Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

Just pretend that the Theory of Evolution didn't exist. What arguments do you have that might convince me that 1. A god exists. 2. That this god created anything?

Oh, for crying out loud.

Evolution is happening, changes within species happen all the time! But extending this concept to include common descent, has no solid evidence.

Our Earth, how the balance of the four known universal forces and earth-bound cycles and ecosystems work hand-in-hand to sustain and nurture the diversity of life, little of which is understood.

See Post # 1152

It "just happened"? Looking at the forest inspite of the trees, the entire picture...there's no Logic in supporting such a view.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Should I give specifics as to what a credible PhD holder in Biology is? I feel its fairly objective. If they get their PhD from a creationist non-accredited school for the specific purpouse of inflating the number of "scientists" (yes I must use the quotation marks here) they are no a credible or legitimate PhD holder in biology.

Should I give specifics.....

You are, your opinion.

Discredit R. Sternberg's education, or the credentials of Stephen Meyer, or those of Michael Behe.

Give me a break!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are, your opinion.

Discredit R. Sternberg's education, or the credentials of Stephen Meyer, or those of Michael Behe.

Give me a break!

Indeed there are oddballs here and there that are from credible universities where they answered questions correctly but then turn around to dismiss them. Is their claims based on evidence however? The majority of PhD holders in ID are farmed out of ID unacreddited universities. A scant few are from real universities where they get their degrees I suppose out of spite.

R. Sternberg is a religious man who is at best a theistic evolutionist.
Stephen Meyer is purely motivated by religious beliefs that often have nothing to do with science. He has since devoted his time and effort to looking for evidence of a claim he already believes and has done extremely poorly at that.
Michael Behe is the worst exapmle here. He is a moron to say the least. I don't know ehough about Stephen Meyer to say if he is or isn't an idot. He may be a very intellegent but religous zealotry is a powerful force. Or he is an idiot. I don' know. Sternberg is an intenllegent man with a good track record of good science behind it. The only blotches he has is his involvmenet in ID. Of which he still claims to not be an advocate of. But Michael Behe...father of irriducible complexity arguments is objectively wrong. Every single instance of irriducible complexity he has ever attempted to bring to the table has been explained and refuted. He hasn't a single leg to stand on. His own biology department released a statement saying "hey...not with this guy. He crazy" to paraphrase.

 

[metis]

Discredit R. Sternberg's education, or the credentials of Stephen Meyer, or those of Michael Behe.

Behe has proven himself to be quite seriously truth-challenged as we saw in the Dover trial whereas the Christian and Republican-appointed judge ripped him a new rectum for being dishonest.

So, how can an intelligent person also be "truth challenged" on that and/or some other things? That's where "confirmation bias" comes in. They only "see" what they want to see-- truth be damned.

 

[ArtieE]

Oh, for crying out loud.

Evolution is happening, changes within species happen all the time! But extending this concept to include common descent, has no solid evidence.

Our Earth, how the balance of the four known universal forces and earth-bound cycles and ecosystems work hand-in-hand to sustain and nurture the diversity of life, little of which is understood.

See Post # 1152

It "just happened"? Looking at the forest inspite of the trees, the entire picture...there's no Logic in supporting such a view.

I wrote and I quote: "Just pretend that the Theory of Evolution didn't exist. What arguments do you have that might convince me that 1. A god exists. 2. That this god created anything?"

Try again?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you ever studied the Bible? According to scripture, we are living in the time of the last ruling entity before God brings his rulership back to mankind. It's all in the book of Daniel, which parallels the book of Revelation, written almost 700 years apart. How did Daniel know what would take place 700 years into the future? How did he know that Babylon would be overthrown by Medo-Persia....or that Greece would topple Medo-Persia under Alexander the Great? The Grecian Empire was taken over by Rome, and Rome was not conquered, but fell due to its own decadence.....out of the ashes of Rome arose the British Empire, joined by the USA in the 20th century to become an alliance that has continued to the present. There are no more kings after that but in the days of those last kings, God brings in his kingdom and crushes all opposing rulerships out of existence. (Daniel 2:44) Jesus taught us to pray for this kingdom to "come" so that God's will can finally "be done on earth as it is in heaven". None of God's servants on earth will have to lift a finger.

