. Those fossil fauna were already embedded in deep geological layers at the time catastrophe was taking place on the land and in the ocean. Its strange that they they seem to be affected by the same catastrophe even though they were already fossilized.

 

OK, that makes more sense.  As to your point, I definitely need the source to see that this is something that occurs a significant number of times.

 

Quote:

Lol, I am going to stop writing and just start Posting Jesus and Mo cartoons in response to all of the threads I run into.

 

That is a grand idea.

 


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Here's the source for all

 Here's the source for all those on that one list....http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

The fauna has already been cited from Sussman 

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
<a

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=evidence+for+evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>Link to my response</A>

 

Honestly, I am not going to explain myself if all you are going to do is provide links.  There is no point in discussing with your links; they can't discuss back.  Post your interpretations, and I'll respond with mine.  Otherwise, we can just look at the links, and then there isn't any reason to use this forum.


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Hey

scuppers wrote:

 Hey butters, I've been thinking about those ring species and have become extremely intrigued. They could possibly explain the problems in modern evolutionary theory. Examples 7 and 8 in my original list can possibly be addressed. The randomness in chromosomes and the lack of use for most DNA genes within a nucleus may be a product of natural selection causing traits to flow back an forth. This won't result in new species, rather, it could suggest that organisms have a biological makeup that can allow for a range of adaptations to environment within limitations. I am going to research if any genetic studies have been undertaken on ring species. If these animals display a genetic code within their variations that encompasses most or all of the genes within their nuclear DNA than they very well may be evidence of the limitations of natural selection. This could explain why higher forms of animals alive today use only a fraction of the DNA in their genetic code. Its a biological safety net against extinction due to environmental change. This would mean the animals roaming the planet today are not here because of evolution. Instead it would suggest that these animals have the ability to produce variations that will allow for adaptation within a limited spectrum that was able to cope with the various environmental conditions that have manifested throughout earth's natural history which has allowed for these particular creatures to survive up until current times. In fact, I might call my theory the Limited Variation Theory or Spectral Variation. 

v4ault, this is my explanation for all that stuff. I provided sources because you asked. Now what exactly do have to contest it? I have a theory and if ya can give me evidence you feel won't mesh we can debate that.   


scuppers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 v4ault and all others, I'm

 v4ault and all others, I'm leaving this site for good. I wrote an intro and resigination explaining myself if anyone is interested. I apologize to anyone I may have offended here. Good bye and best wishes to all.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote: Here's the

scuppers wrote:

 Here's the source for all those on that one list....http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

The fauna has already been cited from Sussman 

 

Oi the article starts of with this

Darwin's idea that current species are descended from different earlier species is now overwhelmingly confirmed by steadily increasing observational evidence and no longer has scientific opposition. Darwin's evolutionary mechanics theory, essentially survival of the fittest or natural selection, also fits the vast majority of observations. His idea was that mutational changes occasionally occurred in individual organisms. Sometimes the changes were inheritable. Sometimes inheritable changes improved the ability of individual organisms possessing them to survive longer (and thereby reproduce more) or to otherwise reproduce more, thus propagating their altered design in a population

ummm that would support the idea that evolution is not debunked by your hypothesis at all, even more so it more just the explanations of the mechanics of evolution. However I do object to some of its observations at the website.  One is the life span thing, similar species have to have the same or similar lifespan? why? I have never heard anyone one in the biological field state that evolution must make similar species have similar lifespans. Even more so why would evolution push for more or less lifespan? the mechanics behind evolution only guarantee that a species will continue passing on it's genetic information, if the creature dies in doing so, as long as this is a viable way to pass on it's genetic information then it will continue to do so. Where in the mechanics of evolution does it state that there has to be a longer lifespan? The only lifespan that it extending is the lifespan of the genetic information of that species.

even better, if you had done some minor research:

The life span issue remained a total mystery, a completely “unsolved problem of biology”, until 1952 when famous British zoologist Peter Medawar suggested that the evolution process is affected by the age of an organism as measured relative to the age at which it is first capable of reproducing. He proposed that even major adverse events, such as death of old age or other major consequences of aging, that occurred well after that age would have relatively little effect on the evolution process because they would have relatively little impact on the organism’s ability to reproduce. Indeed, age of sexual maturity in different species correlates moderately well with life span. Because of Medawar’s concept, a compensating benefit might be relatively minor.

Even more so, even if it does conflict with traditional evolutionary mechanics theory, it doesn't mean evolution is not true, it only means the explanation of how it works maybe wrong, but at no point does it mean that a creator is necessary.

I know that this point you are not going to respond to this. However you still have not in anyway or form discredited evolution. You have not even begun to show that a creator is the only viable alternative, even the web page you presented doesn't state that, only that the mechanics of evolution might have to be adjusted.


Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
scuppers wrote:You can ask

scuppers wrote:

You can ask me about misconceptions as it relates to the secular  history/ sociology/anthropology  of Christianity, other ancient mythologies/civilizations/beliefs or loosely related fields. Its my expertise.

Why would I?  You're bringing a knife to a gun-fight.  How would you plan on defending your refutation of biological science with knowledge from such areas?  I'm glad you have an expertise, but unfortunately for you, it won't lend you much good in a debate over the scientific method and evolution.  Pardon me if I've misunderstood the root of your creationism, but it doesn't seem related to "overwhelming" evidence from these areas you have studied, but more due to the inability to accept plain empirical evidence that shows the serious flaws in such beliefs.

scuppers wrote:

Problems with evolution:
1. West African human populations. Some of the groups that occupy the region are scientifically accepted as the oldest human populations on earth. These group members share dominant characteristics yet among them the highest degree of genetic variance exists. Kinsmen in these groups are more varied genetically than you are to an Inuit. Some say this only is more evidence for evolution but think about it.  These people ain't superhuman or subhuman their just human and untarnished from the explanation that humanity has slowed its evolution from increased gene flow due to global traffic. Their genetics could suggest genetic variance doesn't mandate eventual speciation.

The high degree of genetic variance makes perfect sense in the context of evolution - It would actually lend greater power to the Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection.  In the Origin of Species, Chapter 4, he outlines how vital the existence of individual variations must be in order for natural selection to occur.  Each slight difference in allele frequency provides a selective advantage for a unique selective pressure.  Darwin put it much more eloquently than I have here.  I would suggest you read it if you haven't already done so - If not for the content, then at least out of respect for the wonderful prose.

scuppers wrote:

2. Bacteria and viruses. I don't trust wikipedia as its not scholarly and subject to errors. Not that that is wrong but its untrustworthy. I don't know what it said but with bacteria evolutionists most always point to antibiotic resistant strains. These strains simply drop a ribosome that an antibiotic attaches through mutation. Sounds beneficial and seems to support evolution but upon further experimentation any antibiotic resistant bacteria that is introduced to a normal population (i.e. one with the ribosome) will succumb to the one without mutation. It seems to me to suggest mutation only has a benefit when subjected to the artificial selection imposed by human activity. Its the same with dogs. We subject them to various genetic crossings to develop traits that suit our preference but after a while disorders in "pure breds' become prevalent because of the genetic manipulation. Color, size, bone structure, and many other traits vary to a large degree but a pug is still the same species as a german sheperd. As for viruses they work similarly to bacteria. Someone afflicted with drug-resistant AIDS that developed due to mutation have only one dangerous course to remedy the situation (actually 2 if new drugs prove helpful but there is concern here about making it more resistant and not a good long term solution). They need to stop taking medication so the virus once again produces in a non-mutated  form in a sufficient fashion to overrun the mutated strains. Treatment is effective once again at this point suggesting again that mutation is only beneficial in artificially created situations. Viruses and bacteria are the most common bits of evolutionary evidence for beneficial mutation by observing the initial change but by observing the the effects of a mutated population in interaction with a biologically normal population than a logical interpretation can be that mutation serves as a detriment to the principle of natural selection itself.

I'll agree with your misgivings about Wikipedia.  Good on you for understanding that.  It's quite accurate in most cases, but not a proper source in most contexts.

Okay, I think I understand your first argument here.  I'm not sure you understand exactly how antibiotics function, or the nature of selective pressures.  Any pressure (artificial, or natural) will result in a similar stress on an organisms, allowing for those best suited to survive and pass on their advantageous (or desirable) characteristics.  In artificial selection, as you've pointed out with your crossbreeding example, there is a risk of passing on additional deleterious genetic information as well.  Remember, it was not being selected for, and would normally not be passed on in the wild.  This is an example of Mendelian genetics, in which recessive traits can (as a simple example) pair to form homozygotic recessive genotypes at greater frequencies within populations, leading to phenotypes which may not be desirable for survival.  Genetic hitch-hikers, in a sense.  This is selective breeding though, not natural selection, and as such has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, you must understand that bacteria and viruses do not work "similarly" to one another.  Viruses are neat packages of genetic material, coding merely for the machinery necessary to replicate and deliver this material to hosts.  Bacteria are living organisms.  Drug-resistant AIDS?  Most viruses would be "drug-resistant," in the sense that they do not have metabolisms to interfere with - Thus rendering antibiotics pointless.  Anti-retro-viral drugs are possibilities, and some do limit the spread of viruses.  This isn't even the point though.

Your argument becomes fairly weak again, as you are arguing for artificial selection as evidence refuting natural selection again.  Evolution can be observed through artificial selection, yes, but evolution is not driven by artificial selection in the wild.  You argue that artificially selected populations being less robust than their wild-types shows that mutations would be detrimental to natural selection?  I don't follow.  The basis of your argument is that the strains born of natural selection out-compete their artificial counterparts, which would lend evidence to the power of natural selection in the first place.

scuppers wrote:

3. Cyanophycea (a kind of blue-green algae). Shows extremely minimal variation over 1.5 billion years. Surely this is not an example of a 'drop in the bucket' of evolutionary time like other organisms that fail to evolve.

