Why do men have nipples?

[Jose Fly]

So from what I can tell tarekabdo, you're not even willing to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Is that right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Variations within species occur as a result of appearance of new characters as a result of combination between already present genetic information within the genetic pool. It occurs as a result of cross-breeding of individuals. In this way new combinations of existing genes are obtained, yet no new genetic information is added. That explains why it can't give rise to new species, because there is no new genes produced, only new combinations. Variations within species never produce new species; no matter how many dogs of different breeds mate together the result will be always dogs, not donkeys or cows. Microevolution involves adaptations that are concerned with the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.:candle:

Funny, because even Darwin used his experience with domesticated plants and animals, and how we have turned a few into many as a basis for his theory when the same basic principle is applied to the natural world. This explains why Arctic animals are white, because the arrival of white colored animals meant they were by default more fit for an environment that is mostly white.

 

[tarekabdo12]

So from what I can tell tarekabdo, you're not even willing to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Is that right?

I'm not biased towards a certain idea, I considerred the issue multiple times and read about it for a long time till I got convinced with a certain plausible idea, I didn't build an idea out of nothing.
About ur question, I really can't imagine an intermediate creature and that's why I didn't give an answer. If I had a certain idea I'd have told u , it's not a matter of arrogance. I respect others' views despite that I may not be convinced by them.
And I am ready to take a new way if it appears true and rational.
We r here having debates, that doesn't mean we r fighting. At the end everybody takes his decisions and is responsible for them.

 

[FDRC2014]

Well u r assuming the DNA molecule is composed of few bases, but this is not at all true, The DNA as well as proteis are so complicated and not composed of several bases. This complication makes DNA assembly by chance impossible since anything beyond this complication lies below the functionig level and can't form life. The condition is not so simple as u try to make it appear. This is proved by the extreme complication of the lowest form of life occupied by single cellular organisms which are still very complicated, and their DNA and proteins aren't just a soup pf molecuoles. In addition, the whole cell with the dozens of complicated proteins , cytoplasm,complete nucleus, complete DNA , complete cell wall , complete enzymes , coenzymes , etc must be formed at the same time to give a functional cell.

Well, first, DNA doesn't have a set length, or base-pair number. There are oligonucleotides which are only a few bp long.
DNA is reducible to RNA, which is more simple (just a single strand). It probably started as an oligoRNA molecule, which is relatively simple.
The same goes for proteins, you are assuming that proteins were originally as complex as they are now. They will have started as short chains of amino acids, and some will have associated with the simple RNAs. Over millions of years, these can become more complex, through evolution (i.e. better conformations will succeeded more simplistic ones). There is no reason why small oligonucleotides and proteins can't form. Complex molecules can assemble with energy input.

God has never failed, actually ur words carry the cause of evolutionists' failure in explaining life. If the DNA raised alone by chance- as u allege- so how can u explain the occurrence of such great atmosphere, this well designed nature and it's great laws?
You still think that the atmosphere with it'v layers, the metals we use in our lives, the balance between seas and rivers, the delicate balance between creatures and all other features of earth with which life would be impossible are formed also by chance?
Chance is not a magical stick. God created natural laws before they act, God designed the whole world so as to function properly. The body's immunity protect it from invading organisms, yet God created the body's immunity before, so God protects the human body, and God wanted humans on earth to get sick so he didn't design the immune system to protect the body from every disease as humans are not supposed to live on earth an eternal life.

Chance is not a factor. You're brain isn't designed to think like this, because it doesn't help you in hunting, or survive. Your argument is that the laws of physics (gravity, water etc) have to be tuned exactly to account for life. This is quite true. As far as we know (as defined by the word 'law'), they are constant throughout our universe. Who is to say that there are not googles or universes out there, all with incorrect laws of physics, and billions of planets, all without life supporting characteristics. It would be unlucky if one didn't support life. So you and I could be asking these questions from anywhere.
I also ask you the question, who told God what numbers to set as the laws of physics. If no one told him, then surely he would have to just use trial and error, essentially what the universe did anyway. And if you say 'he just knows' then how, that is not an answer!

Yet, the single cell is more complicated than New York city.

Incorrect, as New York contains many single cells, and multicellular organisms, but this is a pointless thing to say anyway. The complexity of something doesn't show it has a designer. I can design something uncomplicated, it still has a designer. But, this is you again, assuming that cells arose as complex as they are now. They obviously didn't (that is, as I said before, what a creationists thinks, that things just arose form a designer, already complex). The simple life forms have just been out-competed.

You r talking about a world of darkness, since somethings about evolution appear vague and impossible so I don't think that u should adopt an irrational theory and I say one day the theory 'll be proved, wait till it's proved. obviously some things don't have eve a theory to explain not a scientific evidence.

This makes no sense. First, the world was not in darkness, you need the sun and energy to make life. Evolution is vague, irrational, impossible, or any other things you can call it. This is obviously just your ignorance to it. If this is true, then why are there no papers disproving it, or even contesting it. It is a completely rational approach. Blaming God, is irrational and vague. As i mentioned above, you can't just say he was there in the beginning. Regarding the theory being proved, this is just your scientific ignorance on full display. A theory is a proven hypothesis, explaining a natural phenomenon.

Again u r talking about something not evident and trampling into a world of darkness. why would the claimed organisms not able to function,they probably have characters similar to single celled organisms as well as the other multicellular organisms.
In addition there are evidence for even single- celled organisms in fossil record.

I suggest you check the research first.
There are several hypothesises around, we are unsure which one is actually the case, due to lack of evidence (none are God though, they are all standard scientific hypothesises, as evolution was once). This is a facet of evolution, each hypothesis is evolution, just the method at which it took place.
You can read the wikipedia article on it here: Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The claims are all referenced, so you can take a look at the scientific papers supporting them. None, say God put them there.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not biased towards a certain idea, I considerred the issue multiple times and read about it for a long time till I got convinced with a certain plausible idea, I didn't build an idea out of nothing.
About ur question, I really can't imagine an intermediate creature and that's why I didn't give an answer. If I had a certain idea I'd have told u , it's not a matter of arrogance. I respect others' views despite that I may not be convinced by them.
And I am ready to take a new way if it appears true and rational.
We r here having debates, that doesn't mean we r fighting. At the end everybody takes his decisions and is responsible for them.

Ok, that's fair.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I don't believe in the whole Biblical flood story (the entire earth was flooded some 4,000 years ago and all current life is descended from what rode aboard a wooden boat). But even though I reject the idea, I can tell you what sort of things we should expect to see if the story were true. The fact that we don't see these things is a good reason to reject the story.

Similarly, I would think if you have given the idea of human/primate common ancestry some thought, you would at least have figured what sort of fossil specimens we should find if it were true, and then done a little checking to see if they existed. Otherwise, how can you say they don't exist if you've never looked?

Earlier in this thread you made several references to "alleged intermediate forms" between humans and other primates. But if you have no idea what an "intermediate form" would look like, how can you state so confidently that they don't exist?

 

[tarekabdo12]

How can I imagine something that would never happen?

 

[tarekabdo12]

It's totally against rationale so how can I rationalize it?

 

[Android]

It's totally against rationale so how can I rationalize it?

People who insult the entire scientific community don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of scientific achievement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

People who insult the entire scientific community don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of scientific achievement.

Agreed.....:yes:

Let's see how they get on then...

 

[tarekabdo12]

People who insult the entire scientific community don't deserve to enjoy the fruits of scientific achievement.

There is nothing scientific about evolution , Darwin himself store the ideas of Aristotle before. The theory of evolution is a matter of philosophy not guarded by evidence. You can also see that the greatest scientists of the world like Newton and Einstein believed in the presence of a creator. so Why do always call anybody who is against evolution to be against science? It's an illusion.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Calling everything related to religion to be against science is a part of evolutionary art of equivocation. Religion doesn't contradict science but it contradicts pure materialism. on the contrary, science has proven many things that we can't see by the naked eyes to be true as bacteria and viruses by giving the proper equipment. So why don't you think that one day we may be able to see heaven and hell?

