empiracle evidence

[mycorrhiza]

yeast remains yeast. Bacteria changes, but remains as bacteria. Changing habits or appearance or size or shape does not change the body plan so that the organism is no longer the same organism. The bacteria has not become anything less then bacteria.

Bacteria is not a single body plan. There are many different kinds of bacteria. We wouldn't expect to see changes into a whole new taxonomic domain in our lifetime. Since you agree that they change in both appearance and size, isn't that a change in body plan? We have observed speciation, and we shouldn't expect whole new genuses or families, because that takes a very long time and modern science has only existed for a few years. Why should we expect to directly observe or recreate something that took millions of years in our own lifetime?

and what of humans....6,000 years and many generations later we are still human with the same body plan. but humans have changed shape, size, color and appearance...this could be likened to different species of human...but all still human nonetheless.

Yes, 6000 years is quite a short time, however, humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Still a short time when it comes to evolution. We have evidence of several species of humans (homo genus).

Evolution is 'change over time'...its not proven to create new 'families' over time though.

Again, we have several examples of this in both genetics and the fossil record.

Lenski's e.coli experiment has had 50,000 generations to observe and no changes have been observed that have resulted in a new morphology.

I said higher species and since they observed a change in their size and shape, that was a change in their morphology. If scientific terms are to be used in the debate, they should be used correctly.

I think it's amazing how much we have been able to recreate in about 25 years. Add a few million to that and we're talking.

 

[FearGod]

I think it is interesting that every living thing has DNA, from the simplest form to the most complex. Plants, animals and viruses. If life does not have a designer why aren't there different building blocks? Why does everything have DNA?

Good point.the designer is the same and the evolution controlled and planned by him.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I think it is interesting that every living thing has DNA, from the simplest form to the most complex. Plants, animals and viruses. If life does not have a designer why aren't there different building blocks? Why does everything have DNA?

Common descent, I guess. The origin of DNA is a different field than evolution, though (abiogenesis).

 

[savagewind]

We are commonly descended from the same line as the fern? LOL That's funny enough to be worth the confusion I think.

 

[mycorrhiza]

We are commonly descended from the same line as the fern? LOL That's funny enough to be worth the confusion I think.

We probably share a common ancestor with ferns, yes. We're not very closely related though. Even so, I'm proud to be related to ferns. Isn't the unrolling of the fronds just beautiful?

 

[FearGod]

We probably share a common ancestor with ferns, yes. We're not very closely related though. Even so, I'm proud to be related to ferns. Isn't the unrolling of the fronds just beautiful?

What about rats ?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What about rats ?

Properly cared for, they make adorable pets.

 

[mycorrhiza]

What about rats ?

While I don't wish to spend time with them, they fill many functions in our great system. And they're quite marvelous, how good they are at adapting. That we're related to them is quite clear from the scientific studies done on them. Sad, however, that so many innocent rats are harmed just so cosmetic companies can sell unnecessary products.

 

[Me Myself]

I haven´t seen a single atheist biologist to reject evolution, but i have seen many *insert any religion* biologists tell you it is a fact of science.

The logical conclusion is that religious denial is clouding the minds of those that do not accept evolution. If it was the other way around, then we would find atheists saying that evolution is not a fact of science yet (although they would obviously not subcribe to the "godidit" explanation) and we wouldn´t find SO MANY christian biologists saying it is an undeniable part of science, and we wouldn´t find that the entire RCC finds it an undeniable fact of science.

It´s so painfully self evident it is rediculous.

I have been asking for the names of a non-christian non-islamic biologist that rejects evolution TODAY since long time now, I haven´t had ONE SINGLE NAME.

I can´t believe people can be so deluded to think it is anything but denial.

 

[Man of Faith]

I haven´t seen a single atheist biologist to reject evolution, .

Then you haven't watched Expelled, because in that movie, Richard Dawkins said that he could accept an intelligent design by aliens. So much for evolution being a fact.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Then you haven't watched Expelled, because in that movie, Richard Dawkins said that he could accept an intelligent design by aliens. So much for evolution being a fact.

First of all, that was in a context of abiogenesis, and he said that the aliens would still have to have evolved (just reading off Wikipedia as I haven't seen the documentary). You and I both know that Dawkins doesn't reject evolution.

