EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

Ok the car analogy was too difficult for some to work with lets try self replicating robots

No, it was just a complete failure as an analogy.

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? 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.

Basically what you're saying is that God created everything and it's evolved from there, right? That's what this analogy is telling me. That's entirely possible. However, that's irrelevant.

You're forgetting that we have plenty of evidence that humans came from another animal that wasn't human, and that that animal came from another one, etc. We have all kinds of evidence showing that all species came from common ancestors.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

This is actually not a bad analogy, just not a complete one. If we knew absolutely nothing about the history of the automobile and could just examine a bunch of cars there are certain things we could conclude. First cars are related, not biologically related obviously as they are not biological, but they are related. They have similar forms and similar functions. Some are extremely similar and some not so much. Also without having any prior knowledge we would be able to place these cars in a chronological order. We could determine by examining the engineering features which came first , which built on that innovation, which first incorporated new innovations, which built on that innovation etc. In other words we could trace the “evolution” of the automobile (not biological evolution, but a process of gradual change and development).

But as others have already pointed out cars do not reproduce themselves. So without knowledge of how cars are produced we would not be able to explain the similarity, the differences or the progression that we observe in automobiles. We would not be able to explain this gradual change and development that we observe, but we would still be able to observe evidence of this gradual change and development. Only if we understood the design and manufacturing practice then we would understand that this is the result of car designers copying and building on the designs of previous car designers.

But in the case of biological evolution we can explain the similarity, diversity and progression of biological forms as a result of descent with modification. We do understand descent with modification. Descent with modification is clearly observable and undebatable, it is an absolute fact. It has been well observed and documented long before the invention of the automobile. It also provided a full explaination of the similarity, diversity and progression of biological forms that we observe. It is the only explanation we have for the similarity, diversity, and progression of biological forms.

 

[fantome profane]

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

If you are talking about complex robotic structures appearing on a planet without antecedents then the evidence that those distant future scientists found would confirm that. However the evidence found on this planet by our scientists indicates that this is not the case.

 

[slave2six]

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.

That evolution has no effect on your faith is a bogus claim. You are trying to pooh-pooh the theory and call it "a lie" presumably because it causes some kind of conflict in your mind. But a "lie" is something that someone tells. Evolution is no more a "lie" than light speed is.

Your premise is faulty on two levels. First, it presupposes a creator of the kind that individually manufactures different organisms - which cannot be proven. Secondly, it ignores the fact of genetic defects in the current population. Indeed, there are genetic "defects" in every species, some of which are harmful others of which are adaptive and helpful. For example, Henry Walter Bates was one of the first scientists to traverse the Amazon and catalog the different classes of insects over an 11 year period. He was the first to discover the adaptive traits of mimicry between species. This trait is important in the evolutionary process. Why? You'll have to learn that for yourself.

It is pointless to go through the entire defense of evolution here as there are others who have already done so quite successfully. I would encourage you to read (or listen to the audio book) "Remarkable Creatures" by Sean B. Carroll. It is well written and very easy to follow. It gives a detailed account of the lives and the actual discoveries of those scientists who have provided the world with the hard data that supports the theory. And I am not talking just about fossils but, particularly in Bates' case, living specimens that could be observed in action.

If you read that book and come away convinced that "evolution is a lie" then that is one matter. But to make such a statement without even looking at the evidence is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

 

[slave2six]

A cat will never turn into a dog.
And a dog will never turn into a cat.
This is because God created a cat to be a cat
and a dog to be a dog.

Your reasoning is skewed. Dogs and cats share a common ancestor.

Example: Two black people can have a lighter-skinned child and that lighter skinned child can marry another lighter-skinned child and have children who are even lighter skinned and so on until you suddenly have white people with little or no melanin.

That same original couple can also give birth to dark skinned children and that dark skin lineage can continue down that line.

Two white people cannot give birth to a black child. The progression works in one direction only.

So with species. Once a species branches off into two separate species, those two separate species continue down their evolutionary paths.

 

[Eddy Daze]

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.

 

[Sunstone]

Cats are cats and dogs are dogs...
What am I?

Where does a critter with characteristics of both and cats and dogs fit in the grand scheme of things?

wa:do

Oh! You just like to complicate things!

 

[themadhair]

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.

I think you are arguing against yourself actually. If you disagree with the label of species then either you propose an alternative or demonstrate the existence of some genetic barrier that would prevent changes from adding up. Not only is your analogy utterly pointless given the myriad of evolutionary evidences you have discarded (nested hierarchies, genetic remnants detailing ancestral heritage, etc.), but it doesn’t even address or support the point you are trying to make.

And don’t kid yourself by saying you aren’t arguing against most of the science behind it. You blatantly are. The problem is that you seem to know so little about science that you fail to see just how much of the science you are in conflict with.

 

[DarkSun]

Didn't you guys know that we really descended from pirates?

 

[themadhair]

What is the barrier that would prevent this:

From becoming these:

 

[DarkSun]

See, what you don't realise is that all of this scientific evidence is subject to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's great noodly appendage.

