Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Micro-evolution is adaptation, which is readily seen in many species where an environmental or an altered food source required them to adapt or become extinct.

Macro-evolution is the idea that this evidence of small changes within species can be taken to extremes for which NO real evidence exists. You can provide articles and links all you want, but they contain the same assumptions and guesswork that we see in all of them. They find one scull or a tooth or a fragment of bone and suddenly they have this amazing discovery!....its all concocted.

It's clear you don't know what evidence is then. Or evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL...what do you think you are doing? You are also repeating the same baseless claims as if they have not already been soundly debunked. Look at the wording of the "proofs" that have been cited.

The power of suggestion has never been more successfully used....except in political campaigns perhaps.

You can believe them if you like, but my logic operates differently....I know what I see and I see NO evidence that is not a suggestion.

Ah, but that's the difference here. You provide only claims. The rest of us are providing evidence. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence. You have to throw out a lot of science to reject it.

 

[Deeje]

It's clear you don't know what evidence is then. Or evolution.

Either that, or your own definition is skewed by your own desire to believe that there is no Intelligent Designer.

You might brush over the language if there was real clear cut evidence......but if you are honest....you will acknowledge that at the end of the day.....there is no conclusive evidence at all. It is bits and pieces with the gaps filled in by wishful thinking.

Science is trying to prop up a premise, that in reality was never true to begin with. That makes all their assumptions about it as shaky as their original idea. Any building is only as strong as its foundations.....evolution's foundation is completely missing.

 

[Deeje]

Ah, but that's the difference here. You provide only claims. The rest of us are providing evidence. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence. You have to throw out a lot of science to reject it.

No...all I have to do is listen to the rhetoric and see for myself that true science has little to do with any of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah, but the bacteria are still bacteria OB.....that is the point. What we are seeing is adaptation. Clever little fellows. Stupid science for creating the need. Natural therapies would have treated many of the things anti-biotics were prescribed for.
Science debunked natural remedies in favor of chemical solutions to man's disease symptoms. We all know the real reason.

Don't cure anything, just treat symptoms and if there are side effects (aren't there always side effects?) then prescribe more drugs = more $$$$.

Doctors as well as short sighted chemists created this super-bug monster that could wipe us all out.....clever science? I don't think so.
Reaping what you sow?......absolutely.

The real reason is that there is no evidence that a lot of these things referred to as "natural remedies" are effective at all and plenty of evidence indicating that they are not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Either that, or your own definition is skewed by your own desire to believe that there is no Intelligent Designer.

You might brush over the language if there was real clear cut evidence......but if you are honest....you will acknowledge that at the end of the day.....there is no conclusive evidence at all. It is bits and pieces with the gaps filled in by wishful thinking.

Science is trying to prop up a premise, that in reality was never true to begin with. That makes all their assumptions about it as shaky as their original idea. Any building is only as strong as its foundations.....evolution's foundation is completely missing.

Actually there are vast amounts of evidence from multiple different fields of science used to back up evolution. Everything from chemistry to biology to geology to paleontology to genetics, to name but a few. And all collected by multiple independent groups of research all over the world over the last 150+ years. And oddly enough, all the evidence seems to converge on the same conclusion, over and over again. That conclusion is that evolution is a fact of life.


By the way, why would science (a tool - not a person, mind you) want to "prop up a premise" that isn't valid or true?

 

[Deeje]

The real reason is that there is no evidence that a lot of these things referred to as "natural remedies" are effective at all and plenty of evidence indicating that they are not.

Spoken like a true proponent of science.

Can science explain the placebo effect?....scientifically?

Modern medicine has no answers to the many diseases that plague humanity.....for every one that they have controlled (not cured) there are still many that take thousands of lives every year....yet a common plant could be used to cure and treat most diseases, putting drug companies out of business......I guess you know what that plant is, and why not many of us are allowed to grow it?

 

[Deeje]

Actually there are vast amounts of evidence from multiple different fields of science used to back up evolution. Everything from chemistry to biology to geology to paleontology to genetics, to name but a few. And all collected by multiple independent groups of research all over the world over the last 150+ years. And oddly enough, all the evidence seems to converge on the same conclusion, over and over again. That conclusion is that evolution is a fact of life.

No bias in any of these fields though, is there? (Birds of a feather...and all that.) All patting one another on the back....branches of the same tree, using the same language to push the same agenda. Just co-incidence of course.

By the way, why would science (a tool - not a person, mind you) want to "prop up a premise" that isn't valid or true?

Why does the world want to conquer religion by using science? Who could possibly be behind an agenda to make religion redundant?
I'll leave you to guess that one too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Spoken like a true proponent of science.

Can science explain the placebo effect?....scientifically?

Modern medicine has no answers to the many diseases that plague humanity.....for every one that they have controlled (not cured) there are still many that take thousands of lives every year....yet a common plant could be used to cure and treat most diseases, putting drug companies out of business......I guess you know what that plant is, and why not many of us are allowed to grow it?

