QuoteReplyTopic: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported? Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:12
I just realized how may scientists are there in the World. I had never though about it but 500 must be only a tiny drop of the ocean of scientists. Still it's truly worrying that so many US scientists are being brainwashed by their religious congregations.
Genetic research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are nearly alike:
-both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^
there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Five hundred scientist, we are supposed to take their word as a minority over the rest of the scientific community? There aren't hundred scientist in this world, not just one thousand, but thousands. It's agreed by the majority that evolution is fact, and I'm going to say for now. There isn't any reason to suggest that evolution isn't a possibilty because a faith says so. In science you study it unless there is a complete answer, and there isn't any as you seem to believe.
Right now it explains things very well, shows why we share traits with even lizards. It explains the thousands of fossils found. Intelligent design is not a study, it is far from science, and is a explanation but a easy answer. You says science says otherwise, but a couple studies by those who seem to have a agenda don't prove anything.
Science also allows change, one day it may very well be that evolution is found to be false, right now evidence says otherwise. We are talking about a hundreds, maybe even thousands of scientist who have worked on this for over a hundred years.
That statement of course is accurate. This article makes a broad, incredible statement! Now to Abulocetus which is given as an example of a "transitional link" for whales. Here is an article that supports the "belief" that ambulocetus is the ancestor of the whale. I want you to be aware of the words used regarding this supposed "link." The quote is from www.pbs.org/wbgh/evolution
The author of the article was showing a tranistional fossil, it was a single example, but not what the article was about.
Did you read the part about wolves and dogs and how we don't have transitional fossils between the two yet the mTDNA from dog breeds around the world point to dogs coming from wolves in asia 15,000 years ago.
The current theory does say "we" are ancestors of Homo Erectus, however that theory is based on "resemblence" to humanity, as a result of skeletal remains and an artists rendition of the finds.
There isn't a "current" theory, there are a few theories on the lineages. We have 5000 skulls that can be lined up and you can see the evolution of man through cranial size, eye obital and eyebrow change, dental, etc... There isn't any missing links so to speak where we run into a wall. Scientist are now trying to place them into lineages. After all in evolution it branches alot. There are three sub-species of Homo Sapien that I know of and we are one of them. Through evolution scientist need to find which subspecies continues and evolves, which one just kept going alongside them.
Homo Erectus continued on even during the evolution of Homo Heidelbergensis to Homo Neandthalisis. And even seen the youngest of all the Human species, Homo Sapien which even then was around for the subspecies of Sapien. The problem is, in evolution species continuely overlap, they don't give way for the next generation unless the new really outplays, or can't adapt to changing enviroments, then the previous will die out.
Also I think Homo Sapien Sapien, us, are pretty lucky that Cor-Magnon didn't have a larger population, or it may have been them that are in the same arguement right now. So isolated populations can also kill of subspecies that don't continue to evolve.
Search, again with your statement above, you have not dealt with the point made with the experiments on "fruit flies," by the Darwinian scientist, Dobzhansky. Micro Evolution or changes "only" occured in the Dobzhansky experiments on fruit flies! As far as Sea Scorpians are concerned, again you are proving "Intelligent Design!" Sea Scorpians is a "Micro Change or evolution! Let me give you a parrelel, the water iguana in the Galopagos is a relative of the South American iguana which does not dive for food! As you have pointed out with the "sea scorpian" both iguanas resemble each other. Search again you are supporting Intelligent Design with the Dragon Fly. The small "dragon fly" of today is a "Micro change" or evolution within kinds, just as it is in scorpians and iguanas. Search you say "time or life spans" do not matter in "Darwinian Macro Evolution." I am surprised you are not aware of the "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia,
In no way shape or form does that support intelligent design. How would it? Does the supreme being write is intials on the legs of the animals? There is no evidence at all of a supreme intelligence. Complication does not prove a supreme intelligence.
And again, you assume life span has to do with evolution. Even with their current life span, if we were to go by that, it would still take a few thousand years, and I don't think we would be around long enough to see it.
Did you ever here about the Foxes in Russia. After thirty Generations they came up with foxes with floppy ears, spots, all sorts of changes. Your going to say, "Thats micro-evolution!", well it is evolution.
Did you ever here of the birds beaks changing sizes? Or the same species of birds, but have different colors. You'll probably say these are all within the species.
The point I'm making is these do change the animals genes. They will pass on traits that they have. So lets take a Finch for example. There beaks change to a larger size, which has been observed and is said to be micro-evolution again. But this is just one change in the precess of evolution. Anyways this allows them to get their food better. So those with shorter beaks eventually die out. Then lets say a new preditory bird comes in, which preditory birds near the artic have been moving up due to climate change and really hurting another bird species, so it is possible. Anyways the Finch that have more suttle coloring and match better with the area start to thrive over the ones with stronger colors. So again, the other die out.
Now we have a Finch with a longer beak isn't very color, but none the less, still a finch. So lets say a thousand years from now the climate in the area has gotten more dry and the food supply isn't the greatest. But due to this being a nesting area, suitible for their nests, they now travel farther for food. After all, there are large birds that migrate just to nest, and those that are to weak to die before the end of the journey. So those that are to small and don't have the energy to make the round trip begin to die out. Over the course of a couple hundred years their bodies begin to become larger and larger to hold energy and their wings and feathers longer to make the journey. After a few more thousand years, we end up with a bird that has a sharper longer beak, better camoflauge, much larger then it's predicessor, and may have even started going after larger prey instead of just insects to feed it's needs for the longer journeys.
So this is genetic drift. It wasn't exactly forced or in a controled enviroment, and it was done over time. The species changed from small micro-evolution changes that exaggerated over time changing the entire look of a creature. We did this to dogs, but it was a very quick change in evolution, the gene's didn't really space out much as they would if it were done overtime.
We have observed the change in stick bugs. We seen the anatomy change with longer limbs, we've seen wings come back from what was thought to be evolutionary garbage. Over time, these things make a creature look totally different from it's predicessor and through gentic drift make it one day impossible for the two to breed.
Search this has been my point all along as you now know, regarding the most popular theory before the DNA studies were done, that the "multi-regional" hypothesis we have been discussing. The DNA studies startled the scientific world and discredited this theory that humanity was a result of "different groups" from different parts of the world. I am glad you now see the point I was making Search. Thus it seems we are in agreement on this issue now.
The whole multi-regional theory never made sense to me, evolution from what I understand works better in isolated populations. Though I do agree a species can pick up traits from another sub-species.
But in know way does this prove that there were two single humans that birthed the whole human population.
