Origins

[short recoil]

Think about it. I have the exact same evidence as you. But since you want direct proof that could point towards a young earth, I would say that these 10:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
are pretty profound.

I have to say, that "profound evidence" for a young world is a load of rubbish.
It makes so many presumptions and "snips".

And also did god create the rest of the solar system billions of years before he created earth?
Because if you look at the crater impacts on the moon (number of divided by impact frequency) you will see it has been there a very long time.
it has been shown that the location of these strikes has been effected by the earth, so the earth must have been there for a very long time as well.

There is so much evidence to state that earth has been around for billions upon billions of years (i don't know the supposed number, can't be assed to look)
Trying to state it is a much younger "creation" with tiny half truths against a mountain of evidence is idiocy.

And btw it's also idiocy splitting up someones post and replying with a comment of the same context under each bit, it's just annoying to read and makes you look like you are struggling to provide a weighty argument.

 

[Ikerous]

And also did god create the rest of the solar system billions of years before he created earth?
Because if you look at the crater impacts on the moon (number of divided by impact frequency) you will see it has been there a very long time.
it has been shown that the location of these strikes has been effected by the earth, so the earth must have been there for a very long time as well.

Actually the moon can be evidence for a young earth
If it were billions of years old it would have a layer of dust several feet thick on the surface
(Which is what nasa assumed when they sent up apollo, which is why it had duck feet)
But in reality it only has about an inch. We know how many millimeters of dust the moon collects a year, and if you multiply that by 6000, you get a number pretty close to the actual amount
(This works with the moon because theres no atmosphere to burn up all the stuff enterting the gravitational field like the earth has)

 

[short recoil]

Actually the moon can be evidence for a young earth
If it were billions of years old it would have a layer of dust several feet thick on the surface
(Which is what nasa assumed when they sent up apollo, which is why it had duck feet)
But in reality it only has about an inch. We know how many millimeters of dust the moon collects a year, and if you multiply that by 6000, you get a number pretty close to the actual amount
(This works with the moon because theres no atmosphere to burn up all the stuff enterting the gravitational field like the earth has)

Do they know the dust thickness of the entire moon now?
Or was it just where the landed in apollo?
Was it on a hill?

 

[Ikerous]

Do they know the dust thickness of the entire moon now?
Or was it just where the landed in apollo?
Was it on a hill?

I've pretty sure they know the average thickness throughout the surface

(However, all these facts came from creationists, so i have no idea how valid the arguments/facts really are)

 

[short recoil]

God damn, it's 4:30am
I will have to retire now, i will continue this discussion tommorow however.

 

[JCampbell]

Stigmata just about summed everything up.
I could prove George Bush wrong any day of the week. That is NOT proof of my theory that Sasquatch is simply an undiagnosable mental illness.

Hardyhar

I'd just like to go the extra mile and point out that there are plenty of 'transitory' forms.

Sounds good.

Birds with feathers are just the most dramatic example. There are at least three species of dinosaur with full-blown bird feathers on their front limbs. Scientists have also recently discovered that many predatory dinosaurs formerly thought to be naked had feathers, although without the capacity for flight.

So we have three animals with similar shape, anatomy and behaviour.
The first has feathers. The second has feathers that provide short flight. The third is able to use its feathers to stay aloft for long periods of time.
So, either it's the world's biggest coincidence or it's evolution.

Since you haven't provided any sources for your claims, I ask you to read this article On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds.
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp

And the idea of transitory forms is a slippery slope. If I show you a pigeon, an archeopteryx and a compsognathus, all feathered, you'll invariably ask for the form between each. Then you'll ask for the gaps between those five. Then those nine.
It's exponential growth of ignorance.

Fair enough, but in the above paragraph, you have shown 3 (at least one of which is not even a transitionary form--archaopteryx) 'transitional links' that span a period of several million years. It is not outrageous for me to question why there aren't more. It's hardly a coincidence on the level that it HAS to be evolution.

I also call bullshit on saying "Oh but short-term evolution is real, but long term is impossible!"
Small-scale evolution has to compound into larger changes over time. It's simple logic, wheras there's no logical reason whatsoever why it wouldn't/couldn't.

Wrong, and since you haven't backed up your claim, let me share this quote from evolutionist Dr. Edward E. Max:

I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Although he adds a 'however' at the end, essentially saying that just because we can't prove it, doesn't mean it's not proveable. The entire debate can be found here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Let's say a species of fish evolves horns over the short term. Then, in the short term, it evolves glowing skin. Then short-term little fish-fingers. Then gills that function as lungs, etc.

Easy to say, improbable to the highest degree, and impossible to prove. Please point me to unequivocal empirical evidence of these instances happening at all.

If singular small changes happen, then they must eventually add up to greater overall change. By saying you believe in small-scale evolution, you must either support the idea of large scale evolution or be wrong.

They must? Then how come no matter how many mutations scientists put bacteria through (which are a good way to try and simulate evolution, as their mutational rate is much faster than that of most animals) they always end up with just a modified version of the same bacteria, and not a completely 'new' bacteria. Think of it as giving the bacteria a mohawk.

"But we've never seen a species turn into another!!!"
The lines between species are more or less an arbitrary human creation. The change from one to another is so fluid that you cannot draw a line. The current system of classification is simply there as a way of reducing the complexity of an impossibly complex process.
Just as we say '2' and '3', when, in between, there are an infinite number of decimals. Notice the similarity to the above example of the impossible comprehensive list of transitory forms?
The entire idea of transitory forms is an oversimplification to the point of fallacy.

So you don't think that species truly exist, as everything is evidently a transitional form for something else?

Also: Holy shit, quintupple poster. :O

I find it easier to keep track of my discussions this way. I'm not trying to increase my post count.

 

[JCampbell]

I have to say, that "profound evidence" for a young world is a load of rubbish.
It makes so many presumptions and "snips".

Since you haven't exclaimed why you think this is 'rubbish,' or what 'snips' the author of the article has made, I can only assume that you think so because of the supposed 'mounds of data' speaking to the contrary, which you conveniently forgot to give.

And also did god create the rest of the solar system billions of years before he created earth?
Because if you look at the crater impacts on the moon (number of divided by impact frequency) you will see it has been there a very long time.
it has been shown that the location of these strikes has been effected by the earth, so the earth must have been there for a very long time as well.

Different argument altogether.

There is so much evidence to state that earth has been around for billions upon billions of years (i don't know the supposed number, can't be assed to look)
Trying to state it is a much younger "creation" with tiny half truths against a mountain of evidence is idiocy.

Rubbish. Even evolutionists don't believe the earth has been around for "billions upon billions of years." At most even the entire universe is estimated to be 16 billion years old, with the earth being around 6 billion years old. At least learn your own argument before venting it out in a 'scientific' outrage.

And btw it's also idiocy splitting up someones post and replying with a comment of the same context under each bit, it's just annoying to read and makes you look like you are struggling to provide a weighty argument.

It is helpful for me so I can remember what exactly I'm responding to. And I'm sure it's helpful to others reading it because then they will also know what specifically I'm responding to instead of having to go back and forth between two very large bodies of text. It doesn't affect the validity of my argument at all. Nice try though.

 

[JCampbell]

Do they know the dust thickness of the entire moon now?

Or was it just where the landed in apollo?
Was it on a hill?

Yes. No. No; they landed in the Sea of Tranquility. They also had a rover and scouted the lunar surface.
More information on moon dust here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp

've pretty sure they know the average thickness throughout the surface

(However, all these facts came from creationists, so i have no idea how valid the arguments/facts really are)

You know, saying someone is a creationist doesn't immediately discredit them, as the more vocal proponents of evolution would have you believe. This is why I always try and use sources.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

All the sources quoted in that 'answers in genesis' site are either

A) Written in the early 70's -80's.
B) Written by creationists.
-or-
C) Both.

And they also hold such solid facts as:

"According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."

That's not evidence. That is conjecture. And it's likely based on what, exactly? The definitive time at which all societies adopt written words?

Here's a real fact: When explorers and settlers first came to the Americas, most of the various Native-American societies used oral tradition to hand down knowledge. This had continued up until at least 1500.

So, in a controlled environment, several score independant societies simply did not develop written language, despite having the ability to.