Bible prophesy is fascinating.....

He didn't. You can fit any kind of vague sounding "prophecies" to fit almost anything you like, if that's what you're going for. Like people do with Nostradamus' writings.

Now, where does the Bible say anything definitive and/or specific about 2016?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps you can furnish real verifiable evidence for an unbroken chain of evolutionary changes that did not involve simple adaptation within one species....That is what I see in the science experiments. But adaptation does not prove macroevolution.....that is the real science. Genetic barriers will not even allow related species to interbreed, let alone produce new creatures altogether. Breeding "according to their kinds" is still seen to this day. Creatures do not seek to breed outside of their kinds, not on land and not in the oceans.

Beneficial mutations are so incredibly rare that they cannot possibly be used to explain the 'microbes to dinosaurs' scenario without sounding like complete idiots.....If it can't be proven...its not scientific fact......its a science theory.

Ring species. There, done.

Your turn to provide the mechanism that acts as a barrier from small changes becoming larger changes over large periods of time. You're making assertions and assumptions about some genetic barrier that you say exists but that nobody has been able to find, so you back it up with evidence. You don't get to make assertions about things that don't exist.

"Kind" isn't a word that is used in evolutionary science. As you well know because it's been pointed out to you many times. Also, I don't think I ever got your definition for that word. Are dogs and cats the same "kind?" How do we determine "kind" in any kind of useful way?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no such thing as a higher taxa.

There is no such thing as a higher taxa.

.

"Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa."

Excerpt from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Taxa is not "a", as in singular. It's plural.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa."

Excerpt from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Taxa is not "a", as in singular. It's plural.

Ah. I stand corrected. However the definition doesn't make sense in the way you used it. How does a species become a higher taxa? A higher taxa is older while lower taxa are newer.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

..... provide the mechanism that acts as a barrier from small changes becoming larger changes over large periods of time.

Behaviorally, Sexual selection. Genetically, the structural diversity of functional, biological proteins. Apoptosis.

Take your pick.

 

[Sapiens]

Behaviorally, Sexual selection. Genetically, the structural diversity of functional, biological proteins. Apoptosis.

Take your pick.

You take your pick and please demonstrate how behaviorally, sexual selection, or genetically the structural diversity of functional, biological proteins, or apoptosis
provides the mechanism that acts as a barrier to small changes becoming larger changes over large periods of time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

They only "see" what they want to see-- truth be damned.

Wow, and I think the same thing about your group!

CDer's have to ignore much evidence, the Cambrian Explosion being one category (with partial explanations rife with special pleading imo), and other evidence contorted to fit your presupposed view.

Good day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So this is a reasonable response? You sound like a three year old chucking a tanny.

If you say evolution is true often enough, are you going to make it any more true? It was never true to begin with.....it was a thought that developed into a hypothesis, which developed into a theory, which developed into a branch of science.....Oh no!...it was evolution!

I believe that egotism is what evolutionary science thrives on...it certainly isn't evidence. The "best minds" and "virtual certainty" and "virtual consensus" is a bit like "virtual reality"......it looks real, but it isn't.
What does it mean to the Creator? I am sure that he is amused by their collective arrogance.

How ironic.

 

[Sapiens]

You are, your opinion.

Discredit R. Sternberg's education, or the credentials of Stephen Meyer, or those of Michael Behe.

Give me a break!

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Behe has, as you know, been impeached in the court of science, public opinion and even the law itself. He has been branded a liar and a fraud, why that makes him a hero and avatar of the ID movement is beyond me.

Wow, and I think the same thing about your group!

CDer's have to ignore much evidence, the Cambrian Explosion being one category (with partial explanations rife with special pleading imo), and other evidence contorted to fit your presupposed view.

Good day.

The difference is that I can support my views with testable findings and all you can do is pretend that because everyone is entitled to their own opinion we are on a level playing field and that wrongheaded perception entitles you to make up your own facts.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A higher taxa is older while lower taxa are newer.