Search the "horse evolution series" has been discredited, it is "FALSE." Even though the horse evolution series has been discredited it is still being taught in high schools and universities, where you learned about it. It makes me wonder and I think you too now, could darwinian macro evolutionist be misleading us by continuing to teach the "horse evolution series?" Here is the quote I gave you earlier,
Before I jump to any conclusions, I want to know the names of the two species that of the said horses from that article.
Homo Erectus overlapped many other Human species and continued for quite awhile.
Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?
I was going to mention the date. 1981, about 25 years ago. Alot of things happen in scietnific studies just within a couple years, or can happen in decades. I don't know what the scienctist studying evolution have said. But it's a theory constantly changing due to lineages. Though it would help me to know what the two species were so I can further study them.
Hey Search, no problem as I understand such can happen when one is reading. I would not take advantage as this is an intellectual discussion and appreciate us reasoning together, my friend. I think discussing such issues should be done with respect and in a cordial manner. Too often such discussions become emotional where people are misrepresented or call names. I really appreciate your post here. The point I was making was the fact that one study had Adam and Eve, 12,000 years apart and that is a "second in time" and thus virtually places them together. I am not saying that the Hammer study, which gives that time difference, is the absolute authority regarding "time" however it makes my point that the times, that the DNA studies have arrived at are all over the place. Some DNA studies places then any number of hundreds of thousands of years apart and others closer. However since these times are all over the place, maybe, they were together! When these DNA studies get more exact as far as time, this may be the case, and thats what we may discover.
The latest DNA test, done in 2001 after 15 years of work shows Mitochondrial DNA puts the complete modern Human of our species at 171,500 years ago. I don't think you'll find the Y chromosome at this time, most studies show that the Y chromosome changes and the one that all men share now is estimated about 70,000 to 60,000 years ago. Though I don't have a link about the Y chromosome. You also have to remember that we can track our Y chromosome alot farther back. It's just all humans now share one common Y Chromosome as we came from a isolated population in Africa. Which makes sense.
Here's a link that talks about the Y chromosome of humans being able to be traced back 6 million years ago while Chimps Y is harder to trace. http://www.hhmi.org/news/page6.html
Even if you don't believe those to links, I think you might find them a interesting read none the less.
On a personal note, Evolution is not the reason I'm athiest, just something I find facinating. It's also not the reason for me not believing in Christianity, because I think if I were to believe in a supreme being, he would be able to make evolution possible and I think that'd just express the being love for change and beauty. In my opinion, evolution has produced alot of beauty. I just can't convince myself that their is any sort of supreme being, no matter how hard I try to force myself. And if I were to be sent to hell for that reason, I'm not sure I'd want to be close to such a being.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Five hundred scientist, we are supposed to take their word as a minority over the rest of the scientific community? There aren't hundred scientist in this world, not just one thousand, but thousands. It's agreed by the majority that evolution is fact, and I'm going to say for now.
Search again as in our previous posts, I think you must not be reading very carefully. Or are trying to "MISS" the point I am making purposely? If that is the case, readers and participants of this thread can see your missing the point I am making. The reason Intelligent Design is making inroads into the American educational process is because the Darwinian Macro Evolutionist theory has failed to give legitimate conclusions to what we see around us in nature. Here is a quote regarding university professors "ONCE AGAIN" who reject the Darwinian Macro Evolutionist theory. Quote:
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwins Theory
By: Staff Discovery Institute
February 20, 2006
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage,
SEATTLE Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington..
Search please do not miss this point! What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Right now it explains things very well, shows why we share traits with even lizards. It explains the thousands of fossils found. Intelligent design is not a study, it is far from science, and is a explanation but a easy answer. You says science says otherwise, but a couple studies by those who seem to have a agenda don't prove anything.
Search are you trying to convince yourself Darwinian Macro Evoluton is true? The "FOSSIL" record support Darwinian Macro Evolution? Search, the "fossil record" does not support Darwinian Macro Evolution. Here is a quote from a Macro Evolutionist who admits the "FOSSIL" record does "NOT" support Darwin's Evolutionary theory. In fact the "FOSSIL" record supports "Intelligent Design." Here is the quote, Quote:
Below is a statement by an evolutionist:
A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.
Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56.
As we can see the fossil record actually supports Intelligent Design. An Intelligent Design scientist would expect the fossil record to have "no transitional intermediate links" as well as the "abrupt appearance and disappearance if species". This is exactly what is found in the fossil record as admitted by a darwinian macro evolutionist in the above quote.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Science also allows change, one day it may very well be that evolution is found to be false, right now evidence says otherwise.
Search you holding on "tenaciously" with "blind faith" to the collapsing theory of darwinian macro evolution? Search, it seems you have purposely missed the points I have made or you misunderstand them. However as you said above, Macro Evolution may be found to be false, that day has come! Here is a quote from an "disillusioned darwinian macro evolutionist" who does "not" agree with you. Here is the quote, Quote:
Sren Lvtrup - evolutionist.
Sren Lvtrup does not adhere to the commonly promulgated Darwinian theory of evolution. He maintains that the logical consequence of any form of Darwinism "requires us to surrender our common sense". He claims that Darwinism is like the emperor's new clothes in the Hans Christian
Anderson tale - "nakedly false". New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of
science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" S. Lovtrup in
"Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422; Quoted in New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
We are talking about a hundreds, maybe even thousands of scientist who have worked on this for over a hundred years.
Search over 100 years of studying Darwinian Macro Evolution and instead of becoming more "factual" and established, Darwin's theory is being assalted on many fronts because Darwinian Macro Evolution theory has failed to give legitimate conclusions to what we see around us in nature. Search, Darwin's theory is crumbling and has been crumbling for a long while now. That is why quotations can be given from "disillusioned darwinian macro" evolutionists. Here is another quote, Here is a quote for you to see your position is a matter of "blind faith."
Pierre-Paul Grass - distinguished evolutionist, Chair of Evolution (The Sorbonne, Paris),and past-President (French Acadamie des Sciences).
Indeed, the best studies on evolution have been carried out
by biologists who are not blinded by doctrines and who observe facts coldly without considering
whether they agree or disagree with their theories. Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the
interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The
deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism,
purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Written by Pierre-Paul Grass in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press: New York, 1977 p:8
As you can see your confidence in the Darwinian Macro Theory of Evolution is misplaced.
Please don't forget the quote above of current professors rejecting Darwinian Macro Evolution due to the fact that it does not answer what we observe around us."