And that's just one piece of 'evidence.' If we each rebute one, this should be cakey.

Edit: Jesus Christmas man, slow the hell down.
You would not need to make five huge posts a minute if you had just been comprehensive and concise in the first place.

 

[Ikerous]

You know, saying someone is a creationist doesn't immediately discredit them, as the more vocal proponents of evolution would have you believe.

I know Sorry if thats what I implied
I was simpley saying i didnt know how valid the facts were since creation science sites arent exactly the least biased source of scientific information
(Unlike, for instance, say the BBC)

Any word on the Jericho question though? ;-)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I was quite serious when I agreed with Stig.

Since you haven't provided any sources for your claims, I ask you to read this article On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds.

That is not a real link.
In any case, here's a source from a news organization, and not a biased organization or blog.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1764136,00.html
Also, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
A full list of flying/gliding feathered dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feathered_dinosaurs
Three was an underestimate.

The idea that small changes applied to the same subject will inevitably result in larger change is not a 'claim'. it's simple math.
1+1+1+1=? I say four. You say zero, I guess.

Your quote from evolutionist Dr. Edward E. Max amounts to a scientist saying 'possible things are possible.'
That's a philisophical truism, not proof of either idea.

If you want unequivocal proof of anything, you're going to be disappointed. Also, if unequivocal proof were really your main concern, I doubt very much that you would be into crationism in the first place. There is only stronger and more comprehensive evidence, which has been supplied to you by many people. Creationism is the weaker argument, and thus must make more effort in presenting the case.
Remember, we are generally accepted as a trusim by the scientific community. You are the fringe group, so don't act like we owe you answers.

"Then how come no matter how many mutations scientists put bacteria through (which are a good way to try and simulate evolution, as their mutational rate is much faster than that of most animals) they always end up with just a modified version of the same bacteria, and not a completely 'new' bacteria. Think of it as giving the bacteria a mohawk."

Again, you are drawing an arbitrary line here. Who is to say that the addition of a 'mohawk' does not make the bacteria a different species? To that same extent, what is really the difference between a newt and a skink, other than scales and ability to live in water?

Could you please tell me what you think the distinct line between each species is?

"So you don't think that species truly exist, as everything is evidently a transitional form for something else?"
Yes, that is the entire basis of evolution and nomenclature in general, so if you did not know that you should read up. The classification of animal nomenclature exists only as a convenience, as I said.
And not just for transitional forms.
Where does a mutt dog of two breeds end up on the list?
And the three-breed puppies it has?
And the four-breeds they have? Etc.
The categorical slots did not exist until we arbitrarily created them. Time is divided into days of 24 hours, but they could just as easilly have been 48 hours. the term 'hour' is arbitary.
Did you really think natural processes came pre-categorized?

If you breed a chihuahua with a great dane (unlikely, but possible) and keep doing so, everyone knows that you will end up with a uniform group of medium-sized dogs.
Small changes compound, genes carry over. The ability to breed dogs, horses and more is basically a proof of 'transitional forms', as well as their fluidity.

So we get the point. You stumbled across this website with all the ideas and arguments pre-thought for you and decided to overwhelm us with as many links as possible, to show your newfound knowledge despite the fact that IF THESE NOTIONS WERE SCIENTIFICALLY MORE SOUND THAN EVOLUTION, REAL SCIENTISTS WOULD USE THEM. (Sorry caps, but a big point.)
You haven't read any of the sources your websites note, besides the bible. You don't expect us to either, and beyond that crutch there is not much logic to your arguments - the flaws of which have been pointed out by many. So what are we to make of this? You're just a human copy of a weak religious website.
You're going to have to try harder, and I do not mean that as 'post waaay more text.'

 

[Reaktor4]

To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon—or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline—might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories)

that was hilariously ironic

 

[JCampbell]

All the sources quoted in that 'answers in genesis' site are either

A) Written in the early 70's -80's.
B) Written by creationists.
-or-
C) Both.

How does the fact that they're creationists discredit them. And the age of the information has nothing to do with how valid it is, seeing as how you haven't brought up any information to the contrary.

And they also hold such solid facts as:

"According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."

That's not evidence. That is conjecture. And it's likely based on what, exactly? The definitive time at which all societies adopt written words?

Look. Nothing is ever 100% fact, so one has to weigh the evidence as to what is more probable. The word 'likely' does not take away from the fact that this a far more plausible alternative than simply 'they developed these methods spontaneously for apparently no reason.'

Here's a real fact: When explorers and settlers first came to the Americas, most of the various Native-American societies used oral tradition to hand down knowledge. This had continued up until at least 1500.

So, in a controlled environment, several score independant societies simply did not develop written language, despite having the ability to.

Or they didn't need to. As important to our culture as the written language, I doubt they placed as much emphasis on it as we do. It doesn't make them dumber or smarter, just preferential to a different mean of communication. I hear they liked cave paintings as well.
Besides, a baby that learns how to talk isn't "evolving," despite the fact that it would never learn if it was not taught.

And that's just one piece of 'evidence.' If we each rebute one, this should be cakey.

We each? I'm not following you here.

Edit: Jesus Christmas man, slow the hell down.
You would not need to make five huge posts a minute if you had just been comprehensive and concise in the first place.

As you may not have noticed, it has nothing to do with being concise. I simply have 5-10 people responding to me; I'm giving equal weight (or trying to) to each of their arguments. But to be fair, I am going to try and concentrate on single debates, as I am quickly getting overwhelmed.

I was quite serious when I agreed with Stig.

That is not a real link.

Whoops...fixed now.
In any case, here's a source from a news organization, and not a biased organization or blog.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...764136,00.html
Also, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
A full list of flying/gliding feathered dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ered_dinosaurs
Three was an underestimate.

The first link is interesting and factual up until the last paragraph:

Such finds are significant in linking dinosaurs to modern birds. Most palaeontologists accept that birds are descended from dinosaurs but there is fierce debate over how this happened. At the Dublin conference, Dyke will present new evidence suggesting that dinosaurs evolved the ability to fly and that some even developed all four limbs into wings.

It is erroneous to assume that because dinosaurs may have had feathers, this is somehow one step closer to proving how exactly they evolved into birds as we know them today. The existance of a now extinct species of reptile that possibly had feathers does not indicate that they evolved into another.

As for the second link, it looks like you need to do some reading up on the history of archaeopteryx:

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx

has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

The story surrounding Archaeopteryx has been complicated by another discovery that has left evolutionists scratching their heads in regard to where, exactly, the creature actually fits in the evolutionary scheme of things. In 1986, Sankar Chatterjee and colleagues at Texas Tech University discovered the fossilized remains of two crow-sized birds allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (i.e., approximately 225 million years old according to evolutionary dating schemes) [see Beardsley, 1986; Chatterjee, 1991]. Chatterjee named the find Protoavis texensis (“first bird from Texas”), and has reported that the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like. In commenting on this, one author wrote in Science concerning Chatterjee’s work: “His reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (Anderson, 1991, 253:35).

Archaeopteryx lithographica
Archaeopteryx lithographica
All of this has caused evolutionists severe problems because Protoavis appeared at the time of the earliest dinosaurs, which means that if it is accepted as genuine, then birds obviously could not have evolved from dinosaurs, and Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of modern birds. After looking at the evidence for Protoavis, Kansas University paleontologist Larry Martin suggested: “There’s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face” (as quoted in Anderson, 253:35).

For more than a century, the approach of some evolutionists has been to find some supporting evidence, tout it as “proof” of evolution, and then ignore conflicting theories or data. But what do the actual facts reveal about creatures such as Archaeopteryx? In reality, the story that scientists have attempted to weave in regard to this ancient “missing link” is unraveling before their very eyes. Scientific data have shown colossal differences in reptilian and bird lungs, scales as opposed to feathers, and the embryological hand development of dinosaurs versus birds. It may well be that we are witnessing the last gasps of a dying hypothesis about how birds evolved from dinosaurs! Faced with such overwhelming evidence against true evolutionary descent, it would be unrealistic to accept the position that Archaeopteryx lithographica is anything like the missing link that evolutionists once claimed it was.

