Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

I am waiting for an answer, is it yes or no?

Now, would you be so kind as to answer the question that is on the table with a simple yes or no?

Does the shell of a mollusc serve to protect it from the "tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean"? Yes or no?

How Seashells Protect Their Soft Insides from Stress

As it turns out, the more complex natural shells can sustain loads of nearly twice the weight managed by their simpler spherical and cylindrical synthetic counterparts. Furthermore, the shells redirect the stress so that fractures occur where they’re least likely to hurt the soft creature inside. The shapes evolved in a way that distributes external pressure toward the outer regions of the shell, preventing cracks and safeguarding the core cavity.

 

[Sapiens]

How Seashells Protect Their Soft Insides from Stress

The question was not really addressed to you but shall we put your answer down as a "yes"?

 

[savagewind]

The question was not really addressed to you but shall we put your answer down as a "yes"?

Do you think it is possible that she might change her mind? I don't, so her answer is yes. OMG. Do you believe I don't know the question wasn't addressed to me? LOL I was betting on her ignoring it.

 

[Deeje]

All material things appear to change over time, genes are material things, so it's logical that the genes of hummingbirds have most likely changed over time.

It might be "logical" to one trained to believe in macro-evolution metis, but is it provable? If it's not backed up by anything but assumption and supposition, then it's a suggestion, not a fact. It seems to me that scientists get all excited over a suggestion but have nothing more to get excited about except what they imagine might be true.

You only have to listen to Attenborough's pathetic suggestions to know that there is nothing to back up a thing he infers might be true with regard to the relationship of the hummingbird to his tasty flowers. I could suggest that hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate were made for each other in a deliberate mutually beneficial and planned fashion, (for the perpetuation of both) and have as much scientific evidence as he does for my assumption.
That is the point.

 

[Deeje]

No. No it isn't. Not at all. You don't actually read anybody's posts, do you? Because it's baffling to me that at this point in the thread that you could still completely misunderstand how science works. When it has been explained so many times.

I understand completely how science "works" as it pertains to macro-evolution. There is no proof that any of it is true. Science makes suggestions that sound like facts, but we all know that there is no way to prove any of it. Isn't science about facts? Don't scientists have to back up their theories with substantial evidence that what they teach is true? They seem to do OK in many fields....but with evolution, the jury is out because there is no real evidence. It's all circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence, improperly interpreted has led to many false convictions....even executions of innocent men.

Sorry, that is not good enough to bet your life on.

 

[Jose Fly]

It might be "logical" to one trained to believe in macro-evolution metis, but is it provable? If it's not backed up by anything but assumption and supposition, then it's a suggestion, not a fact. It seems to me that scientists get all excited over a suggestion but have nothing more to get excited about except what they imagine might be true.

You only have to listen to Attenborough's pathetic suggestions to know that there is nothing to back up a thing he infers might be true with regard to the relationship of the hummingbird to his tasty flowers. I could suggest that hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate were made for each other in a deliberate mutually beneficial and planned fashion, (for the perpetuation of both) and have as much scientific evidence as he does for my assumption.
That is the point.

I understand completely how science "works" as it pertains to macro-evolution. There is no proof that any of it is true. Science makes suggestions that sound like facts, but we all know that there is no way to prove any of it. Isn't science about facts? Don't scientists have to back up their theories with substantial evidence that what they teach is true? They seem to do OK in many fields....but with evolution, the jury is out because there is no real evidence. It's all circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence, improperly interpreted has led to many false convictions....even executions of innocent men.

Sorry, that is not good enough to bet your life on.

Deeje, you really need a new script.

 

[Deeje]

Tell me, do you believe that a mollusc's shell holds out the pressure of seawater?

Now, would you be so kind as to answer the question that is on the table with a simple yes or no?

Does the shell of a mollusc serve to protect it from the "tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean"? Yes or no?

I am waiting for an answer, is it yes or no?

"Yes or no"? Wow! I feel like I am being cross examined by a lawyer with 'molescular' evidence that will result in a conviction!!! He smells a victory!