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
That statement of course is accurate. This article makes a broad, incredible statement! Now to Abulocetus which is given as an example of a "transitional link" for whales. Here is an article that supports the "belief" that ambulocetus is the ancestor of the whale. I want you to be aware of the words used regarding this supposed "link." The quote is from www.pbs.org/wbgh/evolution
Search are you denying the quote of Halevi? Halevi appears to be a very educated and a fair person in any discussion I have participated with him in. Halevi is an Darwinian Macro Evolutionist who voted yes in spite of the fact he honestly admitted the "mechanisms" of Macro Evolution are not known or understood yet. So are you saying the "mechanism" of Darwinian Macro Evolution is "understood?" Here is the quote of Halevi who does "not" agree with you,
Originally posted by Halevi
The actual mechanisms and processes involved in macro-level genetic change, however, are still quite ill understood, and this is what scientists are now working at.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The author of the article was showing a tranistional fossil, it was a single example, but not what the article was about.
Did you read the part about wolves and dogs and how we don't have transitional fossils between the two yet the mTDNA from dog breeds around the world point to dogs coming from wolves in asia 15,000 years ago.
Search again a very good example of "Micro Evolution" or change like sea scorpians, iguanas, salmon, and dragon flies. Do you not realize that your "proving" Micro evolution or change and nothing more? You have not given in any post an example of Macro Evolution.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The current theory does say "we" are ancestors of Homo Erectus, however that theory is based on "resemblence" to humanity, as a result of skeletal remains and an artists rendition of the finds. There isn't a "current" theory, there are a few theories on the lineages. We have 5000 skulls that can be lined up and you can see the evolution of man through cranial size, eye obital and eyebrow change, dental, etc... There isn't any missing links so to speak where we run into a wall. Scientist are now trying to place them into lineages.
Search, your correct that these conclusions are a result as you say of skulls and cranial size ect. However these conclusions are mere speculations! Remember Neanderthal was a human ancestor due to skull and cranial size. It matters not whether you think there are lineages in the 5000 skulls! It matters "not" that you think there are "no missing links!" It is all speculation and a result of "artists renditions!" What happened to Neanderthal as a result of DNA studies? At one time Neanderthal was a "human ancestor" as a result of skull and cranial size and "artists renditions!" Search, at the very best you can "only" hope DNA studies are not done that may and probably will remove these supposed ancestors from the lineage of humanity! As you can see Search once again, you have nothing more then "speculation!" The fact that scientists are trying to find "lineages" indicates it is "not" evidence but speculation at this time.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Also I think Homo Sapien Sapien, us, are pretty lucky that Cor-Magnon didn't have a larger population, or it may have been them that are in the same arguement right now. So isolated populations can also kill of subspecies that don't continue to evolve.
Search, your demostrating what goes on in area of the ancestors of humanity. You "think!" It is purely think "so's". The fact is Search these studies that humanity arose in different places from different parts of the world has been discredited as a result of DNA studies that show humanity is decended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mithochondria Eve.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search, again with your statement above, you have not dealt with the point made with the experiments on "fruit flies," by the Darwinian scientist, Dobzhansky. Micro Evolution or changes "only" occured in the Dobzhansky experiments on fruit flies! As far as Sea Scorpians are concerned, again you are proving "Intelligent Design!" Sea Scorpians is a "Micro Change or evolution! Let me give you a parrelel, the water iguana in the Galopagos is a relative of the South American iguana which does not dive for food! As you have pointed out with the "sea scorpian" both iguanas resemble each other. Search again you are supporting Intelligent Design with the Dragon Fly. The small "dragon fly" of today is a "Micro change" or evolution within kinds, just as it is in scorpians and iguanas. Search you say "time or life spans" do not matter in "Darwinian Macro Evolution." I am surprised you are not aware of the "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia,
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
And again, you assume life span has to do with evolution. Even with their current life span, if we were to go by that, it would still take a few thousand years, and I don't think we would be around long enough to see it.
Search again you refer to "time." You seem very confused about "time." You can't have it both ways. You say time is not a factor and then you say time is a factor. Do you not understand that Darwinian Macro Evolution demands time? You say we will not see Macro Evolution because we will not be around? Are you not refering to TIME? Any one reading will be like me very confused. Here is the quote from Wikipedia about the importance of Time in regards to Darwins Macro Evolutionary theory. The "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory is a key to a possible mechanism. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia again,
In biology, evolution is the process by which novel traits arise in populations and are passed on from generation to generation. Its action over large stretches of time explains the origin of new species and ultimately the vast diversity of the biological world. Contemporary species are related to each other through common descent, products of evolution and speciation over billions of years. The phylogenetic tree at right represents these relationships for the three major domains of life.
I agree with you if you say TIME is not a factor in the "insect world!" For the fruit fly lives only 10 days and experiments have been done since 1906 and the only results have been Micro Evolution or change in these experiments. I think your very confused about the time factor.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Did you ever here about the Foxes in Russia. After thirty Generations they came up with foxes with floppy ears, spots, all sorts of changes. Your going to say, "Thats micro-evolution!", well it is evolution.
Did you ever here of the birds beaks changing sizes? Or the same species of birds, but have different colors. You'll probably say these are all within the species. The point I'm making is these do change the animals genes. They will pass on traits that they have. So lets take a Finch for example. There beaks change to a larger size, which has been observed and is said to be micro-evolution again. But this is just one change in the precess of evolution. Anyways this allows them to get their food better. So those with shorter beaks eventually die out.
Search, foxes with floppy ears! You know that is "Micro Evolution" or change. Birds with beak sizes! Yes your getting the point! You can identify Micro changes and know that the only evidence anyone can cite is Micro changes and no more. Macro Evolution is pure speculation. Search all you end up with is birds with bigger beaks, "micro evoluton."
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Then lets say a new preditory bird comes in, which preditory birds near the artic have been moving up due to climate change and really hurting another bird species, so it is possible. Anyways the Finch that have more suttle coloring and match better with the area start to thrive over the ones with stronger colors. So again, the other die out. Now we have a Finch with a longer beak isn't very color, but none the less, still a finch. So lets say a thousand years from now the climate in the area has gotten more dry and the food supply isn't the greatest.
Search very good demostration of what Darwinian Macro Evolutionist do! Search you state, "lets say!" Speculation! Search says, "Its possible." Anything is possible with "speculation."
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
We did this to dogs, but it was a very quick change in evolution, the gene's didn't really space out much as they would if it were done overtime. We have observed the change in stick bugs. We seen the anatomy change with longer limbs, we've seen wings come back from what was thought to be evolutionary garbage. Over time, these things make a creature look totally different from it's predicessor and through gentic drift make it one day impossible for the two to breed.