Colin Patterson admitted in his 1999 book, Evolution: “Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else” (p. 109). Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature, confirmed that point in his 1999 book, In Search of Deep Time, when he admitted:

We know that it is impossible when confronted with a fossil, to be certain whether it is your ancestor, or the ancestor of anything else, even another fossil. We also know that adaptive scenarios are simply justifications for particular arrangements of fossils made after the fact, and which relay for their justification on authority rather than on testable hypotheses (p. 127).

While the “Piltdown Man” hoax was able to fool evolutionists for more than forty years, the Archaeopteryx hoax appears to have lasted far longer—and continues in some quarters to this very day, in spite of such admissions as this one from evolutionary ornithologist Allan Feduccia who wrote in Science almost a decade ago:

I conclude that Archaeopteryx was arboreal and volant [i.e., possessing extended wings for flight—BT/BH], considerably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to at least some degree. Archaeopteryx...was, in the modern sense, a bird (1993, 259:792).

And so, once again, it is not merely the “link” that’s missing in evolutionary theory—it’s the entire chain! Given all the facts about the origin of birds, it is little wonder that Charles Darwin remarked in a letter to his American friend, Asa Gray, on April 3, 1860: “[T]rifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” (as quoted in MacBeth, 1971, p. 101). Mr. Darwin, considering the paucity of the fossil record, and the elegance of the design inherent in a single feather (see “Words of a Feather” for evidence regarding the intricate design of feathers), we certainly can understand why.

As for your third link, it didn't work. The complete article can be found here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

The idea that small changes applied to the same subject will inevitably result in larger change is not a 'claim'. it's simple math.
1+1+1+1=? I say four. You say zero, I guess.

If evolution was as simple as math, I'd agree. However, think of it more like a matrix (a very large one), where new boxes aren't created, the numbers are just set where they are with occasional random changes in their positions or a complete loss altogether.

Your quote from evolutionist Dr. Edward E. Max amounts to a scientist saying 'possible things are possible.'
That's a philisophical truism, not proof of either idea.

Yes. Anything is possible. But he admits that there is no significant evidence towards the idea of transitional links. Merely saying "it is possible" is nothing, just as you said. It seems he believes in 'evolution of the gaps,' where he is confident that the forms will eventually appear given time.

If you want unequivocal proof of anything, you're going to be disappointed. Also, if unequivocal proof were really your main concern, I doubt very much that you would be into crationism in the first place. There is only stronger and more comprehensive evidence, which has been supplied to you by many people. Creationism is the weaker argument, and thus must make more effort in presenting the case.

I guess you just aren't going to give me this "stronger and more comprehensive" evidence. Also, you are the only the second person to supply me with links to back up their statement, so you're wrong in saying that 'many' people have given me evidence.

Remember, we are generally accepted as a trusim by the scientific community. You are the fringe group, so don't act like we owe you answers.

A truism? Hardly. You owe answers because you should be able to provide them. If your theory is undoubtedly true, then there should be no questions in any field of research regarding this theory. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and so as I bring Creationism to the table, I ask that those who are defending Evolution at least substantiate their claims with something other than an article based on conjecture.

Again, you are drawing an arbitrary line here. Who is to say that the addition of a mohawk does not make the bacteria a different species? To that same extent, what is really the difference between a newt and a skink, other than scales and ability to live in water?

Well, if you think different hair color or style can be considered a new species, but keep in mind that no scientist, creationists and evolutionists alike, would consider this anything other than variations within a species.

Yes, that is the entire basis of evolution, so if you did not know that you should read up. The classification of animal nomenclature exists only as a convenience, as I said.

Try telling that to an anthropologist.

And not just for transitional forms.
Where does a mutt dog of two breeds end up on the list?
And the three-breed puppies it has?
And the four-breeds they have? Etc.
The categorical slots did not exist until we arbitrarily created them. Time is divided into days of 24 hours, but they could just as easilly have been 48 hours. the term 'hour' is arbitary.
Did you really think natural processes came pre-categorized?

I think you know the answer to the last question.

If you breed a chihuahua with a great dane (unlikely, but possible) and keep doing so, everyone knows that you will end up with a uniform group of medium-sized dogs.
Small changes compound, genes carry over.

But you still have a dog.

So we get the point. You stumbled across this website with all the ideas and arguments-pre thought for you, and decided to overwhelm us with as many links as possible, to show your newfound knowledge, despite the fact that IF THESE NOTIONS WERE BETTER THAN EVOLUTION, REAL SCIENTISTS WOULD USE THEM. (Sorry caps, but a big point.)

If you truly believe that the only reason this information isn't considered science is because it is wrong, you are sadly mistaken. Most scientists ascribe themselves to naturalism, the idea that nature is the product of nature, and nothing else, supernatural or whatever, has intervened. They defend this position religiously. As such, they accuse anyone of presenting the alternative theory of Creation of being religiously motivated. Without taking into account the evidence they present, they have already dismissed the Creationists as useless.

You haven't read any of the sources they note, besides the bible. You don't expect us to either, and beyond that crutch, there is not much logic to your arguments, the flaws of which have been pointed out by many. So what are we to make of this? You're just a human copy of a weak religious website.
You're going to have to try harder, and I do not mean that as 'post waaay more text.'

As a companion to someone debating on the internet, this site is invaluable. I'm not immediately discrediting you because you don't have a copy of "origins of the species" in front of you, and as such you should do the same for me. I may be linking my points, but I do understand what I'm talking about. Besides, hardly anyone has pointed out flaws in what I've posted. Mainly, they've tried to take the debate off topic.
You've hardly shown yourself to have a large grasp of evolution as well. So one might wonder why we are both here, having an argument, if we are not 100% qualified to do work in our chosen methods of debating. But we are, and so by dismissing the original site I linked to as a "weak religious website," you're already assuming I'm wrong. Hardly fair, don't you think?

Perhaps we can make this more precise though. Pick a specific topic within the confines of this thread, and we'll go from there.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

1 - The fact that all your sources are thirty-y-o books by creationists does suggest that thier theories have not been picked up by actual scientists.

2 - You are confusing the author's young-earth theory with some sort of 'evolution of language' argument that no-one had brought up. So your points don't make sense in the context.

My example does prove that no ballpark of 'likelihood' exists in determining the age at which language must commence, thus disproving the basis of the man's semi-rhetorical question.

3 - Dinosaurs with feathers are fact. The article's conjecture is that there may be more.

Feathers on dinosaurs can be taken as an example, since they also share similar skeletal structure and other bird characteristics. It is almost a literal approximation of the 'walks like a duck, talks like a duck' cliche.

No, it is not definitive. However, use Occam's Razor here:
The opposing argument is that all manner of birds and dinosaurs appeared out of thin air simultaneously, completely different in every way, and sharing anatomical features only as a whackey coincidence.
And then the coterminous dinosaurs ended up buried lower in sediment upon death, also by coincidence.
And were not recorded by any human, despite existing 'at the same time', again by coincidence.

So complaining that evolution is 'too coincidental' is NOT making me nod my head in agreement.

4 - The Occam's razor also applies to you cut-and-paste from the same website as before.

It's funny though, how the narrator calls the archeopteryx a hoax, despite only proving that it isn't completely definitive proof of evolution. That's not what i grew up learning what a hoax is. A hoax is something intentionally designed to mislead.

Unless you're claiming a generation-spanning multi-international coverup, this is not a hoax, but rather a strong argument being considered a solid fact because of it's logical nature.

See also the 18 other winged dinosaurs on my third link. Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feathered_dinosaurs

5 - "If evolution was as simple as math, I'd agree. However, think of it more like a matrix (a very large one), where new boxes aren't created, the numbers are just set where they are with occasional random changes in their positions or a complete loss altogether."

Ah, here we reach one of the fundamental problems with creationist theory. Pay attention, 'cause it's a doozy.

If all 'kinds' (I'm not going to use the word 'species' any more in the creationist context for reasons stated below) of animal are compartmentalized this way, then what are the boundaries of each matrix?

What is the invisible line you use to divide one kind of animal from another?
Keep in mind that without defining this basic part of your argument, it breaks down.

And unless you can provide exact description of what each matrix is made out of, then the idea that the animals all occured simultaneously pre-compartmentalized can only be faith-based, because the compartments themselves are undefinable.