First of all, again, it's not "a higher taxa". Singular is 'taxon'; so, you'd have to say 'a higher taxon'.

Secondly, interesting phrase, 'from higher to lower'. And that's right on.
But macro evolution doesn't teach this. Instead, species develop into higher taxonomic categories. It would have to, life originating as a single cell. Or was it a phylum in itself? Lol. Macro evolution would be a lot easier to explain, if the earliest organisms lost information in their code, to form less complex life.

Lol.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

First of all, again, it's not "a higher taxa". Singular is 'taxon'; so, you'd have to say 'a higher taxon'.

Secondly, interesting phrase, 'from higher to lower'. And that's right on.
But macro evolution doesn't teach this. Instead, species develop into higher taxonomic categories. It would have to, life originating as a single cell. Or was it a phylum in itself? Lol. Macro evolution would be a lot easier to explain, if the earliest organisms lost information in their code, to form less complex life.

Lol.

You are saying "lol" a lot as if you are making a point. A higher Taxon would be the more general while the lower Taxon is more specific.
The highest taxon is Domain. The lowest is Species. Eukaryota is the highest taxon that a human is in. The lowest is H. Sapiens. In taxonomy the family Hominidae can be linked to a common ancestor that is the root of the genetic code that renders its decdnents hominidae rather than any other family.

What is the issue so far? And why would it work out better for the evolutionary modle if they lost information and became less complex? DNA often mutates but it does not often loose bits of DNA.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The difference is that I can support my views with testable findings and all you can do is pretend that because everyone is entitled to their own opinion we are on a level playing field that entitles you to make up your own facts.

You have no complete facts for CD.

Partial, yes. But try drinking liquid from a partially-made glass. It doesn't hold water.

Testable findings, for CD? Good one.

It's not a level playing field; among scientists, it's tilted in your favor for now. Have fun.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ring species. There, done.

"Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred."

Excerpt from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/abs/nature13285.html

 

[Sapiens]

You have no complete facts for CD.

Partial, yes. But try drinking liquid from a partially-made glass. It doesn't hold water.

What doesn't hold water is your false analogy.

Testable findings, for CD? Good one.

Not a "good one" rather a goodly many ranging from the prediction of where to find Tiktaalik roseae to correct prediction of the lack of rabbits in Precambrian sediments to the precise ways that all the information from various disparate fields fits neatly together.

It's not a level playing field; among scientists, it's tilted in your favor for now. Have fun.

It's the facts that tilt it, not the players.

 

[Sapiens]

"Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred."

Excerpt from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/abs/nature13285.html

You mean dishonest quote mine. Here's the full abstract:

Ring species provide particularly clear demonstrations of how one species can gradually evolve into two, but are rare in nature. In the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) species complex, a ring of populations wraps around Tibet. Two reproductively isolated forms co-exist in central Siberia, with a gradient of genetic and phenotypic characteristics through the southern chain of populations connecting them. Previous genetic evidence has proven inconclusive, however, regarding whether species divergence took place in the face of continuous gene flow and whether hybridization between the terminal forms of the ring ever occurred. Here we use genome-wide analyses to show that, although spatial patterns of genetic variation are currently mostly as expected of a ring species, historical breaks in gene flow have existed at more than one location around the ring, and the two Siberian forms have occasionally interbred. Substantial periods of geographical isolation occurred not only in the north but also in the western Himalayas, where there is now an extensive hybrid zone between genetically divergent forms. Limited asymmetric introgression has occurred directly between the Siberian forms, although it has not caused a blending of those forms, suggesting selection against introgressed genes in the novel genetic background. Levels of reproductive isolation and genetic introgression are consistent with levels of phenotypic divergence around the ring, with phenotypic similarity and extensive interbreeding across the southwestern contact zone and strong phenotypic divergence and nearly complete reproductive isolation across the northern contact zone. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that the greenish warbler should be viewed as a rare example of speciation by distance6, but demonstrate that the greenish warbler displays a continuum from slightly divergent neighbouring populations to almost fully reproductively isolated species.