 

[slave2six]

What is the barrier that would prevent this:

From becoming these:

That's like asking, "What's the difference between an orange?"

Come on, if you're going to engage in discussion, at least be semi-rational so that those of us who are rational can get a good laugh.

 

[Eddy Daze]

I think you are arguing against yourself actually. If you disagree with the label of species then either you propose an alternative or demonstrate the existence of some genetic barrier that would prevent changes from adding up. Not only is your analogy utterly pointless given the myriad of evolutionary evidences you have discarded (nested hierarchies, genetic remnants detailing ancestral heritage, etc.), but it doesn’t even address or support the point you are trying to make.

And don’t kid yourself by saying you aren’t arguing against most of the science behind it. You blatantly are. The problem is that you seem to know so little about science that you fail to see just how much of the science you are in conflict with.

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

 

[Diederick]

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

I didn't know God was a biologist - then again I could have since his botanical garden is so freakin' huge... Talking of which, I think he's one of those alternative guys, that doesn't use pesticides - because this place is crawling with bugs and other little monsters.

Biology is a science, so logically, science reigns the field of biology. And pretending that is unfair is pointless, if you want to get in on something scientific, you have to act at least a little scientific too.

 

[Sunstone]

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

How much evidence for the Theory of Evolution do you think has been gathered to date?

 

[themadhair]

11 18 july

I think this says that you feel you and those like you have a monopoly on the subject of biology.

Actually yes. I do think that scientists have a monopoly on biology. The last I checked I know of no other group on the planet carrying out detailed studies and laboratory experiments, I know of no other group expressly determined to gather any and all evidence relevant to biology and biological diversity, I know of no other group producing sufficient verifiable evidence for the claims they make on the field of biology and I know of no other group producing useful technologies from their study of biology. I’d love to hear how the above is wrong.

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.

Do you even know how much evidence has been gathered in the last century and a half detailing evolution and how it operates? Do you even know the sheer numbers of fossil remains detailing human ancestry? Do you even know the wealth of genetic evidence detailing human ancestry? Did you even know that the fossil record show the origins of the first humans and their subsequent migration out of Africa, and that this fossil record perfectly coincides with the genetic record? Do you even realise that what you are suggesting was first done 150 years ago? Did you know that ever since the idea of evolution by natural selection there has been nothing but a flood of supporting evidence discovered ever since???

Otherwise we are going to have a cobbled together mess

What is a cobbled mess? When you consider that the phylogenetic tree, the microbiological tree, the genetic tree and the molecular biology tree of life perfectly coincide it isn’t a cobbled mess. When you consider that results from independent fields such as genetics, nuclear decay, dendrochronology, ocean varves, ice cores, biogeography, palaeontology and geology are all consistent with evolutionary theory then it isn’t a cobbled mess.

What is a cobbled mess is posting on a subject you next-to-nothing about, know next-to-nothing about its supporting evidences, know next-to-nothing about the decades of research carried out on it and only hold an object based entirely on theological grounds. That’s a cobbled mess.

Incidentally - I noted that you never answered my question.

 

[Eddy Daze]

1. I was not talking about scientists, but material evolutionists 2. Scientists can only work with what they accept as real , this means that a tiny proportion of all the material both living and dead is used 3. Please list questions, unanswered by me 4) A few recent discoveries that make the theory dodgy, regarding undiscovered stuff, and not necessarily relating directly to the theory a) The recent discovery that mammoths became extinct much later than was believed, considering this is a recent extinction then a point worth noting b) Hominids that have the same bone structure foot position as modern humans much older than previously thought c) Complex life forms 400 million years previous to what was the last estimate....links to follow , when I get time

 

[Rough_ER]

1. I was not talking about scientists, but material evolutionists 2. Scientists can only work with what they accept as real , this means that a tiny proportion of all the material both living and dead is used 3. Please list questions, unanswered by me 4) A few recent discoveries that make the theory dodgy, regarding undiscovered stuff, and not necessarily relating directly to the theory a) The recent discovery that mammoths became extinct much later than was believed, considering this is a recent extinction then a point worth noting b) Hominids that have the same bone structure foot position as modern humans much older than previously thought c) Complex life forms 400 million years previous to what was the last estimate....links to follow , when I get time

Please tell us how any of these discoveries cast doubt on the truth of evolutionary theory.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Because it means there are still loads of stuff being discovered and the possibility of pushing humankind much further back in time.

I mean with this link a sudden jump of four hundred million years overnight!

Complex life pushed back in time › News in Science (ABC Science)

 

[Rough_ER]

Because it means there are still loads of stuff being discovered and the possibility of pushing humankind much further back in time.

I mean with this link a sudden jump of four hundred million years overnight!

Complex life pushed back in time › News in Science (ABC Science)

So the fact that we are finding more and more evidence which supports the theory of evolution means that the theory of evolution is wrong? Sounds a little silly to me.