EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

Slave... the main point I am trying to make is that it is illogical in its present form, it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold, or that an apple seed can become a pear tree, or a human embryo become an elephant, please tell me where else in the real or theoretical world this type of logic is applied?

Yes, those are illogical. However, they have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. As usual, you're fighting against something you don't even understand. Educate yourself on the subject and then see what you think. It only takes a matter of minutes.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Yes, those are illogical. However, they have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. As usual, you're fighting against something you don't even understand. Educate yourself on the subject and then see what you think. It only takes a matter of minutes.

You realise there are different versions of/slants on the theory don't you? Perhaps if you explained your understanding of it , in a nutshell then we can take it from there.

(not too long ago Thre New Scientist carried a front page article on problems with Darwins theory)

 

[rojse]

The theory of evolution has no effect on my faith, my point is that if we examined automobiles and other vehicles in this manner (if we did not know from where they came) we would mistakenly deduce that they are all related , started from a single point, with a common ancestor along the way, instead of theorising that different moulds were used at different factories.

There is more to your comparison than what you orginally think, actually. We can trace the development of the car back to it's original source. We can examine cars for styling, shape, features, and so froth to determine when and how it was made. Prototype cars can be analogised as transitional species, and minor, forgotten cars can be classed as dead-ends.

Car history - Wikipedia

 

[Rough_ER]

You realise there are different versions of/slants on the theory don't you? Perhaps if you explained your understanding of it , in a nutshell then we can take it from there.

(not too long ago Thre New Scientist carried a front page article on problems with Darwins theory)

This is pretty low Eddy, and you know it. The article was about the simulacrum of the "tree of life", nothing to do with evolution at all. The article simply stated that to be correct, you'd have to represent the tree as having connections between the main trunks to represent hybridization.

The article was called "Darwin Was Wrong" and was simply a summary of the flaws with the tree analogy, not evolution itself. Darwinism does not equal modern evolutionary science Eddy, Darwin lived over 150 years ago so of course we've moved on. If he was alive today he'd be amazed at how far the theory has advanced.

 

[rojse]

What you are failing to realise is that , as with the answer given to my car analogy, a model T ford original is very different than modern Fords (as the robots are likely to be), But do you notice something there? regarding the "Ford" label, its not the change I am arguing against, or even most of the science behind it, but the label.

That's big business at work, Eddy. Nothing remarkable there.

Now, on the other hand, when science says something is a mammal, or a dog, or a geranium, it is using a word with defined characteristics and traits.

 

[rojse]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one, similar to one element becoming a new one (eg lead to gold)

That's a good argument - compare biologists to alchemists. :biglaugh:

I suppose if you have a particle accelerator, though...

 

[rojse]

This is pretty low Eddy, and you know it. The article was about the simulacrum of the "tree of life", nothing to with evolution at all. The article simply stated that to be correct, you have to represent the tree as having connections between the main trunks to represent hybridization.

The article was called "Darwin Was Wrong" and was simply a summary of the flaws with the tree analogy, not evolution itself. Darwinism does not equal modern evolutionary science Eddy, Darwin lived over 150 years ago so of course we've moved on. If he was alive today he'd be amazed at how far the theory has advanced.

It seems that Eddy won't let facts and a failure to research this discussion topic get in the way of his arguments.

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps if you explained your understanding of it , in a nutshell then we can take it from there.

I ascribe to the theory as currently being research by modern biologists.
Good site - Understanding Evolution

(not too long ago Thre New Scientist carried a front page article on problems with Darwins theory)

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist
Why do I believe you have never read the article Eddy? There are many reasons for me to believe so. The title is quote-mine material and creationists do seem to love their quote-mines. The article contains science so creationists would tend not to read it. The fact that you cited it as evidence against evolution when it clearly isn’t (the article discusses, in some depth, the wealth of genetic evidence supporting evolution).