Okay, you need to understand something important here:  ALL organisms that currently exist are EQUALLY evolved.  All of Earth's life has come from the same place, and branched into various different forms due to individual variations and selective pressures.  Complexity is not a marker of "how evolved" something is.  As has been said already, these organisms have a commanding role in their niches.  They exist in very similar form because they haven't needed to change.  Perhaps they could have gone extinct or other traits selected for over time, but this doesn't appear to be the case.  It wasn't necessary for their survival.  Just because an organism has been around for a long time doesn't necessitate it's development into a complex creature.

scuppers wrote:

4. New World Monkeys. Yes, island hopping has been demonstrated in the fossil record but that was by the much more intelligent Homo erectus going from Asia to Australia through the Indonesian island chain. This distance doesn't come close to the distance between Africa and S. America (even 35 mya). Some serious anthropologists even postulate that New World monkeys may have traversed Antarctica. Kinda far-fetched but its fills gaps.

How does a measurement of "intelligence" enter in to the struggle for existence in this context?  Some bacteria, for example, exhibit remarkable chemotaxis abilities, traveling relatively vast distances to obtain nutrients.  Isolation is the most likely explanation here, and a common ancestor likely populated a common ground which was separated through geological means.  This is not my area of expertise, but your argument doesn't seem to acknowledge the most likely possibilities here.  In fact, I'm not sure how this example even attempts to refute evolutionary theory.  Please elaborate.

scuppers wrote:

5. Fauna fossils. Faunas of certain geological time periods seem to have been exposed to massive catastrophes that occured at the same time as catastrophes on land, in the ocean, or both.

And?  Please don't tell me you're aiming to introduce flood geology here...

scuppers wrote:

6. Man's single phyletic line. No one knows why only a single phyletic line out of more than a billion led to man. This requires such an extreme of special conditions that all evolutionary biologists are perplexed. (ID *gasp*)

You are appealing to a majority here (one which I'm not sure exists).  I don't know that I'm perplexed by it, at least, nor are any of those I've worked with.  A phyletic line is simply a path from a common ancestor, so what are you trying to say here?  Are you simply perplexed that "we" are products of evolution?  I hope you don't feel that we are somehow superior or more evolved than other species (if so, refer to number 3, above).  We are products of a very trying series of selective pressures, which developed specific advantages in our physiology, that's all.  It seems that you are placing man on a pedestal here, and wondering what makes us "special."  We aren't, we're just very differently adapted to our environment.  As far as an "extreme of special conditions" go - That's sort of the point.  We've undergone significant changes due to a series of conditions (selective pressures), and our current morphology depicts it marvelously.  We wouldn't exist if this hadn't occurred, and wouldn't be having this conversation.  It's pretty amazing when you think about it, but certainly not supernatural. 

scuppers wrote:

7. DNA. Specifically the amount in each nucleus. In higher forms of animals only 5,000 to 50,000 genes can be observed as evidence for evolution while DNA can provide the material for over 5 billion genes. This would suggest rapid evolution is not only possible but should be prevalent based on the Modern Synthesis and its reliance on genetics. Doesn't work that way, however, in reality

Actually, 2.5 billion genes do exist in Psilotum nudum.  This would be the same order of magnitude as 5 billion.  Your assertion that "higher" forms of animals means more genes, and hence "more evolved," is erroneous.  Remember, all organisms are equally evolved.  Arabidopsis has more genetic information than we do, squeezed into a smaller genome.  Genomic size (in base pairs) is all contingent upon the lengths of genes, their regulatory organization, and molecular mechanisms for their transcription.  I'm taking a class which just discussed these variations, actually - I'm glad you've provided a context for using the information.  

"Rapid evolution?"  Well, I'll tell you this:  Unless it's achieved via artificial selection, evolution is rarely rapid (though you'll have to define "rapid" here).

scuppers wrote:
 

8. Chromosomes in eucaryotes. In many groups of animals the number of chromosomes will remain constant in some but variable in others. In plants and animals the number of chromosomes will also vary from high to low in different groups. Same with size of chromosomes. This presents problems as it seems natural selection cannot explain this evidence that is prevalent in many plants and animals. They insist its controlled by natural selection but take the intellectually honest stance of "we don't know" how natural selection  does it but it does.  

Examples?  Are you being intentionally vague here?  What evidence?  And evidence of what?  What is the variation of chromosomes evidence of?  What are you attempting to argue here?

On your last sentence:  Natural selection isn't some ambivalent aether or something.  It's a population/environment/gene induced occurrence...  A progression of changes manifested in populations of organisms which have had to endure specific pressures.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins