Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Why should I waste my time if the post isn't giving me what I am asking for?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Why should I waste my time if the post isn't giving me what I am asking for?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I don't know. Maybe it is its own original kind?
Don't know.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Have you read your Bible?
Where does it state that a dog is a dog and a turtle is a turtle? Does it not proclaim that a bat is a bird and a dolphin a fish?
It's easy to understand why it does this, it's written by people who knew even less than you about species but God didn't know either?
What you have to understand is that your "kinds" is nothing but terms that ancient goat herders used for what they saw in their environment.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
Ok then, whales and kangaroos, koalas and Pandas, pseudo insects?
I can go on with a list for days if you'd like or you could just tell me that you have no clue, haven't read the Bible, don't know what speciation is and have an understanding of biology that a fifth grader should be ashamed of.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
What if god made a single celled organism? or another process created "life" and then it changed. Evolution means change. It means nothing else.
Also you are wrong to assume life cannot come from non-life.
False.
No its not. But nice try.
1. Proven false
2. false model
3. argument from ignorance.
4. Argument from ignorance
5. unsubstanciated claim as there is zero historical accounts of Jesus's ressurection and very very very very very little that such a man even existed.
What of a fox?
A fox is very similar to a cat. how do you define "kind"? How is it different than species?
How do you assume a "kind"? Genetically humans and chimpanzee's are more similar than foxes and dogs which you assume are the same 'kind". Just admit your full of **** and move on.
Actually false. Its possible it could even if it was totally random. However its not random.
We have evidence. Every piece of evidence we have ever accumulated points to it. However what you want is something impossible. You want to live for several million years and watch those changes. But it doesn't really matter. Because even if you did live for millions of years to watch a species evolve then you would simply keep moving the goalposts.
Replication. Replication happens as a natural process. "mistakes" happen with these replications. That is what the "change" is. For example if I have a copy machine that has no "intelligence" that continues to copy things over and over and over but makes a mistake every now and then it will change every replication after that.
Argument from ignorance.
We can see the effects of evolution as well. But I meant specifically on the theory of relativity. Not just Newtonian physics. Otherwise you have no answer.
Because you might learn something. I realize you do seem resistant to the idea, but you might consider that your god gave you a brain and decide to start using it.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how you want to put it, a dog is a different kind of animal than a turtle, and dogs and turtles only produce what they are...dogs and turtles.
But the grass is so much greener on the Creationist side
You call it a fossil record, I call it simply a group of remains of animals that died a long time ago, and each animal that became the fossil belongs to a specific category of animal. That is all the evidence that I gather, and to go beyond this is pure speculation, especially since the theory begs for further inquiry.
Reptiles to birds huh? So what made you conclude that the reptile had feathers? Or is that another presupposition?
@Call of the Wild:
I just don't understand. You obviously mistrust biologists, but it is not at all clear that you even have an alternate understanding to propose.
I just don't understand. You obviously mistrust biologists, but it is not at all clear that you even have an alternate understanding to propose.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Then God exists. Thank you.
I am saying since it hasn't been observed, there is no reason to believe it is true.
And yet, I am the one that is ignorant?
Is that the best you've got?
I would like refutation of the arguments please. It isn't as if I haven't been defending each one of those arguments vigorously on this forum. I've put my work in. If you think you can refute the arguments, pick one, and refute it.
An orange colored dog.
A fox looks like a dog to me.
Common Designer.
You right, it isn't random. A mindless and blind process knew what it was doing when it gave eyes to see, wings to fly, ears to hear, etc. Yup.
Am I the only one that notices that there is so much justification on why we can't observe it happening???
But there would be no information with the copies.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Luis, what part of dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats don't you and others understand?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Or other means. But what your saying right now is god could exist and evolution could be correct. Am I right in assuming that?
We've never observed black holes do you think their real?
Extensively so yes.
No. But you seem incapable of understanding my best. Still beats yours though.
All of them are so demonstrably false that it makes you look like a fool defending them. Your "defense" of them has been nothing but bickering and denial of reality. But since you insist.
"Argument from Ignorance" means that you are arguing from a position based in ignorance. You don't understand it therefore its wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Until you can provide an argument that isn't from ignorance it is already refuted. There is no need to even go further.
Really? Good now we can throw out countless amounts of biology as the mystery is solved. Foxes are nothing more than orange dogs. All the actual biological differences be damned.
And this proves what?
This literally makes no sense.
Its a process that follows rules and probability. I mean by your logic what are the chances of a Sun existing? I mean all that hydrogen "randomly" fusing to make helium like that. I mean wtf? And its so random that there is energy released to create light and radiation. Woah man. The chances of all this randomly happening is totally impossible. I mean god is the only possible answer. I mean atoms are "mindless" and how do they "know" to fuse like that?
Checkmate atheists.
Yes. Well your not totally alone. Some of the most laughable people in the world are with you. But the thing is....we can see it happening.
Its paramount of you saying "the sun isn't hot. there is no reason to believe the sun is hot. Beliving that the sun is hot is a religion. Why? Because all we can feel is here on earth. How do we know it isn't coming from the earth? I mean if we can't go out and touch it I can't believe it."
Do you see how stupid that sounds?
Do you understand the most fundamental or basic thing with DNA?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Mostly the part where you think that Evolution says otherwise.
The part where it had any value in refuting evolution, apparently.
ImprobableBeing
Active Member
If he had read back a few pages, every single argument he has made in the last two would have already had an answer.
Or rather, there is nothing anyone can say, he knows every single fact and the absolute truth and having a discussion with such a person is pointless.
Or rather, there is nothing anyone can say, he knows every single fact and the absolute truth and having a discussion with such a person is pointless.
You already have more than enough on your plate to learn, so I hesitated a bit before typing this. Anyway, this is yet another fallacy of yours. Suppose the nth event occurs at t = 1 second. The previous one, the (n-1)th, occurs at t = 0.5 second. The previous one, the (n-2)th, occurs at t = 0.25 second. See how that works? An infinite number of events have no problem occurring within a finite amount of time.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Not really, not today.
There is enough semen to impregnate every woman on earth 10 times over, one sample contains 40-600 million sperm cells.
Well I will go out and burn every sperm bank and then I will come back to see if you can repeat that sentence
.The proof is in the "pudding"
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
A very reasonable question, very well: In attempting to differentiate between two organisms (lets say a 'turtle' and a 'dog') I would need to know what constitutes the difference between the two organisms - for example both are DNA based, both are 'Animals' a multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa (animal entry on wikipedia), both produce sexually, are vertibrates (have a backbone), are tetrapods (four legged) - there remain significant differences, a turtle is an Ectotherm (cold blooded) rathern than an endotherm (warm blooded) like a dog, lays eggs rather than bears live young, has a shell as opposed to fur, thus in a crude way I can distinguish what you intend when you attempt to use the term 'kind' to differentiate between the two quite distinct organisms.
However, is the same easily done for a cat and a dog? Not nearly so easily, what about for a dog and a hyena? Is a hyena of dog kind or of cat kind?
You see the problem is your superficial and unspecified mechanism of differentiation simply breaks down. It is unable to account for the diversity of life, the 'kind' approach that you use is not even able to address all CURRENT organisms, let alone organisms that we have fossilized remains of. If it is not even capable of definitively determining if a hyena is a cat or a dog, how could any person with an inkling of understanding of biology actually accept the term as being a valid way of categorisation. It simply does not work.
Intelligent design might be an option for me were it to be said to have been accomplished through evolution - i.e. theistic evolution is possible. Creationism on the other hand does not even attempt to reconcile itself with reality. It is therefore objectively incorrect, I am willing to read books about biology from an theistic evolutionist (though I would still of course beware any underlying attempt to suggest a theological cause without evidence, I would be willing to read it - and indeed accept facts from it where supported by the evidence). From a creationist on the other hand I would probably write them off at the outset - why? Because a creationist does not even attempt to deal with the evidence at hand; will they actually discuss the evidence? no, instead they will use terms like 'kind' without ever defining them in an attempt to appeal to credulity and ignorance nor will their explanation attempt to explain the existence of the problematic lack of evidence of current organisms having existed in the distant past or what fossilised organisms are. A creationist perspective (as opposed to a theistic evolutionist perspective) on the diversity of life is simply insufficient to the task.
If you want to use non natural evidence and reasoning to support your argument you are welcome to - however without having provided proof of a supernatural (so as to be non naturalistic) just do not expect it to pursuade anyone who is not either already in agreement with you, or is as credulous as a 5/6 year old child. If you can prove there is any supernatural aspect to existence (let alone the characteristics of that aspect), go for it; otherwise your arguments against a naturalistic explanation arent going to count for much.
Depends what you mean by 'abolsute' origins. But certainly it can and indeed has explained biological complexity and diversity (your unwillingness to accept it nonwithstanding).
Last edited:
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
(ran out of characters lol)
The problem is that not all genes mutate at the same rate nor are equally noticable, nor are all mutations passed on (even for those individuals who do produce progeny). A significant number of these 1495 mutations would occur in areas that are already mutated, for example the 1495th mutation has at least a 1494/23000 chance of occuring on a gene which has already mutated (so given a completely even chance of mutation, for each of the 23000 genes, this adds up to ~48.5 mutations occur on already mutated genes provided a completely random chance of any gene mutating) - in fact, given that some genes are more liable to mutate than others: "For example, mutations in intergenic, or non-coding, DNA tend to accumulate at a faster rate than mutations in DNA that is actively in use in the organism" (Mutation rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) this means they are even more likely to be prone to mutation than other sections, there may be other areas such as function specific genes such as in our immune system the genes which regulate immune function are more subject to mutation than others in an effort to ensure that the immune system is able to recognise infection. So the distribution of these mutations falls from ~1495 out of 23000 genes to a significantly lower number of genes, precisely how many I wouldnt know as I am not a biologist, but a large proportion will be on incrementally adjusted genes. Many if not most of these will be mutations that have negligible visible impact, especially without the most important factor of evolution to direct the efficacy of mutation propagation: sustained selection criteria.
You see evolution only really 'works' if there are forces on the evolutionary process which prevent some organisms from producing progeny - in a lab situation attempting to investigate evolution, we would need to create artificial selection criteria which would facilitate some organisms to breed while preventing others, for example, we might house the 'mice' in an environment which is entirely in darkness and comprised of columns of various heights with very smooth sides and only have food placed on the tops or sides of pillars for a very short period of time - thus only those mice that could identify the correct pillar (despite the lack of light) quickly and make it to the top will get food and thus the ability to survive long enough to produce offspring. In such a case, we might see the development of heightened senses (perhaps a wider visual spectrum such as infra red, perhaps enhanced auditory processing sonar for example etc), faster climbing aparatus (such as better claws, some hair or membrane which adheres to surfaces, the deeveloping of leaping/gliding abilities) but such things would take many generations, and therefore the initial design of the environment would need to facilitate a slight benefit to those sort of strategies (shorter, narrower pillars with rougher surfaces etc) and gradually becoming less forgiving.
Note that in each case, these mutations are gradual and thus the number of genes effected would be significantly fewer than the ~1495, instead it would depend on the adaptation strategy the organism employs. For example were it to be a relatively simple adaptation such as longer and more flexible limbs with more nimble digits - the genes effected would have a significantly narrowed scope - indeed the number of genes associated with limb structure is actually quite small these particular genes would be refined many many times as incremental improvements are made. The mutation to extend the arms a little in one generation is likely to be within the same set of genes used to extend the arms a little more in the generations to come, the same genes revised again and again, likewise, the genes that relate to the digits of the mouse would likely mutate over the course of several hundred generations perhaps a hundred times and the result? Fingers that are a bit longer and more flexible (perhaps even opposable - the coopting of an existing digit to become a fully functional thumb perhaps) allowing them to grip the well spaced columns of tiny nodules on otherwise smooth, wide columns and scale them quickly after spotting a heat signature from the slightly warmed food at the top of a column above; longer arms with significant differences in musculature to support fast climbing rather than running; perhaps the larger, more flexible fingers attached to stronger more articulate limbs might come to seem more squirrel like (perhaps even monkey like) and as their limbs change shape, in addition to merely changing their ability to climb it would likely effect how the walk/run on flat ground, for example they might take on a more loping gait, or perhaps kind of waddle. What if over the same time we turned down the temperature? They would need to look to warm up, this might mean they begin to grow more hair (particularly on their hairless tail or at their other extremities) to gain a thicker coat (whether additional hair, layers of fat etc), to get together with other individuals for communal warmth, to shiver or vibrate, to hibernate and more. What if instead of feeding the mice we were to release a porcupine into the enclosure periodically, the mice would either need to find some way to kill overcome it's prickly defences or else they would die; perhaps they might develop thick, barb resistant coats, or perhaps they might find a way to flip it or to find some way of stabbing past the quills so as to injur the prey (perhaps they might develop some way of using their tails like a rudimentary spear to harass the porcupine until it attempts to flee).
But simply said that would require very extensive micro management of conditions over hundreds of generations and the potential evolutionary paths are myriad, perhaps the same experiment might be run a hundred times in parallel, producing a different solution in half a dozen populations while scores of other populations were unable to adapt and simply died out. If you have the time, then certainly it can be observed. Go for it. I'd speak to you again in 50 years after you give it a go, but I very much doubt you have the time, money, expertise or inclination (most people don't - that's why we employ specialists called scientists to do these sort of things), particularly since you are ideologically opposed to the premise rather than intellectually opposed to the theory.
edit: initially I speculated about a mouse with longer arms and sharper claws, have changed since in order to better demonstrate the issue.
Do you? Let me ask, can intelligent design be observed and experimented on? No. Can evolution? Yes and the results of those experiments are consistently in support of the theory of evolution (though often there are disagreements about the precise mechanism, prior implementation of that mechanism or possible implications thereof).
We literally have a molecular level record contained in every living (and dead) organism, it is incredibly well evidenced.
Not wrong, merely incomprehensibly impractical due to the time constraints: Lets take mice for example; there are about one mutation per ten thousand genes per generation in mice (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Mutation_Rate.aspx) and mice have ~23,000 genes; so about 2.3 on average per generation on average; lets pretend that mice can reliably breed from 4 weeks of age (its actually bit longer than that - but this underestimation only serves your side of the argument so please ignore that it is not entirely correct as it makes the maths a lot easier) that is 13 generations a year. Lets pretend that someone spend a full 50 years observing mice and thus 650 generations and that remarkably (and obscenely unlikely) every single mutation was passed on in full to the progeny during that time and occured on a different part of the genome - that is cumulatively 1495 genes that are different out of ~23000; that sounds quite impressive and would doubtless be rather noticable, this is the most visible 'macro'evolution could be you might think.
The problem is that not all genes mutate at the same rate nor are equally noticable, nor are all mutations passed on (even for those individuals who do produce progeny). A significant number of these 1495 mutations would occur in areas that are already mutated, for example the 1495th mutation has at least a 1494/23000 chance of occuring on a gene which has already mutated (so given a completely even chance of mutation, for each of the 23000 genes, this adds up to ~48.5 mutations occur on already mutated genes provided a completely random chance of any gene mutating) - in fact, given that some genes are more liable to mutate than others: "For example, mutations in intergenic, or non-coding, DNA tend to accumulate at a faster rate than mutations in DNA that is actively in use in the organism" (Mutation rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) this means they are even more likely to be prone to mutation than other sections, there may be other areas such as function specific genes such as in our immune system the genes which regulate immune function are more subject to mutation than others in an effort to ensure that the immune system is able to recognise infection. So the distribution of these mutations falls from ~1495 out of 23000 genes to a significantly lower number of genes, precisely how many I wouldnt know as I am not a biologist, but a large proportion will be on incrementally adjusted genes. Many if not most of these will be mutations that have negligible visible impact, especially without the most important factor of evolution to direct the efficacy of mutation propagation: sustained selection criteria.
You see evolution only really 'works' if there are forces on the evolutionary process which prevent some organisms from producing progeny - in a lab situation attempting to investigate evolution, we would need to create artificial selection criteria which would facilitate some organisms to breed while preventing others, for example, we might house the 'mice' in an environment which is entirely in darkness and comprised of columns of various heights with very smooth sides and only have food placed on the tops or sides of pillars for a very short period of time - thus only those mice that could identify the correct pillar (despite the lack of light) quickly and make it to the top will get food and thus the ability to survive long enough to produce offspring. In such a case, we might see the development of heightened senses (perhaps a wider visual spectrum such as infra red, perhaps enhanced auditory processing sonar for example etc), faster climbing aparatus (such as better claws, some hair or membrane which adheres to surfaces, the deeveloping of leaping/gliding abilities) but such things would take many generations, and therefore the initial design of the environment would need to facilitate a slight benefit to those sort of strategies (shorter, narrower pillars with rougher surfaces etc) and gradually becoming less forgiving.
Note that in each case, these mutations are gradual and thus the number of genes effected would be significantly fewer than the ~1495, instead it would depend on the adaptation strategy the organism employs. For example were it to be a relatively simple adaptation such as longer and more flexible limbs with more nimble digits - the genes effected would have a significantly narrowed scope - indeed the number of genes associated with limb structure is actually quite small these particular genes would be refined many many times as incremental improvements are made. The mutation to extend the arms a little in one generation is likely to be within the same set of genes used to extend the arms a little more in the generations to come, the same genes revised again and again, likewise, the genes that relate to the digits of the mouse would likely mutate over the course of several hundred generations perhaps a hundred times and the result? Fingers that are a bit longer and more flexible (perhaps even opposable - the coopting of an existing digit to become a fully functional thumb perhaps) allowing them to grip the well spaced columns of tiny nodules on otherwise smooth, wide columns and scale them quickly after spotting a heat signature from the slightly warmed food at the top of a column above; longer arms with significant differences in musculature to support fast climbing rather than running; perhaps the larger, more flexible fingers attached to stronger more articulate limbs might come to seem more squirrel like (perhaps even monkey like) and as their limbs change shape, in addition to merely changing their ability to climb it would likely effect how the walk/run on flat ground, for example they might take on a more loping gait, or perhaps kind of waddle. What if over the same time we turned down the temperature? They would need to look to warm up, this might mean they begin to grow more hair (particularly on their hairless tail or at their other extremities) to gain a thicker coat (whether additional hair, layers of fat etc), to get together with other individuals for communal warmth, to shiver or vibrate, to hibernate and more. What if instead of feeding the mice we were to release a porcupine into the enclosure periodically, the mice would either need to find some way to kill overcome it's prickly defences or else they would die; perhaps they might develop thick, barb resistant coats, or perhaps they might find a way to flip it or to find some way of stabbing past the quills so as to injur the prey (perhaps they might develop some way of using their tails like a rudimentary spear to harass the porcupine until it attempts to flee).
But simply said that would require very extensive micro management of conditions over hundreds of generations and the potential evolutionary paths are myriad, perhaps the same experiment might be run a hundred times in parallel, producing a different solution in half a dozen populations while scores of other populations were unable to adapt and simply died out. If you have the time, then certainly it can be observed. Go for it. I'd speak to you again in 50 years after you give it a go, but I very much doubt you have the time, money, expertise or inclination (most people don't - that's why we employ specialists called scientists to do these sort of things), particularly since you are ideologically opposed to the premise rather than intellectually opposed to the theory.
edit: initially I speculated about a mouse with longer arms and sharper claws, have changed since in order to better demonstrate the issue.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Actually, even though it is random, you will eventually be forced to loose any game of Tetris that goes on long enough because eventually you will be given a series of S and Z pieces that will force you into having gaps that will fill the screen.
By saying it's random, it simply means that it happened that way without any external guiding force.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
I don't know whether your equivocation over the word "kind" is disingenuous or represents real confusion on your part; perhaps time will tell. Either way, in post after post you have muddied the water by sometimes (as above) using kind in its everyday, multi-level meaning (a table and a chair are the same kind of object (furniture), but different kinds of furniture) and elsewhere using it to mean a created kind (what more pretentious creationists call a baramin), a specified group within which variation is permitted but beyond which organisms cannot diverge. Every time I or others here try to get you to tell us exactly what taxonomic level the latter is, you stir up the mud by appealing to the former meaning ("you mean you can't see a dog and a turtle are different kinds of animal?").
We will never get a straight answer from you or any other creationist on exactly what constitutes a created "kind", since you know that as soon as you move outside your kiddies' picture book version of the animal kingdom the sheer scale and complexity of animal diversity will reveal the absurdity of the whole notion.
A list of feathered reptiles.