I have the distinct impression that you have a very important point to make about molluscs Sapiens....since we are all waiting with bated breath...why don't you just make it. Tell us how all but the two molluscs that were mentioned in my article are hopeless at living on the bottom of the sea bed....this I am sure will be riveting to all the molusc lovers here on RF.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, you really need a new script.

But you're still here reading it....?

Getting a headache?

then stop

.....

 

[metis]

It might be "logical" to one trained to believe in macro-evolution metis, but is it provable?

Actually it is because there's two ways in science to determine whether something is a fact: directly or eliminating the other possibilities. There simply isn't anything that could possibly explain the meshing of both the fossil evidence and the genome testing other than the basic evolutionary process.

A deity supposedly directly causing "creation" is really nonsensical since we can't even provide one shred of evidence that one or more deities even exist, plus why would such a deity falsify what we observe in order to fool us?

But notice the hypocrisy here, Deeje, as you demand evidence but simply cannot provide one shred of evidence for any deity, especially there being the kind of deity you believe in.

The evidence is there for all to see, but it's too bad you're going about this with your eyes closed. On top of that, you've been asked over and over again to provide any evidence whatsoever that "micro-evolution" magically stops before becoming "macro-evolution, but all you do is to avoid even trying to deal with that by deflecting it away.

Things evolve-- we know that-- and unless someone here can provide evidence that change stops for whatever reason, then all they are just doing is spouting some sort of blind faith like people in the Dark Ages believed.. No evidence = no evidence, and you haven't provided us with one shred of evidence to support your positions on this.

So, let me suggest you either produce the evidence and not deflect it again, or at least be honest enough to admit you have none. The choice is yours.

 

[metis]

All material things appear to change over time, genes are material things, so it's logical that the genes of hummingbirds have most likely changed over time.

No @Deeje , I'm not being "Creative"-- I'm being both scientific and logical.

Geneticists who specialize in this area well know how this process works, and we in anthropology use their expertise all the time since we have to "farm out" some things for them to analyze because that's their area of expertise. No geneticist that I could ever imagine would ever agree with your magical position on "macro-evolution" not being possible.

 

[metis]

I could suggest that hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate were made for each other in a deliberate mutually beneficial and planned fashion, (for the perpetuation of both) and have as much scientific evidence as he does for my assumption.

And where's your evidence for planned? First of all, please provide evidence for there being a planner.

The reality is that you have no evidence to offer. or maybe the Cosmic Godzilla did it, Deeje?

 

[Deeje]

A deity supposedly directly causing "creation" is really nonsensical since we can't even provide one shred of evidence that one or more deities even exist, plus why would such a deity falsify what we observe in order to fool us?

You are outlining man's criteria here metis....what is that to God? Does he demand that anyone believe in him? Or does he leave that up to us? We all have the same evidence in front of us.

This is what the Bible says.....

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” (1 Corinthians 3:19-20)

There is your answer......do people think that they are too smart to believe in God?
Let's see where it gets them.

But notice the hypocrisy here, Deeje, as you demand evidence but simply cannot provide one shred of evidence for any deity, especially there being the kind of deity you believe in.

metis, if you have followed this thread at all, you will see what I have said all along.....science has no more evidence for what it believes than we do. You all can make suggestions about what you believe to be true, based on what? What other scientists of like mind have to say. How is that any different to what those who support ID believe and say?

The evidence is there for all to see, but it's too bad you're going about this with your eyes closed. On top of that, you've been asked over and over again to provide any evidence whatsoever that "micro-evolution" magically stops before becoming "macro-evolution, but all you do is to avoid even trying to deal with that by deflecting it away.

The "evidence" for macro-evolution is simply not there metis. It is a figment of the scientists' imagination. The 'barrier' that stops micro-evolution from becoming "macro" is right there in your own lab experiments. Not one has produced a single departure from its 'family' of creatures, whether that was bacteria, or hawthorn flies or stickleback fish or anything else. Nothing morphed into something outside of its "kind".....and nothing ever will.

Things evolve-- we know that-- and unless someone here can provide evidence that change stops for whatever reason, then all they are just doing is spouting some sort of blind faith like people in the Dark Ages believed.. No evidence = no evidence, and you haven't provided us with one shred of evidence to support your positions on this.