 

[Android]

There is nothing scientific about evolution , Darwin himself store the ideas of Aristotle before. The theory of evolution is a matter of philosophy not guarded by evidence. You can also see that the greatest scientists of the world like Newton and Einstein believed in the presence of a creator. so Why do always call anybody who is against evolution to be against science? It's an illusion.

As a biologist, I'm even more insulted!!!
So only my field of science is bogus? All the rest are reasonable and rational and self critical and infinitely useful, but biology is bullsh1t?

You sir, don't deserve medicine.

 

[Android]

Calling everything related to religion to be against science is a part of evolutionary art of equivocation. Religion doesn't contradict science but it contradicts pure materialism. on the contrary, science has proven many things that we can't see by the naked eyes to be true as bacteria and viruses by giving the proper equipment. So why don't you think that one day we may be able to see heaven and hell?

Because science has no interest in such things. Why would anyone fund any research into this? What practical application could ever come from this? It is completely useless.

 

[Gunfingers]

What I love is how he starts by making things up about evolution, calling it unscientific, and then manages to turn around and act like we've attacked his religion. Creationists: just great.

 

[Jose Fly]

How can I imagine something that would never happen?

Well first, how about you answer the questions I asked?

How can you say that intermediate fossils between humans and other primates don't exist if you haven't looked and don't have any idea what one would even look like?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well first, how about you answer the questions I asked?

How can you say that intermediate fossils between humans and other primates don't exist if you haven't looked and don't have any idea what one would even look like?

Tell me what you find, then I'd tell if it can be an intermediate creature.

 

[tarekabdo12]

As a biologist, I'm even more insulted!!!
So only my field of science is bogus? All the rest are reasonable and rational and self critical and infinitely useful, but biology is bullsh1t?

You sir, don't deserve medicine.

I don't think the whole concern of biology is the theory of evolution.

Medicine has no relation to evolution as a theory.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Ok, that's fair.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I don't believe in the whole Biblical flood story (the entire earth was flooded some 4,000 years ago and all current life is descended from what rode aboard a wooden boat). But even though I reject the idea, I can tell you what sort of things we should expect to see if the story were true. The fact that we don't see these things is a good reason to reject the story.

I'm really keen to know( not joking) , I really would like to know your perspective.

But I 'd like to tell you than Islam didn't say it was 4000 years ago so that's something I don't believe, as well.
Thank you.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Well, first, DNA doesn't have a set length, or base-pair number. There are oligonucleotides which are only a few bp long.
DNA is reducible to RNA, which is more simple (just a single strand). It probably started as an oligoRNA molecule, which is relatively simple.
The same goes for proteins, you are assuming that proteins were originally as complex as they are now. They will have started as short chains of amino acids, and some will have associated with the simple RNAs. Over millions of years, these can become more complex, through evolution (i.e. better conformations will succeeded more simplistic ones). There is no reason why small oligonucleotides and proteins can't form. Complex molecules can assemble with energy input.

I told you before u r talking about a fairy tail, there is no functionning protein of 4 nucleotides, what would that do? This is totally not scientific. In addition, the whole complex cell must be present at a time to function.
Complete ur day dreams.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tell me what you find, then I'd tell if it can be an intermediate creature.

You're avoiding the obvious issue. If you can't even imagine what an intermediate specimen would look like, how would you ever be able to say if a specimen is or isn't one?

I'm really keen to know( not joking) , I really would like to know your perspective.

My perspective is that the hominid fossil record is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates. In fact, the issue with our fossil record isn't a lack of transitional forms, it's that there are so many of them, it's difficult to work out which ones fit where.

But I 'd like to tell you than Islam didn't say it was 4000 years ago so that's something I don't believe, as well.
Thank you.

Ok, that helps.