In my model, this undefinability is inherent to the system, as infinite animals are possible.
In yours, the undefinability is inexplicable, as animals never fully change.

6 - Evidence is not so easy as quoting the same website over and over again.
All you are doing is quoting and disprovng, but there's not an original thought in the mix. Those that are original were the first to be contradicted.
You will honestly convince me of your arguments if you supplied all your constant barrage of quality evidence from anywhere that isn't creationist-based. Surely something so scientifically flawless had to have ben picked up by some aspect of the secular system.

7 - I am not claiming my ideas are 'undoubtedly true'. you are over-reacting to the assertion that evolution is more logical than most ideas (to the point of being considered a trusim by most people), and definitely more logical than creationism.

You are confusing the fact that you are able to question with the ability to voice valid questions.

Everything is conjecture, and everyone knows that. However, to keep the system from breaking down, the MOST PROVEN ideas are kept, while the LEAST PROVEN stay out of the way until they become at least equal in validity.

8 - "Well, if you think different hair color or style can be considered a new species, but keep in mind that no scientist, creationists and evolutionists alike, would consider this anything other than variations within a species."

You misunderstand your own example. Your lame example does not involve doctors running around with tiny razors. It is bacteria being bred over time to gain specific characteristics.
Also, if a bacteria growing human-style hair follicles isn't a new species, then once again you have failed to define your terms.

9 - "Try telling that to an anthropologist."
Did you? Because maybe if you did, you'd realize that anthroplogists don't have much to do with the system of nomenclature.

The entire concept of 'species' is that the animals are part of a more generalized family and they are part of a more generalized one, and so on.

If creationism is true, then these families cannot exist, because the animal was never related. Thus I am not lying when I say that nomenclature is based entirely in evolutionary theory and cannot be applied to just about anything creationist.

As Google would say: Did you mean taxonomist?

But again, did you ask any taxonomist? They didn't see the magical boundaries that definitively define different kinds of animals the way you do in your head. They instead grouped animals according to shared physical features and traceable evolutionary lineage.

Two of the five Kingdoms are microscopic organisms, defined only by slightly different cell structure.

What makes a dog different from a cat? You can't properly define it outside of vague 'well it looks like a cat' statements. Try it and see.
If you could do that, and apply the same idea to all species, you'd be right. But you can't.

10 - Science is based on logic. Creationism is not. It requires faith in a god, faith in the idea that animal types are easilly grouped into kinds, and more.

Remove any one of those fundamentally unprovable elements, and the entire idea falls apart.

Evolution does not suffer the same disability.

11 - "I'm not immediately discrediting you because you don't have a copy of "origins of the species" in front of you, and as such you should do the same for me."

The problem is that you are not presenting any valid ideas of your own. Just quote after quote after quote after quote and so on.
You're parroting and presenting nothing of value.
On the other hand, I am able to poke holes in your argument without needing you check the Big Book of Misconceptions for my opinion first.

12 - "You've hardly shown yourself to have a large grasp of evolution as well. So one might wonder why we are both here, having an argument, if we are not 100% qualified to do work in our chosen methods of debating. But we are, and so by dismissing the original site I linked to as a "weak religious website," you're already assuming I'm wrong. Hardly fair, don't you think?"

I debate with logic. That's the difference.
Your arguments are fundamentally based on:
A) faith in god
B) faith in a preset plan for all 'kinds' of animals
remove either and the argument falls apart.

The website, since you parrot it, is based on the same faiths.

Wheras my personal belief that science is able to single out the most plausible theories is based on, well, the fact that science has been successfully proving things for many years now. That belief is also not tied to the actual concept of the argument. If I had an inherent mistrust of scientists, the argument would not be phased.















Perhaps we can make this more precise though. Pick a specific topic within the confines of this thread, and we'll go from there.

Ok, I'm game. No more quotey-quotey.

Instead, riddle me this:

What line do you use (as in your matrix example) to seperate one one kind of animal from another?

Answer that question scientifically and we can move on.

Remember, evolution is inherent to taxonomy, so you probably shouldn't be using standard nomenclature unless you want to look silly.

 

[CptStern]

I was going to add my 2 cents ..but after reading mecha's posts I decided there's no need. gj :thumbs:

 

[Absinthe]

Mecha is so in tune with my mind it's scary...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think he's gone?

Also, for the record, I think the best part was when he accused non-creationists of religious thinking.

 

[JCampbell]

1.That's not actually a fact, as if you had bothered to look at any of the sources, you would see that they are not all "thirty-y-o." Besides, since you haven't made any claims contrary to what I've linked (aside from pointing out that one of them was conjecture, with really is saying nothing), you're just assuming that modern scientists 'must have' proved them wrong because they're 'so old.'

2.Actually, you were the one who brought up the idea that evolution is part of language with your allusion to Native Americans in the 1500's. I never stated that this was impossible in evolutionary terms, but simply makes no sense according to what history has taught us.

My example does prove that no ballpark of 'likelihood' exists in determining the age at which language must commence, thus disproving the basis of the man's semi-rhetorical question.

I guess it must just be a rather large coincidence (on a scale greater than your supposed heirarchy demonstrated) that all forms of recorded history originated around exactly the same time. I'm not just referring to language, I'm referring to any form of recorded history.

3. Except the only real similarity you derive is certain bone structures and that some of them possibly have feathers. Hardly a conclusive argument for common descent.

No, it is not definitive. However, use Occam's Razor here:
The opposing argument is that all manner of birds and dinosaurs appeared out of thin air simultaneously, completely different in every way, and sharing anatomical features only as a whackey coincidence.
And then the coterminous dinosaurs ended up buried lower in sediment upon death, also by coincidence.
And were not recorded by any human, despite existing 'at the same time', again by coincidence.

This is only outrageous if you limit the origin of the earth to completely naturalistic means. This isn't fair, because science you be the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of something only explainable in naturalistic terms.
Answer this: if animals were created by a common designer, why is it so ludicrious to think that common designer=common design, and similar parts will be used for similar structures. It certainly creates a great deal of harmony among nature, which, unfortunately, is trying to be 'coerced' to fit within the theory of evolution.
As for no records of dinosaurs, there are many accounts through-out history of so-called 'dragons' that match the descriptions of what we call 'dinosaurs.'

4.It is hardly even close to being 'completely' definitive. And scientists pretending that it is obviously a transitional form is a blatant misrepresentation of the information at hand.

Unless you're claiming a generation-spanning multi-international coverup, this is not a hoax, but rather a strong argument being considered a solid fact because of it's logical nature.

It's actually a stronger argument that scientists are willing to think of anything to validate their theory in crisis to account for the lack of any transitional forms. Sure, it 'could' be a transitional form, but such speculation is merely a nice story, considering the thousands, if not millions of years of gaps between apparent related fossils.

See also the 18 other winged dinosaurs on my third link. Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feathered_dinosaurs

5. I see you want a definition of species then. Here are 5 different 'kinds' of species and their respective definitions:

The definition of a species given above as taken from Mayr, is somewhat idealistic. Since it assumes sexual reproduction, it leaves the term undefined for a large class of organisms that reproduce asexually. Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding. Further, there is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural and experimental conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed. Consequently, several lines of thought in the definition of species exist:

* A morphological species is a group of organisms that have a distinctive form: for example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. Although much criticised, the concept of morphological species remains the single most widely used species concept in everyday life, and still retains an important place within the biological sciences, particularly in the case of plants.

* The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations. For example, it is possible to cross a horse with a donkey and produce offspring, however they remain separate species—in this case for two different reasons: first because horses and donkeys do not normally interbreed in the wild, and second because the fruit of the union is rarely fertile. The key to defining a biological species is that there is no significant cross-flow of genetic material between the two populations.

* A mate-recognition species is defined as a group of organisms that are known to recognise one another as potential mates. Like the isolation species concept above, it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually.

* A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species.

* See also microspecies under apomixis, for species that reproduce without meiosis or mitosis so that each generation is genetically identical to the previous generation.

In practice, these definitions often coincide, and the differences between them are more a matter of emphasis than of outright contradiction. Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement.

Source: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Species
The evolutionists idea of species is just one of them, and as such cannot be considered the fundamental 'species theory' to which animals must be classified.