If people like you, Eddy Daze, would actually take the time to read the materials you cite as evidence you might actually learn something. Is such a dangerous thing that you wouldn’t read your own sources? Or, as I suspect, did you simply mention the article because you seen it used as evidence on a creationist website?

 

[Magic Man]

You realise there are different versions of/slants on the theory don't you?

Yes, I do. However, there is only one "slant" that is true and recognized by science. The others are the rubbish you and other creationists throw ouy there.

Perhaps if you explained your understanding of it , in a nutshell then we can take it from there.

My understanding of it is the scientific understanding of it. After life started, it evolved through mutations and natural selection to be become the great diversity we see now.

(not too long ago Thre New Scientist carried a front page article on problems with Darwins theory)

That's because there were some problems with Darwin's theory. They've been ironed out at this point, and they were just minor details. The overall idea has never changed.

 

[slave2six]

Slave... the main point I am trying to make is that it is illogical in its present form, it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold, or that an apple seed can become a pear tree, or a human embryo become an elephant, please tell me where else in the real or theoretical world this type of logic is applied?

But it is not illogical to conclude that both lead and gold are formed from a single source like a supernova? Of course not. So too with species. Dogs will never become cats but they share a common ancestor. At some point, the two took divergent paths. You cannot look at it as a comparison between cats and dogs. The whole point of things like the Molecular Clock and other studies into the origins of species is to look at the origins, not to pretend that alchemy is real. The way that paleontologist and molecular biologists go about doing this is each unique but the conclusions that they draw from their various datapoints is similar.

Thus looking at the data they have extrapolated what has happened and what is happening even as we speak.

You really ought to read more about the reason why evolutionists have drawn their conclusions than taking your current approach at understanding the matter. It seems that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and therefore are not able to see the issue properly.

"Amazing Creatures" is an excellent book. Read it or get it on audio then after having understood where these ideas come from perhaps we could have a level playing field for discussion. As it is, we are not even in the same stadium, much less on the same playing field.

 

[slave2six]

My understanding of it is the scientific understanding of it. After life started, it evolved through mutations and natural selection to be become the great diversity we see now.

You don't even need any major uncovering of ancient records and whatnot to see the veracity of this. In every living species whether plant or animal there is a certain percent of the population that has some genetic "defect." Sometimes this is bad (e.g. a cancer). Sometimes this is good like the defect that allows one species like a caterpillar to mimic a snake:

This "defect" allows the caterpillar to survive where other caterpillars are eaten. There are in fact four species of caterpillars with this mimicking behaviour.

There is nothing mystical or magical about it. Everything on this planet struggles to survive (even flora). Some things simply do it better than others.

 

[Autodidact]

A naturalist said it, he belives it, that settles it.

A reason why athiests are fooling themselves, in the beginning all the world was aware that God existed, this meant that they had to obey the laws, someone came up with the idea of non-existence of the creator and tried out breaking God's laws, he enjoyed this and the cult of atheism has flourished ever since.

You are sadly confused. If you want to argue against atheism, start a thread. This one is about evolution. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Autodidact]

The theory of evolution has no effect on my faith, my point is that if we examined automobiles and other vehicles in this manner (if we did not know from where they came) we would mistakenly deduce that they are all related , started from a single point, with a common ancestor along the way, instead of theorising that different moulds were used at different factories.

1. Not a very good analogy--manufactured vs. biological reproduction.
2. However, if you think about it in terms of how cars have changed over the years, they do all have a common origin in their design.

All cars "evolved" from this first design.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok the car analogy was too difficult for some to work with

Not difficult, Eddy, wrong.

lets try self replicating robots, = a factory creates a thousand individual types , equips them with the wherewithall of adapting to environments and blasts them off to another planet, now what do you reckon the distant future scientists will conclude on this other planet?

If the robots reproduce with variation, they would begin to evolve.