Science cannot provide evidence that adaptation ever leads to amoebas becoming dinosaurs.....or dinosaurs morphing into chickens.....if you are related to a banana, then every time you eat one, you are a cannibal!.

So, let me suggest you either produce the evidence and not deflect it again, or at least be honest enough to admit you have none. The choice is yours.

You're funny...I have been asking evolutionists to do this since the beginning of this thread...and guess what....none has ever been produced. I see the same language of "might have..." or "could have..." or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." but not a single solid piece of substantiated evidence for macro-evolution has ever shown up here. There is evidence for adaptation but the suggestion that it goes further than what can be proven is nonsense....nothing more scientific than wishful thinking.

No @Deeje , I'm not being "Creative"-- I'm being both scientific and logical.

Yes, according to your indoctrination in your chosen 'belief' system. How are you different from me metis?

Geneticists who specialize in this area well know how this process works, and we in anthropology use their expertise all the time since we have to "farm out" some things for them to analyze because that's their area of expertise. No geneticist that I could ever imagine would ever agree with your magical position on "macro-evolution" not being possible.

Yep....scientists already convinced of the authenticity of the theory are teaching others to believe the same story, even though there is nothing solid to back up their "evidence" either. This is the blind leading the blind IMO.

And where's your evidence for planned? First of all, please provide evidence for there being a planner.

The reality is that you have no evidence to offer. or maybe the Cosmic Godzilla did it, Deeje?

My evidence for "planned" is right before everyone's eyes.

All throughout creation there is pre-conceived purpose demonstrated in everything. Purpose demonstrates planning and planning has to have a planner. Is it all just a series of very fortunate coincidences that the earth is designed for life and life is designed for the earth? Was this all 'just accidental'?

Is the mixture of gases here in our atmosphere just a fluke? If there was a bit more oxygen in the mix, then every spark would cause an explosion. We could never light a fire to keep warm or cook our food. Every thunderstorm would be life threatening.

Is the earth's size, distance from the sun, the tilt of its axis, and the speed of its rotation, all just coincidental?
It is also coincidental that trees and vegetation breathe out what we breathe in and vice versa? A self sustaining supply of a basic necessity, based on a system of mutually beneficial interactions just happened for no apparent reason? Plants and insects also demonstrate this amazing relationship with pollination....its all just a fluke though....right?

Is it accidental that the vast quantities of water on this planet are not consumable by its land dwelling creatures and that precipitation just magically transforms salt water into fresh water so that all land dwellers and vegetation can survive? Is it just a fluke that water floats when it freezes, when no other liquid does? What would happen if that was not the case? Think of all those creatures in the polar regions who live on and under the ice.

Is it just coincidental that nature's garbage disposal experts just happen to operate the greatest recycling program in existence to ensure that the millions of dead bodies don't litter the earth to stink up the place?

Haven't excursions into space proven that there is no evidence of intelligent life anywhere else? You have no more evidence for macro-evolution than I have for my Creator.....but I have so much more by way of logical evidence in the real world than you do IMO....and what's more, I need no science degrees to appreciate them.

We all have a choice here....you can believe whatever you like. But its a huge gamble...isn't it? What is there to lose if you eliminate the Creator?

 

[Sapiens]

"Yes or no"? Wow! I feel like I am being cross examined by a lawyer with 'molescular' evidence that will result in a conviction!!! He smells a victory!

I have the distinct impression that you have a very important point to make about molluscs Sapiens....since we are all waiting with bated breath...why don't you just make it. Tell us how all but the two molluscs that were mentioned in my article are hopeless at living on the bottom of the sea bed....this I am sure will be riveting to all the molusc lovers here on RF.

I know the answer, do you? Yes or no? Based on your past interactions I think it is safe to assume your answer is "yes," but I'll wait a while for you to answer yourself.

 

[Deeje]

I know the answer, do you? Yes or no?

Tell me why I get images of small child when I read this....?

I have no doubt that because of your background that you do know the answer.....but I have to ask.....why does it matter?

Based on your past interactions I think it is safe to assume your answer is "yes," but I'll wait a while for you to answer yourself.