Search all these examples are MICRO EVOLUTION or changes within kinds! Do you realize what this sounds like? Nonsense. Dogs are dogs! All reading this thread can see that by appealing to dogs, it is not supporting your "belief" in Darwinian Macro Evolution.
Search this has been my point all along as you now know, regarding the most popular theory before the DNA studies were done, that the "multi-regional" hypothesis we have been discussing. The DNA studies startled the scientific world and discredited this theory that humanity was a result of "different groups" from different parts of the world. I am glad you now see the point I was making Search. Thus it seems we are in agreement on this issue now.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The whole multi-regional theory never made sense to me, evolution from what I understand works better in isolated populations. Though I do agree a species can pick up traits from another sub-species.
I agree with you here Search. My question is why did you spend so much time above regarding the "Multi-regional" theory above? I always answer every point a person makes Search. Now you say, "the whole multi-regional theory never made sense to me!" I think your not very clear in your understanding of the Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory. "Two" areas are very confusing in your earlier post, first you say time is not a factor then you say time is a factor. Second you say you do not believe in the "multi-regional" theory and yet in your last quote you spent so much time on it.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
But in know way does this prove that there were two single humans that birthed the whole human population.
Search, we do agree that the "multi-regional" theory is not legitimate, however our agreement or belief does not make as you said and I quote you, "that there were two single humans that birthed the whole human population." However. Search DNA studies do give a very good possibility that humanity is descended from Adam and Eve as stated in the Bible which recorded that information over thousands of years ago in Genesis 3:20.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search the "horse evolution series" has been discredited, it is "FALSE." Even though the horse evolution series has been discredited it is still being taught in high schools and universities, where you learned about it. It makes me wonder and I think you too now, could darwinian macro evolutionist be misleading us by continuing to teach the "horse evolution series?" Here is the quote I gave you earlier,
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I was going to mention the date. 1981, about 25 years ago. Alot of things happen in scietnific studies just within a couple years, or can happen in decades. I don't know what the scienctist studying evolution have said. But it's a theory constantly changing due to lineages. Though it would help me to know what the two species were so I can further study them.
Search, the point was clear in National Geographic and the year 1981. The point is the evidence does not exist for the "horse fossil series" and even though it was descredited in 1981, it is still taught in high schools and universities!
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Hey Search, no problem as I understand such can happen when one is reading. I would not take advantage as this is an intellectual discussion and appreciate us reasoning together, my friend. I think discussing such issues should be done with respect and in a cordial manner. Too often such discussions become emotional where people are misrepresented or call names. I really appreciate your post here. The point I was making was the fact that one study had Adam and Eve, 12,000 years apart and that is a "second in time" and thus virtually places them together. I am not saying that the Hammer study, which gives that time difference, is the absolute authority regarding "time" however it makes my point that the times, that the DNA studies have arrived at are all over the place. Some DNA studies places then any number of hundreds of thousands of years apart and others closer. However since these times are all over the place, maybe, they were together! When these DNA studies get more exact as far as time, this may be the case, and thats what we may discover.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
The latest DNA test, done in 2001 after 15 years of work shows Mitochondrial DNA puts the complete modern Human of our species at 171,500 years ago. I don't think you'll find the Y chromosome at this time, most studies show that the Y chromosome changes and the one that all men share now is estimated about 70,000 to 60,000 years ago. Though I don't have a link about the Y chromosome. You also have to remember that we can track our Y chromosome alot farther back. It's just all humans now share one common Y Chromosome as we came from a isolated population in Africa. Which makes sense.
Search the only point that can be made from the current DNA studies is that we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. Trying to determine when they lived exactly in the current DNA studies is not possible. Valid DNA studies put so many differing dates that it is of no significance at this time. However no doubt DNA studies may improve were the dates become consistent in the differing DNA studies. That is why Search, I did not say that Adam and Eve lived 12,000 years apart absolutely as one study suggested. I merely pointed out that it is essentially a second in time. That is all so please understand that.
]
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
On a personal note, Evolution is not the reason I'm athiest, just something I find facinating. It's also not the reason for me not believing in Christianity, because I think if I were to believe in a supreme being, he would be able to make evolution possible and I think that'd just express the being love for change and beauty. In my opinion, evolution has produced alot of beauty. I just can't convince myself that their is any sort of supreme being, no matter how hard I try to force myself. And if I were to be sent to hell for that reason, I'm not sure I'd want to be close to such a being.
Search, thank God He gave us free will. if you have a Bible, read Acts 10:34-35. God will not force you or anyone to be a believer. Check out this website out of interest or good reading as you gave me some websites to check out. www.bible.ca
Many Christians believe that evolution may well be fact. The complexity of nature/creator is well beyond current understanding. The abilty to adapt to changing environment argues more for creationism than against it
I've said this before to other people, and I'll say it again: it is very difficult to argue against evolution when you can manipulate the principles behind it to breed dogs or tomatoes or anything else you like. Evolution's been understood for thousands of years in its basic essence, looong before it was ever formulated as a scientific theory and its full implications were thought about. The ID folks are being really silly, worse in some ways than their intellectual ancestors in the Flat Earth society. As soon as you agree that selection can alter the characteristics of an animals descendants, you have confirmed evolution, which is hard not to do with a poodle or pit bull or red rose or yellow corn in your home.
Most IDers really need to get familiar with what evolution is, and what evolution isn't. Evolution isn't about the origin of life on earth; that's abiogenesis, and there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis among scientists. To attack evolution because it doesn't include one is silly, and only displays a massive inability to understand how science works or what evolutionary is about. Evolution is about the origin of species, not life. The ID crowd desperately needs to grasp this simple concept.
Genetic
research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just
branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are
nearly alike:
-both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^
there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Thats called convergent evolution. Gr 11 Bio.
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
I just realized how may scientists are there in the World. I had never though about it but 500 must be only a tiny drop of the ocean of scientists. Still it's truly worrying that so many US scientists are being brainwashed by their religious congregations.
Maju does not like American scientists who "Reject" Darwinian Macro Evolution theory in 2006 because there is " no evidence." Darwinian Macro Evolution have been collapsing for some time now. Here is a French scientist! Here is the quote,
Jerome Lejeune
- Professor (Chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris),
internationally recognised geneticist, and evolution teacher.
"The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the
Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not
work."
Quoted from the conference paper "The Beginning of Life", in October 1975, by Jerome Lejeune.
"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot
accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory
known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but
because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which
is known to be inexact ....."
Comments made by Jerome Lejeune at a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985. Notes are from a recording of the
message.
Here is the quote Maju maybe a Swedish professor is more acceptable to you? Here is a quote for you,
Sren Lvtrup - evolutionist.