6.The secular system assumes naturalistic causes for everything, and as such, any idea that is based closely on ID (Creationism falls in this camp), automatically is ruled as scientific, because of the reasons I stated above.

7. You claimed that evolution is a scientifically accepted truism. Are you retracting that statement now?
Since you don't think my questions are valid, how about these?
1-Why can we accept evolution as fact since it has never been observed on the scale neccesary for the speciation present today?
2-Why, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, is evolution considered a concrete fact?
As stated by Arthur S. Eddington in The Nature of the Physical World

If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for (your theory) but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.

Harold Blum, in Time's Arrow and Evolution

No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.

3.Why are there no transitional fossils?
To quote Ronald R. West, an evolutionist, from "Paleontogoly and Uniformatarianism"

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.

George G. Simpson, an evolutionist, states in The Major Features of Evolution

...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

Even Stephen J. Gould, a well known proponent of evolution states:

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).

This at least should be enough to raise doubt in any true scientist's mind.
4.Evolution is only a theory; why is it taught otherwise.
Despite what you think, (even evident through you as you mistakingly mislabed it a 'truism') many state that evolution is a fact. Even as a theory, evolution fails.[/i]
To quote Timothy Wallace (author of most of trueorigins)

* Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
1. by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
2. in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
* Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
1. the fossil record
2. geology
3. genetics
4. molecular biology
5. thermodynamics
6. dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
7. probability mathematics
* Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced
1. no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology
2. no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs
3. no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.

These are valid questions and should be taken seriously by any respectable evolutionist.

8. I provided a link to a very thorough definition of species, and even scientists would admit, is very difficult to do.

9.Yes. I did mean taxonomist. I was talking with a friend about anthropology a while back and had the word stuck in my head for some reason. You're fooling yourself if you think that the only classification of species is the "tree of life." To say that evolution claims credit for taxonomy is ludicrous, as it is completely possible to be a taxonomist without ascribing to evolution.

10.Creationism does not 'require' faith in God; but if the evidence is pointing towards an Intelligent Designer, then it is certainly valid to test and see if this is a valid idea.
Also, Creationists don't require that animals be grouped into "kinds," but expect a certain amount of genetic information variation (ie microevolution) and speciation to have occured since the original "kinds" of animals exited the Ark. No respectable Creationist claims that everything existing today has existed since Creation. That would make the idea of an ark that carried them impossible.

11 - "I'm not immediately discrediting you because you don't have a copy of "origins of the species" in front of you, and as such you should do the same for me."
11.An interesting observation, considering that any 'holes' you poke in my argument are based on what you've learned from others and aren't even remotely "original." I quote others because I believe what they, and don't believe that just repeating what they say without providing links for context would do their ideas justice. This isn't a problem, because I doubt that any perceived "flaw" you've stated about Creationists is original to you.

12. That's convenient. Since the website I quoted happened to be written by a Creationist, it's automatically irrelivent. Perhaps you would be interested to know that there are scientists other than Creationists who find problems with Evolution.

What line do you use (as in your matrix example) to seperate one one kind of animal from another?

Answer that question scientifically and we can move on.

Remember, evolution is inherent to taxonomy, so you probably shouldn't be using standard nomenclature unless you want to look silly.

Evolution is only inherant in your version of taxonomy, because despite what you think, taxonomy can exclaim the similarities between various phyla, species, order ...etc. without saying that this autmatically represents an evolutionary pathway by which they evolved.

DNA analysis is probably the most thorough way of describing the differences between the species (note I use the term generally, not in the specific sense of kingdom, order, phyla etc...) Analyzing DNA, however, is proving to be a nightmare for biologists, who's previous ideas of 'part of the same species by looking similar' is thrown out the window. Because I do not have a completely thorough knowledge of it, however, I cannot say where it breaks from traditional classification, and how different it really is.

As such, I currently believe in most definitions of species (as mentioned above), I also believe that new information (such as DNA analysis) may lead to a completely different understanding of how we classify animals. I don't believe, however, that every animal is simply a transitional form (or a unit, as some have suggested). I believe that speciation (ie adaption for specific environments) has resulted in what we see today as opposed to what originally left the Ark.

 

[Absinthe]

WTF Campbell. You propose:

Perhaps we can make this more precise though. Pick a specific topic within the confines of this thread, and we'll go from there.

And then you don't even follow through with it?

 

[JCampbell]

WTF Campbell. You propose:



And then you don't even follow through with it?

He asked me to define what I think of species as. I did at the end of my rebuttal to his 12 or so points against what I was saying. I followed through. At least read what's going on before making silly claims.

 

[Stigmata]

He asked me to define what I think of species as. ... I followed through. At least read what's going on before making silly claims.

Okay, you followed through... after arguing against a dozen other points that aren't related to your original focus.

What you've said is "Let's argue about x!" and then you went on an argued about y, z, a, b, and so on.

 

[Absinthe]

What Stigmata said.

If you suggest to debate specifics but then touch all bases, then what was the point of your proposition in the first place?

 

[TheSomeone]

This was written by Jon Caroll, a famous essayist and columnist:

Scientists have taken the time to study all forms of life -- mosses, flatworms, slime molds, fruit flies, sharks. What they have learned has been incorporated into the body of knowledge and sometimes has resulted in a change of assumptions.

The intelligent design people don't do mosses. They don't spend 17 years in a laboratory with a glass case full of earthworms. They are indifferent to the symbiotic relationships that create lichen. The intelligent design people are not interested in studying; they are interested in preaching. They do not present papers; they present sermons.

It's not an equal struggle. It's the world scientific community against a few guys with some Web sites and a lot of political clout.

and

Here's what it's like. Suppose there were a conference on child development and parenting. And some people are saying that children should start early on a rigorous academic program, and others are saying no, they should have real childhoods and be allowed to develop their creative abilities naturally. And some people say that children should get regular allowances, and others say, no, children should always do chores to get money. And some people say children should get complete sex education and access to birth control devices as soon as they reach puberty, and others say no, that just encourages promiscuity and reinforces our society's unhealthy preoccupation with sex.

And then someone says, "We should throw pingpong balls at them. All day, every day, we should throw pingpong balls at our children. It just seems like the right thing to do."

That's the role of the intelligent design people in serious discussions about the nature and the origin of life. They are the pingpong-ball people. They're not even talking about the same thing. They have an agenda. They want to change the subject.

(read the article here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/19/DDG86E95R11.DTL)

By the way, gravity is also a theory.

 

[short recoil]

I don't believe, however, that every animal is simply a transitional form (or a unit, as some have suggested). I believe that speciation (ie adaption for specific environments) has resulted in what we see today as opposed to what originally left the Ark.

1. I hope the comment regarding the ark is a joke.
2. You believe that things adapt to their environment but remain a very simmilar animal, why would there be a "stopping point" for the animals genetic change?
Afterall, ANY difference to an animal given at birth is a genetic change (yeah i know it could be effected by diet/chems but you know exactly what i mean)

An animal would continue to adapt to it's environment (natural selection), it is not hard to see.

your right about every animal not being a transitional form, in the case of higher animals it is a case of 2 animals being the transitional form....
The male with stronger legs (better hunter) breeds with the female with bigger teets (better mother) therefore the young are more likely to survive, you end up with an animal that is stronger in those respects.
That child is genetically different to both its parents.

Obvious stuff, yes but it is important to keep that in mind for the next part.

Now, these new young spread out across land, ones that live in the north have colder climate and slower prey, ones in south have warmer climate and faster prey
The ones that do better in the north are ones with stockier fattier bodys (slower but keep warmer), the ones that do well in south are sleeker (run faster and keep cool)
Now it is obvious there will be a variation within the species (this can be seen in humans, take different races and where they live)
But, the further something varies in genetics the harder they are to breed successfully (this is fact), you end up having more "stocky only" breeding and "sleek only" breeding, the more so it happens the more seperate they become.

2 different species are formed
You can breed a tiger and a lion and get a liger or tigon (depending on mother) VERY rarely, and the young will be sterile due to genetic faults.

Now if this dosn't show how large scale evolution can happen i don't know what can.

 

[JCampbell]

What Stigmata said.