It would be nice to see a single example of an atheistic scientist that does reject evolution, though.

 

[Man of Faith]

First of all, that was in a context of abiogenesis, and he said that the aliens would still have to have evolved. You and I both know that Dawkins doesn't reject evolution.

It would be nice to see a single example of an atheistic scientist that does reject evolution, though.

An atheistic scientist might not necessarily reject evolution because, guess what, they are naturalists by definition. However they could be aware of the problems with it and say that it doesn't explain everything.

 

[Me Myself]

Then you haven't watched Expelled, because in that movie, Richard Dawkins said that he could accept an intelligent design by aliens. So much for evolution being a fact.

[youtube]BoncJBrrdQ8[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

Actually, he started saying that the aliens most have evolded, so you still get no cookie

Specially since his choice of words allow that this "inteligent design" was designed to go through evolution.

He hasn´t denied evolution here at all. He just gave an example of something that might be evidenced as an intelligent design of life.

 

[mycorrhiza]

[youtube]BoncJBrrdQ8[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

Wow, now I really must watch it! That was a pretty dishonest usage of Dawkins' words by the narrator there. Quite amusing!

 

[mycorrhiza]

An atheistic scientist might not necessarily reject evolution because, guess what, they are naturalists by definition. However they could be aware of the problems with it and say that it doesn't explain everything.

Not necessarily. There are atheists that are both dualists and idealist monists (I was both a dualist and an atheist for a short while, just to name one example). If it has to do with science rather than religion, it should be just as likely for an atheist to draw the conclusion that life was designed as separate kinds, no matter who or what the designer was.

So if ID is actually science, and not religion, you should at least be able to show examples of a single atheist that rejects evolution in favor of ID.

According to 99,9% of all biologists, there are no problems with evolution. There might be problems with our current understanding of the processes, but evolution itself "explains everything". There is absolutely no debate within the relevant fields about whether or not evolution, including macroevolution, occurs. The "What" is answered, but we can still question the "How".

 

[Me Myself]

Wow, now I really must watch it! That was a pretty dishonest usage of Dawkins' words by the narrator there. Quite amusing!

Exactly!

He didn´t understand at all what Hawkins answered. he was asked if an inteligent design is posible, Hawkins said that it is posibe to find evidence that some very inteligent life form created another one. then the narrator jumps the point completely and say "Why accept that there might be evidence some day to point towards a biological creator when we can just decide something completely imposible to ever evidence definetely made us?"

Ridiculous. the problem is the narrator thinks that Dawkins has a posture and tries to back it up with evidence, instad of saw evidence and then had a posture.

Pretty much this problem:

 

[fantome profane]

It could also show that evolutionists don't understand creation, or that evolutionists aren't really interested in discussing the real debate.

What in your opinion is the "real debate"?

 

[Me Myself]

Not necessarily. There are atheists that are both dualists and idealist monists (I was both a dualist and an atheist for a short while, just to name one example). If it has to do with science rather than religion, it should be just as likely for an atheist to draw the conclusion that life was designed as separate kinds, no matter who or what the designer was.

So if ID is actually science, and not religion, you should at least be able to show examples of a single atheist that rejects evolution in favor of ID.

According to 99,9% of all biologists, there are no problems with evolution. There might be problems with our current understanding of the processes, but evolution itself "explains everything". There is absolutely no debate within the relevant fields about whether or not evolution, including macroevolution, occurs. The "What" is answered, but we can still question the "How".

and the 0,01 always results to be religious afiliated and believe without question on what their reilgion taught them on that matter.

It´s so painfuly obvious. you got thousands of religious biologists knowing about evolution, but none atheist disregarding it. It is silly to believe all atheist biologists choose convince themselves there is sufficient evidence when there is not. By the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that some religious biologists choose to be on denial on the evidence.

As simple as that.

 

[javajo]

I see evidence of devolution, mutation, things going downward, not up. I also see wonderful adaptation and diversity within species.

 

[Me Myself]

It could also show that evolutionists don't understand creation, or that evolutionists aren't really interested in discussing the real debate.

What you said made no sense.

It was said "creationists and evolutionists have different views on what is "evolution" " then Odion says that shows creationists don´t understand the concept. What you reply doesn´t follow.

you don´t need to understand what your religious book says to look at biology, the fossil evidence, etc.