Sren Lvtrup does not adhere to the commonly promulgated Darwinian theory of evolution. He
maintains that the logical consequence of any form of Darwinism "requires us to surrender our
common sense". He claims that Darwinism is like the emperor's new clothes in the Hans Christian
Anderson tale - "nakedly false".
New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of
science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
S. Lovtrup in
"Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth", Croom Helm: London, 1987 p:422; Quoted in
New Scientist, October 15, 1988 p:66
Maju as you can see Darwinian Macro Evolution has been collapsing for a long time. These European scientists apparently will be more acceptable to you. The quotation in 2006 of University professors from prestigious universities shows that Intelligent Design is making inroads due to Darwin's theory unable to address what we see in nature. Remember, just a few years ago, it would be very difficult to find even "one" professor on a university campus to take such a public position in rejecting Darwin Macro Evolution! However just as the quotes above from European professors! It appears it is Maju who wants to remain "ignorant" and who knows more then European and American scientist who know more then him and I and who admit Darwinian Macro Evolution is not scientific!
Genetic research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are nearly alike:
-both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^
there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Thats called convergent evolution. Gr 11 Bio.
Herefornow and Halevi, this theory is as good as the Darwinian Macro Evolution due to misinterpretation of the data in nature.
Many Christians believe that evolution may well be fact. The complexity of nature/creator is well beyond current understanding. The abilty to adapt to changing environment argues more for creationism than against it
Hi Spinnwriter, you are not aware of the recent trend in your own country as "Theistic Evolutionists" have been changing their position to Intelligent Design. People change their position because they realize there is no proof for macro evoluton. Here is a quote from the reputable Gallup organization, please note the date. The website is www.ridgecrest.ca.us
Quote:
In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option. This could be the beginning of a trend, but it might just be a one-time anomaly. If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs.
Intelligent Design is a new idea that allows rejection of evolution without acceptance of the Judeo-Christian god. In the September, 2005, Gallup poll, 31% think Intelligent Design is true, 32% think it is false, and 37% dont know what to think.)
As we can see people were at one time THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS, however with further study as suggested by the Gallup organization they changed to become supporters of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Note there assessment, "it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isnt. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs."
I've said this before to other people, and I'll say it again: it is very difficult to argue against evolution when you can manipulate the principles behind it to breed dogs or tomatoes or anything else you like. Evolution's been understood for thousands of years in its basic essence, looong before it was ever formulated as a scientific theory and its full implications were thought about.
Hi edgewaters, yes the principles of "Micro Evolution" are very well understood. As I am sure you know Micro Evolution is changes within kinds and in nature is called "adaptation." As you point out humanity has used that principle to get variety in domestic animals, however as you know changes are within types or kinds and no new organisms have ever been developed on the "Macro Evolution" level! For example, a great dane dog can mate with a chihuahua! This may be impossible physically, however because it is "micro evolution," we know it is possible. You correctly point out, "tomatoes are tomatoes" though maybe larger and juicier! But they are still tomatoes.
Originally posted by edgewaters
The ID folks are being really silly, worse in some ways than their intellectual ancestors in the Flat Earth society. As soon as you agree that selection can alter the characteristics of an animals descendants, you have confirmed evolution, which is hard not to do with a poodle or pit bull or red rose or yellow corn in your home.
It sounds edgewater that you are the one being silly as Intelligent Design has made inroads even on university campus'. Here is a quote for you Quote:
Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwins Theory
By: Staff Discovery Institute
February 20, 2006
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage,
SEATTLE Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
The statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington..
Edgewaters, please do not miss this point! What is so significant about this quotation? The fact a few years ago, "ONE" would be "hard pressed" to find even "one" professor to take this position "openly." Don't miss my point here, for I am merely pointing out "Intelligent Design" is making inroads. If the "proof" for Darwinian Macro Evolution was so "strong" why are some university professors rejecting the theory?
Originally posted by edgewaters
Most IDers really need to get familiar with what evolution is, and what evolution isn't. Evolution isn't about the origin of life on earth; that's abiogenesis, and there is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis among scientists. To attack evolution because it doesn't include one is silly, and only displays a massive inability to understand how science works or what evolutionary is about. Evolution is about the origin of species, not life. The ID crowd desperately needs to grasp this simple concept.
Apparently your uninformed about Intelligent Design. Here is the definition of Evolution, The definition is from http//education.yahoo.com
Quote:
evolution
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
Edgewaters, the definition is known, however "macro evolution" has not been observed, no "new organisms" or species have arisen. However we have many countless of "micro evolutionary" changes both among domestic and wild animals. For example that is why we have so many types of domestic dogs and micro changes in iguanas in the Galopogos Islands, which was observed by Darwin. He made a leap of "faith" from micro change to macro change. Change "within" kinds is what we observe! Edgewaters, as you yourself pointed out, by domestic breeding of dogs, "change" is limited to changes within kinds.
I don't see what's the problem those "scientists" see with Darwinian theories (it's more like a general paradigm, not a single theory as such): Blind mice tend to die, therefore mice normally ahve good vision. It's just a quaestion of life and death... nothing more and nothing else.
Where's the problem with that?
Note: Cuauhte: you don't need to yell (bold type). You'd better synthetize, so reading your posts is more amenable.
I don't see what's the problem those "scientists" see with Darwinian theories (it's more like a general paradigm, not a single theory as such
Hi Maju, the qoutations of European dillusioned darwinian macro evolutionist in my last post to you(that anyone can read), clearly show how darwin's theory is collapsing even as some today continue to have blind faith in that theory. Here is another "disillusioned darwinian macro evolutionist" who says believing in Darwinian evolution is no better then believing in "fairies." By the way he is a "nobel prize" winner and a biochemist. He knows more obviously about "macro evolution" then you and I.
Dr. Ernst Chain
- Nobel Prize winning biochemist.
Ernst Chain, who helped develop penicillin, in 1972, has called the theory of evolution, "a very
feeble attempt to understand the development of life." He is also on record as saying "I would rather
believe in fairies than in such wild speculation [as Darwinian evolution]".
Ernst Chain. Quoted in Ronald W. Clark,
"The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, 1985 p:147-148
500 scientist is only but a small fraction. You are talking as those this is something new. Scientist have been agreeing and disagreeing with all parts of science since the beginning. Christians also thought the world was the center of the universe and alot of scientist during that time said the same. But is it?
Since evolution came along scientists have always been for it or against it. The scientific community, right now is mostly for it. Showing me names of 500 scientist is nothing. You probably could have gotten the same amount or even alittle more then that from the time it evolution was made public to now. It hasn't made any inroads. The only schools trying to get intelligent design into schools are the Bible Belt, and they are getting shot down before they even make it.