If you suggest to debate specifics but then touch all bases, then what was the point of your proposition in the first place?

You're not suggesting I leave all those points unrefuted?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Evolution is only inherant [sic] in your version of taxonomy, because despite what you think, taxonomy can exclaim the similarities between various phyla, species, order ...etc. without saying that this autmatically [sic] represents an evolutionary pathway by which they evolved.

So all 1,000 species of fruit fly within the genus Drosophila are unique creatures and not at all related?
Or do you call that 'variation in the matrix' and draw the line at the order Diptera, which contains flies, mosquitoes, gnats and midges?

This is the failure to classify that I was talking about. You're saying that you use nomenclature, but you ignore some of the fundamental elements of the system. Basically, you're co-opting the system and using it as an elaborate way of saying 'dogs look like dogs therefore dogs are a basic kind'.

DNA analysis is probably the most thorough way of describing the differences between the species (note I use the term generally, not in the specific sense of kingdom, order, phyla etc...) Analyzing DNA, however, is proving to be a nightmare for biologists, who's previous ideas of 'part of the same species by looking similar' is thrown out the window. Because I do not have a completely thorough knowledge of it, however, I cannot say where it breaks from traditional classification, and how different it really is.

As such, I currently believe in most definitions of species (as mentioned above), I also believe that new information (such as DNA analysis) may lead to a completely different understanding of how we classify animals.

I already told you that nomenclature's distinction of species is more or less arbitary. That is why it is slowly being replaced by the more accurate DNA-based classification. So DNA has helped us classify animals better, by supporting the idea of evolutionary inheritance of traits, and re-affirming most of the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification

But you probably do not want to bring DNA into this.
DNA shows that whales are closely related, through genetics, to Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, AKA goats, cows and such)
The earliest whales were four-legged carnivores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans.

Humans and chimpanzees have most of their DNA in common. In a study of 90,000 base pairs, Wayne State University's Morris Goodman found humans and chimpanzees share 99.4% of their DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

In fact, all existing organisms share at least some genetic code. This is only really explainable by some shared origin or faith-based arguments (i.e. that genetic similarities are just god's signature or some such thing).

I don't believe, however, that every animal is simply a transitional form (or a unit, as some have suggested). I believe that speciation (ie adaption for specific environments) has resulted in what we see today as opposed to what originally left the Ark.

Speciation practically synonymous with evolution, and a logically sound explanation for how new species can arise.
You might not want to bandy that term about.
I would almost go so far as to call it a proof that species can split into new species.
You've kinda bastardized it though, by saying that no species can ever be split up geographically (or that when they are split, speciation automatically stops working), which is a logical impossibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

But you still haven't answered my actual question.
You just said 'DNA' and then asserted your belief that DNA will eventually explain creationism for you, despite that it is rather clearly indicating the opposite (see my bolds in the various quotes highlighting vague faith-based argumentation).

In fact, your belief in speciation 'after the ark' proves that your arguments are faith-based. If no animals ever evolved before, why would evolution suddenly start happening after that arbitrary (and, by all reason, fictional) point in time? Only belief in god could explain that.

Basically, you do not know what seperates the different kinds of animals. You only have faith that there is a seperation.
And, oddly enough, large chunks of that faith contain elements of (misunderstood) evolutionary theory.

So, again, your argument is built primarily on faith and bad science (AKA faith).
You might say it evolved from a combination of memorizing a religious website and using the term 'speciation' without knowing what it means.

Case closed.

 

[short recoil]

Speciation practically synonymous with evolution, and a logically sound explanation for how new species can arise.
You might not want to bandy that term about.
I would almost go so far as to call it a proof that species can split into new species.
You've kinda bastardized it though, by saying that no species can ever be split up geographically (or that when they are split, speciation automatically stops working), which is a logical impossibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I gave a crude explanation of it on the last page.
There are many many reasons as to why a split would form in a group of animals, particularly herding animals.
Examples:

Land isolation (a sand bank is washed away etc, a Y shaped piece of land becomes impassable at the "base" due to raise in temperature etc)

Predatory isolation, (a predator wipes out all of a certain animal except those hidden in the mountainous regions and those in a swamp region, where the predator cannot access)

Migratory isolation (a large group of animals simply flew or wandered off....)

It also explains a lack of a complete analogue transitional fossil record, the animals being seperated would most likely have to adapt quickly (relative in evolutionary terms) in order to survive, those that do well would leave the most fossils, and in doing very well would not benefit from change STAYING ROUGHLY THE SAME.
In that sence, evolution only happens when it needs to.
Regardless of how silly that sounds at first, it is the most sensible concept.
The proccess of natural selection soon grades the species into 'perfection' as soon as the species becomes adapted to surviving well there is little changes that will be beneficial, if the prey can already out run the predator, a faster prey would not really be as much of an advantage compared to before where some were slower than the predator.
LOADS more fossils are dropped by the success story that changes very little, very few fossils are dropped transitional species that didn't do nearlly as well.
Of course we find the dudes that did well.
Fossils are not all that common remember, only certain situations will create them, most animals just get turned into more animals or plants get burnt by us in our cars......
so you end up with "oh look we have 4 of X, and 6 of Y, they are somewhat simmilar" then you ask wheres the species inbetween? well if X, Y were able to thrive and produce 100X more than any of the transitional species put together then you don't stand much of a chance of finding one.
It's all about closing the gaps with creationists though, well put it this way, the only way you are going to get a link between us and a microbe is if you have a fossil of every single ****ing creature between.............

It's like a number pattern 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 8 . . . . 13 14 15 16 17 do i HAVE to prove that it was 7,9,10,11,12 behind those spaces or can we just see logic that they are the most likely things to be there?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_form#Misconceptions

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ah, thanks sulk. That was what I was trying to get across, but couldn't find a link.

Also, to further trunicate this thread, he's the entire debate summarized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Every criticism listed is logically sound. For now on, everyone should read this first and address every criticism listed before they go all "look @ me i disproved evilution"

 

[JCampbell]

Ah, thanks sulk. That was what I was trying to get across, but couldn't find a link.

Also, to further trunicate this thread, he's the entire debate summarized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Every criticism listed is logically sound. For now on, everyone should read this first and address every criticism listed before they go all "look @ me i disproved evilution"

Do you really think I should take that site seriously? Look at this claim:

In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally

I can't believe they would use such a recockulous example as evidence that evolution can account for IC. Any program written to show such an event is starting with what we have now, and working backwards. It already has the solution in mind when thinking about the problem. That's a major mis-step, considering that evolution is supposed to be "unguided" and "random." Obviously, the wiki doesn't critique their own content for validity or consistency. Such a glaring error should make even you question how accurately they research their data.

I guess you've resorted to encouraging people to "parrot" off claims from this site, which is just a collection of linked ideas from various evolutionists, to argue with me. Top that off with a rather childish mockery to make everyone believe that Creation theory is really that retarded, I think you need to grow up. The guise of "wiki" hardly makes the site objective.

You've said that conjecture is necessary for science, yet don't allow defenders of Creation theory that right, even if it naturally (without modification) fits within the emprical data. You've stated that there is no such thing as a species, and that every organim can be explained in terms of another. Besides some vauge reference to certain flies, you have failed to provide anything remotely close to evidence, aside from stories of how it "could" have happened. You have assumed that qualified evolutionists, such as S.J. Gould and George G. Simpson must be wrong when they claim that evolution fails to account for the apparently sudden appearance of very ordered and very different body plans (since you're disgusted with the word species). Sure you state that it's happened (in fact, it must have happened for evolution to be true), you don't give a single bit of evidence, aside from your statement that some insects are similar to others. Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion or punctuated equilibrium?


You've stated that common design=common designer is a worthless argument, considering that it has to be based on faith. Consider this: if you see 2 vehicles from the same company with similar features (ie nameplate, grill design etc...) you can confidently assume that they were created by the same Designer, not some product of an ancestral "parent car." And this is orders less complex than even the simplest biological organism: the cell, which has more power than even the most complicated computers in the world.

You'd better come up with something more concrete than "it's possible" and "Creationists are wrong so evolution must be right" to gain any respect as a serious advocate to the evolutionary theory.