I'm a proponent of science because it works. It's the tool that has given has the vast majority of the knowledge we currently have about the world we live in.

And yes, science can explain the placebo effect ... scientifically. It can demonstrate it.

Marijuana hasn't been shown to cure any diseases .... yet. It has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of symptoms and side effects though (e.g. reducing nausea in chemo patients, treating glaucoma) There's a lot of research that needs to be done though and the loosening of FDA restrictions against marijuana in the US would do a lot to get the ball rolling on that. It's definitely not some snake oil cure-all though.

 

[sayak83]

"Incomplete" is the scientific term for "missing altogether".

Dream on...
Here are just a selection of fossil hominins found in your so called "gap" between Lucy and later human ancestors between 3-2 million years.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-science-of-human-evolution.191162/page-3#post-4934457

 

[Deeje]

Dream on...
Here are just a selection of fossil hominins found in your so called "gap" between Lucy and later human ancestors between 3-2 million years.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-science-of-human-evolution.191162/page-3#post-4934457

Do you have any idea how conditioned you are to believe that fossils like Lucy are ancestors of modern man? That is the premise upon which the whole theory is built, yet there is no "chain" in human evolution that is not suggested. No fossils that categorically prove a single thing.
Edit:

This is what they have. The brown parts are the actual skeleton and the white parts are filled in.

This is the model of Lucy according to what science imagines.

Two of these skeletons are apes...only one is human.

Why cant these ancient apes be just ape species.....come and gone in a by gone time like many others?

 

[Deeje]

The real reason is that there is no evidence that a lot of these things referred to as "natural remedies" are effective at all and plenty of evidence indicating that they are not.

That depends on who is providing the information, not whether the information is correct or not. Pharmaceutical companies are financially tied to universities and medical schools, funding a lot of their research. Would you expect to see findings that make the use of harmful drugs a less likely choice of therapy?

I go to doctors and natural therapists because I see a need for both. It's the "them" and "us" mentality that separates them, forcing people unconsciously into two camps...they can choose "real" medicine, or "alternative" medicine. There is quackery in both. Most people really need to know the difference.

 

[Deeje]

I'm a proponent of science because it works. It's the tool that has given has the vast majority of the knowledge we currently have about the world we live in.

Science is also responsible for atomic weapons and nuclear reactors which are the bane of our society. There is no good reason to have nuclear power plants except to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. There are much better cost effective means to provide electricity, that do not threaten all life on this planet.

And yes, science can explain the placebo effect ... scientifically. It can demonstrate it.

This was a hoot.....
http://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-strange-science-of-the-placebo-effect

Marijuana hasn't been shown to cure any diseases .... yet.

Yes it has, but not by science who wants to test it out more thoroughly to see if it will kill anyone. No matter that so many others things freely available to the public, are taking lives hand over fist every day....tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, over the counter medicines....guns....fast food.

It has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of symptoms and side effects though (e.g. reducing nausea in chemo patients, treating glaucoma) There's a lot of research that needs to be done though and the loosening of FDA restrictions against marijuana in the US would do a lot to get the ball rolling on that. It's definitely not some snake oil cure-all though.

Since there is not one recorded death due to an overdose of cannabis ever, I think its time for medical science to come clean.....the only reason this plant became demonized was because of its medicinal value. Keeping this amazing drug out of the reach of the average person was nothing short of criminal.
Knocking down someone's door and having men in combat gear treat you like a criminal for possessing a harmless plant is the symptom of a very sick society. Its isn't the big bad boogy-man it has been painted to be and never was. The motive for keeping it illegal is very sinister....but that's the world we live in....corrupt to its core.

The genus of the plant used for medicinal purposes is very low in THC's (no high) but it is high in medicinal value. The medicine is easy to make at home and people with neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease have been shown to stop their tremors. It stops epileptic seizures and could be used extensively for those suffering from many other diseases....but the law says you can't have it....WHY? Can science explain that one?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Look, don't worry about it........ just leave the worrying to the pharmaceutical engineers who are working all hours in attempts to find an anti-biotic which could kill the new genetically modified bacteria which have evolved and can now withstand most if not all of our present-day antibiotics. Evolution is happening right now, friend.

Yes, it is, I'm nowhere near disputing that. But the bacteria are still bacteria.They are not changing into any higher taxa.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ah, but that's the difference here. You provide only claims. The rest of us are providing evidence. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced scientific theories in existence. You have to throw out a lot of science to reject it.

Microevolution is, but not macroevolution. And if you think so, you've been misled. There are so many holes in the lines of evidence for common descent, not even the theory's expert proponents can arrive at a consensus in support of any line.....I've been present at a few heated debates between some of those experts. Truly amazing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What do you think macroevolution is?

I ask because what is being described is macroevolution, yet you say here that it's evidence against macroevolution, which doesn't make sense.