Search over 100 years of studying Darwinian Macro Evolution and instead of becoming more "factual" and established, Darwin's theory is being assalted on many fronts because Darwinian Macro Evolution theory has failed to give legitimate conclusions to what we see around us in nature. Search, Darwin's theory is crumbling and has been crumbling for a long while now. That is why quotations can be given from "disillusioned darwinian macro" evolutionists. Here is another quote, Here is a quote for you to see your position is a matter of "blind faith."
Really? Science has proved otherwise. We continuosly find more to support evolution, especially since alot of your of articles are scientist who either disagree with evolution or made the statements were made in the 70s and 80s, already a decade behind the wealth of knowledge we have now.
Search again you refer to "time." You seem very confused about "time." You can't have it both ways. You say time is not a factor and then you say time is a factor. Do you not understand that Darwinian Macro Evolution demands time? You say we will not see Macro Evolution because we will not be around? Are you not refering to TIME? Any one reading will be like me very confused. Here is the quote from Wikipedia about the importance of Time in regards to Darwins Macro Evolutionary theory. The "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory is a key to a possible mechanism. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia again,
Evolution takes time, there are a number of factors. Life Span doesn't determine evolution. I thought I made myself clear on that. Change takes time, life span doesn't determine the time it takes.
Here let me put it this way, Macro evolution happens on a geological time scale. That is a more simple definition.
Search are you denying the quote of Halevi? Halevi appears to be a very educated and a fair person in any discussion I have participated with him in. Halevi is an Darwinian Macro Evolutionist who voted yes in spite of the fact he honestly admitted the "mechanisms" of Macro Evolution are not known or understood yet. So are you saying the "mechanism" of Darwinian Macro Evolution is "understood?" Here is the quote of Halevi who does "not" agree with you,
I never really heard a scientist say that. Do I dent it, no. There are a hundred of different hypothesis on how evolution works, thats science. Science isn't stuck to one idea until it can't be studied any longer.
Search all these examples are MICRO EVOLUTION or changes within kinds! Do you realize what this sounds like? Nonsense. Dogs are dogs! All reading this thread can see that by appealing to dogs, it is not supporting your "belief" in Darwinian Macro Evolution.
You say I don't understand evolution, yet you attacking one theory of evolution using what the other theory of evolution says. Darwin's Theory basicly puts talks of natural selection, that overtime and Microevolution is the main mode of evolution. The theory you keep attacking is Lamarckism, which says marcoevolution is the main mode of evolution.
For example, Lamarckism says that when the ancestor of the Giraffe stretched its' neck to reach leaves on a tree, it passed on a more muscled and stretched neck to its' offspring.
Darwin's says that mirco evolution is the main mode, like I described with the finch. A accumilation of different features over time and through genetic drift you gain different species.
Darwins theory takes millions of years due to micro, Lamarck's a much shorter time. Darwins theory when it first came out was almost disproved because the earth's age was believed to no older then a million years. But as technologies got better and the study of earth better, Darwin's theory fits perfectly now.
We have evolved very slightly from our parents, though you won't notice it, thats microevolution. Gene's like those of the foxes and even dogs are huge changes in evolution. As times go on, there can be totally different species, as long as dogs don't stay in a controlled enviroment. It's more likly the wolf will continue to evolve further as the dogs species is forced to stay in the same lineages.
Search the only point that can be made from the current DNA studies is that we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. Trying to determine when they lived exactly in the current DNA studies is not possible. Valid DNA studies put so many differing dates that it is of no significance at this time. However no doubt DNA studies may improve were the dates become consistent in the differing DNA studies. That is why Search, I did not say that Adam and Eve lived 12,000 years apart absolutely as one study suggested. I merely pointed out that it is essentially a second in time. That is all so please understand that.
I gave you links and tried explaining how these DNA studies work and I don't think you understand them. Right now the Y chromosome Adam is placed on a human that lived roughly about 60,000 years ago. They found this by comparing men's DNA with each other. The newest studies do not put the Adam and Eve's anywhere close to each other. For that to happen, you have to compare the Mitochondrial DNA of people, which is now put at about 170,000. The only way these two come closer together is by finding more men to study and seeing if there is a Y chromosome that goes back farther that they all share. Odds are there isn't, so he will remain where he is. 16 men who shared a Y chromosome were found to have a ancestor 60,000 years ago, other studies show that. But they also have different male lineages after that, a few might have shared the same one, it might have only have been one man who had a totally different Y chromosome which brought the common ancestor to 60,000. The Y chromosome continually changes as lineages die out. Don't forget subspecies can mate with each other, and they are around each other for millions of years. But those who stay where they are will share DNA and those who move out will become different species. Those who stayed in a small area of Africa and didn't migrate gave birth to modern man. Over a couple of hundred years, if it was a large isolated population of the same area, one Y chromsome, the oldest of them were passed around in the population.When I mean large, I only mean a population numbering around a hundred at most. Other lineages as they left would just die out.
Here's a example. One of my ancestors came over on the Mayflower. There are hundreds of others that share this common ancestor of mine. But through genetic drift my Y chromosome has different mutation compared to theirs. We do not carry the same DNA, we are totally different continueing different lineages. But by comparing our Y chromosome, you can see that we did have a common ancestor from that time. Western Europe may have a few lineages that a great number of people share, and Asia may have their own. But when they have children together, only then do they share the same. But if they continued isolated from each other, one lineage may die out bringing a new Y Chromosome Adam.
I hope that helps you understand it. I told you continuosly that it constantly changes, it's not stagnant.
Search, the point was clear in National Geographic and the year 1981. The point is the evidence does not exist for the "horse fossil series" and even though it was descredited in 1981, it is still taught in high schools and universities!
And I still don't know the name of the horses.
National Geographics also has articles on evolution afterwards. They showed new studies of evolution and so on. Does that mean you understand evolution as fact now? There are numerous studies, without knowing the name of the horses, how am I supposed to compare them with the new studies or the evolutionary tree of the horse?
[quote]Search, thank God He gave us free will. if you have a Bible, read Acts 10:34-35. God will not force you or anyone to be a believer. Check out this website out of interest or good reading as you gave me some websites to check out. www.bible.ca[/quote] Your god may have supposedly given us free will, but because I don't believe in him and because I wasn't baptized, I have to goto hell. I don't want any part of a supreme being who says "It's my way or the highway".