 

[staticprimer]

Consider this: if you see 2 vehicles from the same company with similar features (ie nameplate, grill design etc...) you can confidently assume that they were created by the same Designer, not some product of an ancestral "parent car."

It is interesting that you would use a parallel such as this, as it could be used to represent natural selection, and therefore evolution. You say that they are not some product of some "ancestral car", but in actuality, they are. When car companies make cars, they take parts and features from previous cars and improve upon them. Parts and features that have become obsolete or unpopular, are removed. In addition, they add parts as a result of needs that arise (demand, changes in techology). All cars can be traced back as far as the horse-drawn carriage, and perhaps even further. Trucks, SUV's, cars, and even trains have a common ancestor if you trace it far back enough. (the earliest trains were nothing but steam-powered cars on tracks) Now which is more feasable: the idea that the different types of vehicles we have today came to be because it was part of early engineers' master plan, or because the need for differenciation arose?

 

[Laivasse]

You've stated that there is no such thing as a species

His argument was that the bunching of animals into groups of "species" is an arbitrary sytem, since there is no consensus on a single definition of species.This isn't really a debatable point. You tried to rebut it by pasting several definitions of species, but you're making mecha's point for him - the reason there are several definitions of 'species' is because a single one doesn't work across the whole of the animal kingdom, and we had to classify everything somehow. My only knowledge on the subject comes from taking a small Biodiversity module in uni last year, but the lecturer made a big point out of the fact that there was no single definition of species, and Mecha seems to know his taxonomy.

So then if all of creation is separated into species (who can microevolve within themselves but not macroevolve), then please enlighten us - what is the definition of a species? When you pasted those definitions and said that the Darwinian definition isn't the only 'true' one, you missed the point entirely - evolutionism doesn't need a definition of species, creationism does.

I wont be participating any further in this debate because I find the whole thing retarded - the creationist argument was born out of insecure christians not understanding the definition of the word "omnipotence", nor having the imagination to take any Bible passages as allegorical, or just plain irrelevant.. An omnipotent creator can have created the world - which runs according to evolution. He can do that because he's omnipotent, and we don't have to understand how, get it? 'Tis a frustrating perpective, but swallow your pride (it's a sin, you know) because he who knows naught and knows he knows naught is the enlightened one. There's no need for a creationist argument, evolution can be Christianity compatible. The end.

Like Angry Lawyer said, it's been coded.

 

[satch919]

C'mon people, this isn't the 17th century now. Science is your friend. It's not evil or the work of Satan. Keep religion in your personal life and let science be taught in the academic community. Life is more interesting when it has science backing it up. Science has always given rise to more questions. Religion states that these are the rules and you dare not question them!

Sometimes I think we're regressing back into a primitive state as far as intellect goes.

If this diety was so intelligent with it's design, why do we have genetic disorders or various other life destroying diseases? If that's the case, God/Allah/Buddha/Ganesh were drunk or just plain being lazy when it created us and the Universe. That's surely not a diety that I would want to worship.

Why would I have to see my loving grandmother deteriorate daily due to Alzheimers? She had literally devoted most of her life to the Catholic church. What did she get? A less than graceful movement into an elderly existence.

We're flawed, we're not special, we're just animals that inhabit this planet along with thousands upon thousands of species. It just so happens that our species evolved on a different path than other primates. Luckily for us, we developed a complex and logical brain. How about we start using it again and let this "Intelligent Design" rubbish pass like any other fad?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You've failed to account for these fundamental flaws:

-Your belief in a 'speciation-like' system that is inherently illogical.

-Your failure to define or prove a 'categorization' of life (the matrix notion).

Ignorance of both is fundamental to your argument.

So I could go on to debate the validity of computer models and how that is inadequate evidence of systematic bias.
But why bother when you're already disproven?

I have already told you that there is a difference between using extrapolation and estimation to form a conclusion - and just flat-out saying 'god did it'.

Saying 'God did it' can prove anything. Even the most stupid things you can imagine. It is is impossible to either corroborate or disprove such a conjecture.
God cannot be subject to either form of scientific examination, and therefore is not scientific.

The same applies to your matrices and your pseudo-speciation. You just invented entirely new variables out of thin air. Neither variable is based in logic or science, or you would be able to define them in a way that doesn't defy either.

Also, I never said 'there is no such thing as a species'. I said 'species' is a WORD which is designed to simplify AN UNCLASSIFIABLY COMPLEX PROCESS.
Speciation (the logical kind, AKA not yours) is a process consisting of exponential heredity.
Exponential means a big number that only gets bigger with time.
Time is what clocks measure.

You cannot possibly list each component part of life on earth because it is dependant on an ever-growing population of subtly unique creatures
So you CANNOT just say "oh god created animals within the confines of the definition of 'species'" when the entire concept of 'species' is a human creation.

Do you understand this, or must I repeat myself again?

Sorry I don't take you seriously after having to explain such basic concepts. Repeatedly.

Also, your car example is flawed, as the invention and improvement of cars is an extremely simple form of evolution. Bad designs like the edsel fail, while good designs get airbags and tires made of inflated rubber. Your argument is more like if every car ever appeared on Earth in 1600, making a 2005 lexus and hand-cranked jalopy the same age.

I needn't show you a list of every machine between the first Model T Ford and the latest hybrid-electric for you to see that one is a recent improvement on the other based on good ideas that stayed and bad ones that were weeded out.

Simple? Or must I explain it again?
Edit: Looks like Staticprimer got the point out first. Great minds think alike, after all.

So, as I said, this is game over. Until you can explain those two above faiths logically, your argument is flawed and not worthy of discussion.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Do you really think I should take that site seriously?

Yes. They actually moderate it and they add a 'this article is not neutral' tag when applicable. :dozey:

I certainly trust Wikipedia more than the Bible.

 

[JCampbell]

You've failed to account for these fundamental flaws:

-Your belief in a 'speciation-like' system that is inherently illogical.

-Your failure to define or prove a 'categorization' of life (the matrix notion).

Ignorance of both is fundamental to your argument.

I guess I have to use different words, as your interpretation of my meaning of the word species in the sense of "one species turning into another one" has led you to believe that I think all life is classifiable under these terms. Understandably, there are gaps and overlaps in the classifications of organisms. My main point in the argument (which I believe you missed) is that there has never been any documented case of one "species" becoming a more complex "species." I will refrain from using that word now, as it has caused some confusion. Take the cell, which we are believed to have "evolved" from. Now take us (humans). The progression from one of these organisms to the other involves and increase in genetic information. Theoritically (as you have done), one could link this simple (hardly) creature to us through a series of more and more complex organisms, but my point is that nothing even close to this has been documented, and combined with the relative lack of even conceptual ideas of how this may have happened, I can't concede that this is a logical stance to take. I hope that makes more clear what I meant by "species" and explains my confusion when you posed to the question for me to define it.

Secondly, I believe my "matrix" idea is still correct, although I think you have misinterpreted it. Say a mollusk exists in one "section" of the matrix, and an "owl" or something rather is in another. It is theoretically possible to come up with fanciful ways of determining that these animals have come from some common ancestor. But it has never been proven. And just because I cannot define exactly what a species is, that does not mean the burden of proof is on me to indicate the the lines between all living organisms is blurred. It is your job to indicate to me that there is, indeed, a morphological connection between every living organism on this planet. Find one that isn't, such as the duck-billed platypus, and the theory falls apart.

Interesting facts about the duck-billed-platypus:
-a mammal that lays eggs
-possesses certain features found only among birds (which is kind of odd considering that this mammal supposedly evolved 100 mil year before birds and somehow layed eggs like them) and reptiles
-has 10 sex chromosomes

So I could go on to debate the validity of computer models and how that is inadequate evidence of systematic bias.
But why bother when you're already disproven?

I never said wiki was biased (although I could debate it simply on the fact that the only origin theory they criticize is the creationist one, by quoting from a bunch of "experts." I said that they obviously don't use quality control.

I have already told you that there is a difference between using extrapolation and estimation to form a conclusion - and just flat-out saying 'god did it'.

Saying 'God did it' can prove anything. Even the most stupid things you can imagine. It is is impossible to either corroborate or disprove such a conjecture.
God cannot be subject to either form of scientific examination, and therefore is not scientific.