Those ducks may obtain different characteristics and markings through genetic modification, but they are still ducks. MICROevolution, not macro. And any sort of genetic difference that would result in two species not procreating, would stop evolution dead in its tracks, wouldn't you think?

 

[sayak83]

Do you have any idea how conditioned you are to believe that fossils like Lucy are ancestors of modern man? That is the premise upon which the whole theory is built, yet there is no "chain" in human evolution that is not suggested. No fossils that categorically prove a single thing.
Edit:

This is what they have. The brown parts are the actual skeleton and the white parts are filled in.

This is the model of Lucy according to what science imagines.

Two of these skeletons are apes...only one is human.

Why cant these ancient apes be just ape species.....come and gone in a by gone time like many others?

You are free to see the detailed analysis of the skeletal characteristics that demonstrate the mosaic features that make them part of the hominin group and not the chimpanzee/gorilla group which I presented in the thread of human evolution. The obvious reason is these are fully erect bipeds and there are many other skeletals features that show them to be clearly in the ancestral lineage of later hominins and modern humans

I am sure you know that the "fully-fleshed" versions are artists representations only to make the exhibit more friendly to general audience and to children (who do not like to see skeletons for obvious reasons).
These fully fleshed artist representations are never ever used in making any conclusions about these creatures by any scientist. Only the bones themselves (any preserved soft tissue) are used for the scientific analysis and conclusions.

Further details

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who could argue with that?

It's a major part of why religion interests me.

Look where it got them though......hopelessly fragmented.....all claiming that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The trouble is, the truth is out there, surrounded by a forest of similar looking trees.....who can tell which one is the genuine article?

You know my thoughts on theism...

I dont pretend to know what's 'out there' to be honest. Im not really an atheist because I 'know' there is no greater being than us. I just find it unlikely to the point of absurdity that any humans have successfully determined and articulated it if there is.

We don't have to choose really.....since Jesus said that the one genuinely searching would find, provided that they searched adequately and didn't settle for the easy road. The difficult one is a test of endurance. We all know that endurance races are won by those whose training allowed them to push through the pain. (Matthew 24:13)

I would suggest he has made the road far trickier for a second child born in China than for me. But perhaps you can ask him what the point was one day?

 

[Deeje]

It's a major part of why religion interests me.

Yes, it interests me too. Blind devotion to a religion is something I cannot comprehend, performance of ritual or the practice of superstitions are also beyond my understanding. Yet all are seen in many religions in the world.
They were absent from the teachings of Jesus Christ but not from the early church which introduced a lot of stuff that wasn't Christian in origin.

You know my thoughts on theism...

Yes, and you are welcome to them.

You know my thoughts on atheism.

I dont pretend to know what's 'out there' to be honest. Im not really an atheist because I 'know' there is no greater being than us.

How do you know?
I "know" that there is a greater being than us....so one of us is mistaken.

I just find it unlikely to the point of absurdity that any humans have successfully determined and articulated it if there is.

What if humans didn't determine or articulate the existence of a Creator/God at all, but simply embellished their concept of him over many centuries?.....what if the Creator himself commissioned a written communication between himself and man, and then preserved it down through time so that we could know him and understand his purpose in our creation? How does anyone discount the possibility especially after saying that they don't pretend to know what's out there?

I would suggest he has made the road far trickier for a second child born in China than for me. But perhaps you can ask him what the point was one day?

That assumes that all that transpires down here on this insignificant speck is his doing.....a second child born in China is the problem of the Chinese....a godless nation by and large if I remember?

I don't assume that much of anything that happens in this present world has much to do with God at all. We chose independence from him a long time ago, so he has allowed us to see where that takes us. I think that is pretty darned clever actually. What better way to teach your children anything than with an object lesson....its impact is stronger than anything he could tell us.

 

[Deeje]

You are free to see the detailed analysis of the skeletal characteristics that demonstrate the mosaic features that make them part of the hominin group and not the chimpanzee/gorilla group which I presented in the thread of human evolution. The obvious reason is these are fully erect bipeds and there are many other skeletals features that show them to be clearly in the ancestral lineage of later hominins and modern humans

I am sure you know that the "fully-fleshed" versions are artists representations only to make the exhibit more friendly to general audience and to children (who do not like to see skeletons for obvious reasons).
These fully fleshed artist representations are never ever used in making any conclusions about these creatures by any scientist. Only the bones themselves (any preserved soft tissue) are used for the scientific analysis and conclusions.

Further details

Would you like to count the number of times she says "I think"......?

Sorry, all conclusions are based on a single premise which I believe is flawed from the beginning. The early apes are apes, not transitional forms leading to humans. You can argue on that premise all you like, but I reject it as having nothing to support it.
Who said that evolution is true? Who can prove that it is?

Clearly humans are anatomically not apes....nothing close to either a chimp or a gorilla. Look at these feet.....we have no opposable thumbs on our feet, yet every ape does.