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Genetic
research says we evolved more from dolphins than apes, apes just
branched off from dolphins. The behaviors of humans and dolphins are
nearly alike:
-both have difficult births and are helped by females -apes hate water, we don't -apes will give birth alone and in the middle of the night with no problem, not so with us and dolphins -both show extreme emotion -notice how we both eat fish ^_^
there is a lot more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
Thats called convergent evolution. Gr 11 Bio.
Herefornow and Halevi, this theory is as good as the Darwinian Macro
Evolution due to misinterpretation of the data in nature.
No, im pretty sure scientists have established that our genomes are
more closely related to apes than dolphins. Its a matter of degree, of
course, since were also quite similar genetically to bananas, in terms
of number and kind of genes =)
Moreover, there is evidence suggesting the theoretical evolutionary
projection of dolphins branched off from the theoretical evolutionary
projection of hominids long long ago. Its all theory, of course.
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
500 scientist is only but a small fraction. You are talking as those this is something new. Scientist have been agreeing and disagreeing with all parts of science since the beginning. Christians also thought the world was the center of the universe and alot of scientist during that time said the same. But is it?
Search you must be confused. Apparently you do not realize that on a university campus' no one would admit to "rejecting" Darwinian Macro Evolution just a few years ago. Now that is happening and therefore my point stands. It is a historical fact. Your not aware of history and that is why no one denies that fact. My point is you would never find that position on college campus. Do you understand now? You just don't know the history. One would be hard pressed to find even "one" university professor to take that position. Intelligent Design is making inroads and that is the "only" point I am making. It is not hard to understand my friend, however "we" can be sure that the numbers will increase.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Since evolution came along scientists have always been for it or against it. The scientific community, right now is mostly for it. Showing me names of 500 scientist is nothing. You probably could have gotten the same amount or even alittle more then that from the time it evolution was made public to now. It hasn't made any inroads. The only schools trying to get intelligent design into schools are the Bible Belt, and they are getting shot down before they even make it.
Search I did not think I would be giving a "Geography" lesson. You must read more carefully or you may not know North from South, here are the locations given. Mit, is in Massuchusetts. Smithsonian is in Washington D.C. Cambridge University is in England. Ucla, USC, Berkeley all in California. Princeton is in New Jersey, University of Pennslyvania, University of Ohio, University of Washington were all mentioned. One in the south or in what you call the Bible belt was mentioned, the University of Georgia. Otherwise they are in the Northern United States. Either you did not read or your making "wild statements" to try to defend a collapsing Darwinian Macro Evolution. This appears to be "desparation" to make such a statement. Here is that part of the quote, Quote:
Discovery Institute
February 20, 2006
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search over 100 years of studying Darwinian Macro Evolution and instead of becoming more "factual" and established, Darwin's theory is being assalted on many fronts because Darwinian Macro Evolution theory has failed to give legitimate conclusions to what we see around us in nature. Search, Darwin's theory is crumbling and has been crumbling for a long while now. That is why quotations can be given from "disillusioned darwinian macro" evolutionists. Here is another quote, Here is a quote for you to see your position is a matter of "blind faith."
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Really? Science has proved otherwise. We continuosly find more to support evolution, especially since alot of your of articles are scientist who either disagree with evolution or made the statements were made in the 70s and 80s, already a decade behind the wealth of knowledge we have now.
Search, then give the evidence for Macro Evolution. Why have you not given evidence? The quotations shows Darwinian Macro Evolution is collapsing and has been collapsing for a long time.You have not provided any evidence, and what you thought was evidence was evidence for Micro Evolution. I urge all to read the posts of Search and mine and note how the evidence that was given supported Micro Evolution. It could be Search did not understand what the study he gave was saying. He cited for example a study in another thread, the Genesis thread. He gave an example of a study on "salmon," and thought it supported Macro Evolution, however due to the fact that speciation was occuring in 60-70 years, the "Media" "overreacted," because that did not agree with Darwinain Macro Evolutionists who contend that it takes "hundreds of thousands" of years for speciation! Darwinists could not allow the press to contradict there "beliefs."
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search again you refer to "time." You seem very confused about "time." You can't have it both ways. You say time is not a factor and then you say time is a factor. Do you not understand that Darwinian Macro Evolution demands time? You say we will not see Macro Evolution because we will not be around? Are you not refering to TIME? Any one reading will be like me very confused. Here is the quote from Wikipedia about the importance of Time in regards to Darwins Macro Evolutionary theory. The "importance of time" in the Darwinian Macro Evolution theory is a key to a possible mechanism. It appeared to me that in your earlier posts to me in another thread, you were making reference to "time." Here is a quote from Wikepedia again,
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Evolution takes time, there are a number of factors. Life Span doesn't determine evolution. I thought I made myself clear on that. Change takes time, life span doesn't determine the time it takes. Here let me put it this way, Macro evolution happens on a geological time scale. That is a more simple definition.
Everyone note, Search is saying Macro Evolution takes "time" and I am happy for this admission! What about the "insect world," my dear friend, Search? It seems you don't understand the point that I made in regards to the insect world. Macro evolution should be happening all over the place because insects have short life spands. I am sure you know how long a "fruit fly lives." Thus if "Macro Evolution" is happening it should be in the "insect world" however what we see in the insect world is what we see in "higher animals," changes within kinds. That was the results of the Dobzhansky experiments, who was an "darwinian macro evolutionist," in his studies on fruit flies. Here is the quote, This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org
Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organisman increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information).
In Dobzhanskys work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organisms offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.
Search, don't miss the point as this shows that "time" is not a factor. You attempt to say you have to use "Geological time scale" as a factor for darwinian macro evolution. What about the "insect world" Search? Time a factor there? I know others reading this understand my point, however by citing geological time( does an insect need geological time) shows the problem your trying to defend and the fact you have not even comprehended my point! Here is why "time" is not a factor, for the" life span"(another term you have been confused with), of the insect is considerably shorter then our life spans. The fruit fly was chosen for these experiment because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search are you denying the quote of Halevi? Halevi appears to be a very educated and a fair person in any discussion I have participated with him in. Halevi is an Darwinian Macro Evolutionist who voted yes in spite of the fact he honestly admitted the "mechanisms" of Macro Evolution are not known or understood yet. So are you saying the "mechanism" of Darwinian Macro Evolution is "understood?" Here is the quote of Halevi who does "not" agree with you,
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
I never really heard a scientist say that. Do I dent it, no. There are a hundred of different hypothesis on how evolution works, thats science. Science isn't stuck to one idea until it can't be studied any longer.