True. But understand that creationists, (or ID theorists in general) limit the supernatural intervention of a supreme diety to the instance of creation. (well, in the specific Creation Theory, the global flood is considered part of the model, so technically that too, is by divine intervention). Creationists do not, however, try and explain how, for example, a cell works by proclaiming God-did-it, as your comment suggests.

The same applies to your matrices and your pseudo-speciation. You just invented entirely new variables out of thin air. Neither variable is based in logic or science, or you would be able to define them in a way that doesn't defy either.

Pseudo-speciation? I guess, according to you, this is just a 'misnomer' for what you call macroevolution. However, since you have not brought 4th a single example of both the quality and quantity of new genetic information increasing within a given organism, it is absolutely ridiculous for you to claim that 'evolution explains it.

Also, I never said 'there is no such thing as a species'. I said 'species' is a WORD which is designed to simplify AN UNCLASSIFIABLY COMPLEX PROCESS.
Speciation (the logical kind, AKA not yours) is a process consisting of exponential heredity.
Exponential means a big number that only gets bigger with time.
Time is what clocks measure.

Besides the assumption that evolution is true, what else do you base your "fact" that speciation is a process consisting of exponential heredity. Keep in mind that you can't use the the contrived dates of the fossil record (which any scientist would admit are interpreted into an existing assumption and are not concrete enough on their own) and the apparent "similarities" between organisms existing millions of years apart, as neither even has been documented or replicated (in any form). Since the former is impossible (macroevolution has immunity from observational science), at least provide an instance of new genetic information (even a slight amount) being added to an organism that did not previously exist before. Such a profound 'proof' shouldn't be hard to find, considering the zealous attitude with which you support your theory.

You cannot possibly list each component part of life on earth because it is dependant on an ever-growing population of subtly unique creatures
So you CANNOT just say "oh god created animals within the confines of the definition of 'species'" when the entire concept of 'species' is a human creation.

My request for you to list "each component part of life on earth" is too much to ask, because you could not possibly do such a thing, and I said the above statement partly in jest, because I knew it was impossible. However, kindly document one instance of an animal developing completely new and useful information within it's DNA and we'll kindly be on our separate ways.

Do you understand this, or must I repeat myself again?

Sorry I don't take you seriously after having to explain such basic concepts. Repeatedly.

Your basic concepts involve the assumption that life can be logically deducted into a small series of evolutionary "leaps," none of which have been documented. While it is easy to speculate that a similar fossil might have "evolved" from another, such an assumption is nothing more than an interesting story without at least some form of empirical evidence.

Also, your car example is flawed, as the invention and improvement of cars is an extremely simple form of evolution. Bad designs like the edsel fail, while good designs get airbags and tires made of inflated rubber. Your argument is more like if every car ever appeared on Earth in 1600, making a 2005 lexus and hand-cranked jalopy the same age.

As did staticprimer, you completely missed the point of my analogy. I never mentioned the apparent "simple evolution" involved in comparing older cars to newer cars. I said that two vehicles with similar features, can be said to be the result of having a similar designer. Now, I could go on about how the "evolution of the automobile" (involving designers) is not even close to an adequate comparison to the proposed "macroevolution" (involving randomness: no designer) of species. However, seeing as you managed to misunderstand this very simple analogy, I doubt that such a constrast would be within your reasoning abilities.

I needn't show you a list of every machine between the first Model T Ford and the latest hybrid-electric for you to see that one is a recent improvement on the other based on good ideas that stayed and bad ones that were weeded out.

So machines produced by humans that are the product of technologic advances based on intelligent studies of complex subjects (such as thermodynamics) are an honest comparison to the "natural selection" proposed to be the mechanism of evolution, which can involve none of the above intelligence? I can't believe even you, with your critical analysis debate style, would endorse such a flawed comparison. A much better one would be if the Model T, through a series of amazing coincidences, managed to shuffle about its various components with no guidance whatsoever and turn into a complete and fully functional hybrid vehicle. Remember, evolution does not have intelligent intervention.

Simple? Or must I explain it again?
Edit: Looks like Staticprimer got the point out first. Great minds think alike, after all.

The most common end to that axiom is "fools seldom differ."

So, as I said, this is game over. Until you can explain those two above faiths logically, your argument is flawed and not worthy of discussion.

I tried to exclaim my point of view more clearly; so unless your obvious bias towards divine intervention clouds your judgement yet again, I suggest you just don't bother responding.

 

[Kebean PFC]

machines produced by humans that are the product of technologic advances based on intelligent studies of complex subjects (such as thermodynamics) are an honest comparison to the "natural selection" proposed to be the mechanism of evolution, which can involve none of the above intelligence? I can't believe even you, with your critical analysis debate style, would endorse such a flawed comparison. A much better one would be if the Model T, through a series of amazing coincidences, managed to shuffle about its various components with no guidance whatsoever and turn into a complete and fully functional hybrid vehicle. Remember, evolution does not have intelligent intervention.

It is not a flawed comparison. And your anology is worse, becuase it is entirely incorrect. I start with a model T ford. The market is the environment and the consumers are predators. The model T is sold (eaten) by the consumer. Ok, so mass production of the model T is on, and many are sold and l;eft around. Now the market has changed, consumers want a car with horsepower. So the model T evolves through experimentation and failure.

Yes this was crappy, but more truthful the yours.

as neither even has been documented or replicated (in any form).

How is this different than Genisis. The bible was a book writ by man, not god.

an animal developing completely new and useful information within it's DNA and we'll kindly be on our separate ways.

Ok, first, it is a called a mutation and it happens sowhat randomly due to natural backround radiation. Certain pairs on the DNA are damaged, and i some cases, rebonded. What i think you are thinking of is "Survival of the Fittest" and that holds true today. The Flu used to kill millions of humans, but now, most of us dont even get the shots anymore. We have evolved an immunity to it due to the fact that the dead no longer spread thier in-imunity through the population. You can also see it by looking at how many people need corrective lenses. More people do not have good eyesight becuase when we give a person glasses it allows them to live and reproduce, spreading thier bad genes. Chances are without the glasses they would not be able to fuction, and die due to it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It is a verified fact that animals adapt, over generations, to their environments.
You've accepted this as fact already.

It's a verified fact that any population of animals can split into two groups and enter seperate environments.
Surely you accept this a fact.

Therefore it is a fact that one group of similar animals can split into two groups and, over time, become dissimilar.

This is the correct concept of speciation.

Speciation is a fact, and it shows that new animals can evolve from old.

Now, you can disprove this straight away by simply defining god's matrixes, but you've repeatedly shown (and now you've admitted) that you cannot.
Since this is the most fundamental element of your argument, you cannot simultaneously say that your failure to define it does not matter.

However, kindly document one instance of an animal developing completely new and useful information within it's DNA and we'll kindly be on our separate ways.

It's simple logic.
Suppose there are two nucleotide sequences A and B. If some particular mutation X can transform sequence A into sequence B, there is another particular mutation Y which can transform sequence B into sequence A. If mutation X is one which subtracts information from a sequence, it follows that sequence A must contain more information than sequence B -- and mutation Y must, therefore, be one which adds information to a sequence.

Yours is also a straw man argument. No-one has claimed that entirely new features appear from nowhere.

Evolution follows the idea that basically all changes appear through minor modifications of pre-existing features.
This leads to an improvement called speciation, and we've established it here as a fact.

Speciation is based on beneficial mutations to pre-existing features, which are also shown to occur.

A general overlook of beneficial mutation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
Beneficial mutations in humans.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Beneficial mutation in algae
http://www.science-writer.co.uk/award_winners/16-19_years/2002/winner.html
Polyploidization (this is a big one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

But you needn't read those links because you've already agreed that speciation occurs.

So I guess this is goodbye?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Whoops, double-post.
Here's a hamster.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2004/Pierre/cute hamster.jpg

 

[Sulkdodds]

Awww.

One thing:

Your basic concepts involve the assumption that life can be logically deducted into a small series of evolutionary "leaps,"

I'm too lazy to do anything but skim-read the arguments any more (I think I'll leave it to Mecha to argue the point) but isn't that exactly the assumption evolution DOESN'T make?