Anyway, the evidence does not seem to support this hypothesis. In your example, there would not be a nested hierarchy, and likely not the identical mechanism for reproduction, such as living organisms have. We don't see separate categories like this. We see a smooth transition of slight variations.

will they believe the story handed down by the robots over time, that they were individually created as set models or will they disregard this and make their own theory from the physical info they have? Well regards ToE the latter is happening, consider that the individual bots will have many comparable similarities in design , and will be using similar parts and materials from the planet they are inhabiting, so if the absolute truth is that the robots where created, which in this analogy it is, then no matter how deeply scientists study the body forms and history, they will always be wrong.

There is always the chance that science is wrong. Nevertheless, we have observed that when all the evidence points in one direction, that is usually the most accurate description of what is going on.

btw, are you alleging that slime mold and Redwood trees are telling us that they were created separately, and we're ignoring them? If so, you may want to consult a psychiatrist.

 

[Autodidact]

What you are failing to realise is that , as with the answer given to my car analogy, a model T ford original is very different than modern Fords (as the robots are likely to be), But do you notice something there? regarding the "Ford" label, its not the change I am arguing against, or even most of the science behind it, but the label.

Yup. But inbetween are many models of Fords changing just slightly each year. The cars don't evolve, but their design does.

 

[Autodidact]

I think this says that you feel you and those like you have a monopoly on the subject of biology. If we are going to treat this ToE like a trial then first we need to gather all the evidence before we can even start to think about making a map of how man has changed over the years.Otherwise we are going to have a cobbled together mess

There's a concept--let's look at the evidence! Oh wait, that's what the world's scientists have been doing for the last 150 years. But yes, if you want to start over and review it, I'll lay it out for you.

Here's the problem in your case. You agree that evolution happens, you just refuse to call the result a new species, even though it meets the scientific definition of new species. So basically, you already agree that ToE is correct.

 

[Autodidact]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one, similar to one element becoming a new one (eg lead to gold),

But you also believe this, you just want to use a different word for it.

but some scientists can believe that the elements and species are set.

No biologists believe this.

The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought I believe and those that do publish, the work rarely gets into the mainstream or is ignored so mainstream scientists have a small bandwidth of data to
work with.

right. Biology is one big conspiracy.

If you accept the theory of evolution as set in its present form then maybe you should ask yourself why, and why new discoveries are of no importance to it, why the atachment to the theory if it is wrong, while ignoring new discoveries? All you are doing in your post is poo pooing new stuff, as if the theory as it is, is some form of religious artifact that needs protecting at all costs.

There haven't been any new discoveries that undermine it. All discoveries since the theory was hypothesized confirm the theory. That's why science accepts it.

 

[slave2six]

Originally Posted by Eddy Daze The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought...

If they aren't publishing or revealing their works, how do you know how many of them there are? That makes no sense.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Just so people are clear to my view on life and its history...there are many origins or start points, so many seperate species, because of adaptation etc these historically can be represented like trees, but individual trees. It is illogical to presume the flower of an hawthorn and the flower of an apple have a common ancestor on the branch of a fossilised seperate tree, simply because of the concidences (also If I mention or link to a source do not jump to the conclusion I agree with everything it is saying) regarding the new scientists stuff the reply I got was as if I was putting myself forward as sopmeone who had studied to an high degree evolutionary Biology or was pretending to have , no the point was that mainstream science changes to what it accepts and also individuals change to what parts or persons slant they accept.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Auto...it is not I that wants seperate words eg carbon and helium, buteg carbon six and twelve , how do you know no scientist believes the species are set, those words were reportedly uttered by Darwin, jumping on the conspiracy theory is a bit daft believe me there is much unpublished or revealed stuff due to fear of ridicule, your last comment sums it up, so many individual ideas and theories regarding evolution that it can be confirmed by science later on, by that I mean what is actually observed, if a great clunking discovery that would turn it on its head came along and it was brave enough to publish, something could be found to back it up and fit in