Um...this is obviously very important to you Sapiens. But since it was never stated that I believe that all mollusc shells hold out the pressure of seawater, I am somewhat bemused that you want to pursue this very riveting piece of information....?

Since there were just two shells of interest in the article I posted, what have other mollusc shells got to do with anything? And again...does it really matter?

 

[Sapiens]

Tell me why I get images of small child when I read this....?

I have no doubt that because of your background that you do know the answer.....but I have to ask.....why does it matter?



Um...this is obviously very important to you Sapiens. But since it was never stated that I believe that all mollusc shells hold out the pressure of seawater, I am somewhat bemused that you want to pursue this very riveting piece of information....?

Since there were just two shells of interest in the article I posted, what have other mollusc shells got to do with anything? And again...does it really matter?

You are prevaricating in at least two ways, one of which is that there were not two shells of interest but rather two types of shells, each of which is represented by literally thousands of species and fossils. Please answer the question, it is rather simple: does a bivalve or spiral mollusc shell keep out the great pressure of the deep sea, as specified by the paper you cited? Do you stand by your citation or have you changed your mind and do you now reject it?

 

[Deeje]

there were not two shells of interest but rather two types of shells, each of which is represented by literally thousands of species and fossils. Please answer the question, it is rather simple: does a bivalve or spiral mollusc shell keep out the great pressure of the deep sea, as specified by the paper you cited?

I have no reason to doubt the sources I quoted and I am not terribly interested in whether you agree with them or not.

Do you stand by your citation or have you changed your mind and do you now reject it?

Are you serious? Good grief! I am being held to ransom by a mollesc!

Sapiens, I don't care if you beg to differ. Its just one scientist trying to debunk the opinion of another. Fight it out among yourselves...you have the link. It makes no difference to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It might be "logical" to one trained to believe in macro-evolution metis, but is it provable? If it's not backed up by anything but assumption and supposition, then it's a suggestion, not a fact. It seems to me that scientists get all excited over a suggestion but have nothing more to get excited about except what they imagine might be true.

You only have to listen to Attenborough's pathetic suggestions to know that there is nothing to back up a thing he infers might be true with regard to the relationship of the hummingbird to his tasty flowers. I could suggest that hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate were made for each other in a deliberate mutually beneficial and planned fashion, (for the perpetuation of both) and have as much scientific evidence as he does for my assumption.
That is the point.

Is it provable that material things change over time? It's absolutely demonstrable. And logical. And observable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand completely how science "works" as it pertains to macro-evolution. There is no proof that any of it is true. Science makes suggestions that sound like facts, but we all know that there is no way to prove any of it. Isn't science about facts? Don't scientists have to back up their theories with substantial evidence that what they teach is true? They seem to do OK in many fields....but with evolution, the jury is out because there is no real evidence. It's all circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence, improperly interpreted has led to many false convictions....even executions of innocent men.

Sorry, that is not good enough to bet your life on.

No, you do not. Thanks for elaborating on my point with this post.

 

[Tiapan]

Take off your rose coloured glasses and look at what a simple amoeba becomes, after billions of years of natural biological experiments, some that work some that don't, what you are looking at are the successful ones. Think instead of all those millions that failed.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and subjective, hardly objective, and hardly evidence of a creator.

Close your eyes in silence for a minute, now imagine 100 billion years, its a very very long time

Cheers

 

[metis]

metis, if you have followed this thread at all, you will see what I have said all along.....science has no more evidence for what it believes than we do...

As usual, you don't answer the question as to what evidence can you provide to indicate that "micro-evolution" cannot lead to "macro-evolution", therefore I have to assert that you are guilt of what is commonly referred to as "intellectual dishonesty". If this was a formal debatr, you'd lose hands-down because one loses points when they make a claim that they cannot provide one shred of evidence for-- and it's obvious that you can't.

OTOH, "evolutionists" have shown evidence based on the fossil record, the genome testing, and what the geneticists have been telling us. But, instead of even accepting this as possible evidence, you resort to the "intellectually dishonest" tactic of claiming that they are either ignorant, corrupt, or both.

I knew I was making a mistake by responding to your post because you simply have nothing to offer with your disingenuous tactics here. If this is the best that the JW's and you can do, I really feel sorry for them and you.