Search, do you realize what you just said? The mechanisms for Darwinian Macro Evolution are "HYPOTHESIS" only. All know that is what I have been saying all along! Darwinian Macro Evolution is not science as you know, for it is only a hypothesis. Remember the quote from the Macro Evolutionist in my earlier posts to you who admitted the "fossil record" does not support Macro Evolution but Intelligent Design, EVERYONE can read our posts.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search all these examples are MICRO EVOLUTION or changes within kinds! Do you realize what this sounds like? Nonsense. Dogs are dogs! All reading this thread can see that by appealing to dogs, it is not supporting your "belief" in Darwinian Macro Evolution.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
You say I don't understand evolution, yet you attacking one theory of evolution using what the other theory of evolution says. Darwin's Theory basicly puts talks of natural selection, that overtime and Microevolution is the main mode of evolution. The theory you keep attacking is Lamarckism, which says marcoevolution is the main mode of evolution.
Search, EVERYONE can read our posts! I have never referred to the Lamarkian theory of Evolution! Just like I never said 6000 years for the earth age. Now your saying I am critizing Lamark! All can see from my posts that I have consistently addressed my points and here it is again, to Darwinian Macro Evolution. By saying I am not addressing Darwin's theory indicates some desparation on your part in another area.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
For example, Lamarckism says that when the ancestor of the Giraffe stretched its' neck to reach leaves on a tree, it passed on a more muscled and stretched neck to its' offspring. Lamarck's a much shorter time.
Search, do you not realize what your are saying? You believe in "LAMARKIAN" evolution? Search I quote you, "Lamarck's a much shorter time." This is truly amazing my friend Search. Lamarkian evolution is not accepted by anyone today! It was proposed historically before Darwin's theory and was rejected essentially as "nonsense." Sense I am aware of the history, obviously I would not be critizing a discarded theory.You actually believe a giraffe stretching its neck passes on that feature in the genetic code? Search, this truly my friend, illustrates your are confused about Macro Evolution.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
Darwins theory takes millions of years due to micro, Lamarck's a much shorter time. Darwins theory when it first came out was almost disproved because the earth's age was believed to no older then a million years. But as technologies got better and the study of earth better, Darwin's theory fits perfectly now.
Search, Darwin's theory takes "MILLIONS" of years? Search your in a corner, you've put yourself in a corner my friend, maybe you can't perceive it but others reading our thread can. Time is the answer you say and that is why Darwinian Macro Evolution is not seen as it takes millions of years. What about the "INSECT WORLD?" Search is "time" a factor in the "insect world?" Why was the fruit fly chosen for experimentation to prove Macro Evolution? The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because they only live "10" days. These studies on fruit flies had been done since the 1906! The result of these fruit fly studies? Micro change! How many life times is that Search since 1906?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
We have evolved very slightly from our parents, though you won't notice it, thats microevolution. Gene's like those of the foxes and even dogs are huge changes in evolution. As times go on, there can be totally different species, as long as dogs don't stay in a controlled enviroment. It's more likly the wolf will continue to evolve further as the dogs species is forced to stay in the same lineages.
Search, oh my, is this science? Your an example of Micro Evolution from your parents? Not! Your an example of "inheritance." What adaptation did you undergo for micro evolution to occur? Search, please. Search, now with the foxes you mentioned, that could be possible with changing color as that could truly be an "adaptation" to environment that may have changed or if they have moved. However traits from your parents is not.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search the only point that can be made from the current DNA studies is that we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. Trying to determine when they lived exactly in the current DNA studies is not possible. Valid DNA studies put so many differing dates that it is of no significance at this time. However no doubt DNA studies may improve were the dates become consistent in the differing DNA studies. That is why Search, I did not say that Adam and Eve lived 12,000 years apart absolutely as one study suggested. I merely pointed out that it is essentially a second in time. That is all so please understand that.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Search, the point was clear in National Geographic and the year 1981. The point is the evidence does not exist for the "horse fossil series" and even though it was descredited in 1981, it is still taught in high schools and universities!
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy
National Geographics also has articles on evolution afterwards. They showed new studies of evolution and so on. Does that mean you understand evolution as fact now? There are numerous studies, without knowing the name of the horses, how am I supposed to compare them with the new studies or the evolutionary tree of the horse?
The point stands Search, just think about it. You do not accept the Multi-regional theory, it does not make sense to you, as you said earlier. I agree with you about that theory. The reason to reject both the "horse fossil series" and the multi-region theory on humanity is the same. Both are based on fossils and artists renditions! Its pure speculation, and that is why the quotation from National Geographic is significant today, as the "supposed ancestors" of the modern horse lived together as the article stated!
As you point out humanity has used that principle to get variety in domestic animals, however as you know changes are within types or kinds and no new organisms have ever been developed on the "Macro Evolution" level!
Very, very much incorrect. The most rapidly evolving organisms - eg bacteria, amoeba and even small microorganisms - have had numerous speciation (not just the minor changes you're talking about, but actual production of new species) events observed in the laboratory, and the rapidity with which new species can be generated via mutation at the micro-organic level is very, very well understood (and a great problem for us today).
In the natural world, speciation events have been observed in larger organisms, where separated groups have evolved new features and further, have been physically incapable of rejoining the reproductive community of their former relatives (which is the test for speciation - dogs beget dogs, they do not beget bears or cats). Examples include the Faroe Island mice or the introduced goatsbeard plants in the US.
Like most of IDs assertions, this one falls flat on its face and has to be shouted loudly, to drown out the sound of the elephant in the room stomping about.
As you point out humanity has used that principle to get variety in domestic animals, however as you know changes are within types or kinds and no new organisms have ever been developed on the "Macro Evolution" level!
Originally posted by edgewaters
Very, very much incorrect. The most rapidly evolving organisms - eg bacteria, amoeba and even small microorganisms - have had numerous speciation (not just the minor changes you're talking about, but actual production of new species) events observed in the laboratory, and the rapidity with which new species can be generated via mutation at the micro-organic level is very, very well understood (and a great problem for us today).
Well edgewater since you can't be specific, I can. Since you want to talk about the Microrganic world, lets use an example "all" are readily aware of. What about the "flu?" Every year we have to be concerned about the flu? Does the flu become an entirely different and new organism? Not! Flu like the example of dogs has Micro changes or evolution. Yes changes in viruses and bacteria are a problem for humanity, however those changes that do occur are changes within a specific organism or kind. That is why flu virus is always recognisable because of features that are typical of the flu virus. Humanity scrambles for a vaccine, not for a entirely different or new organism, but for the changes that occur in the flu virus. Point 2, the changes you say happened under laboratory conditions? Sounds like Intelligence is involved. Its still "bacteria," its still an "ameoba." Point 3, rapid "speciation is a great problem for Darwinian Macro Evolutionists as they teach that it takes "hundreds of thousands" of years for speciation. However rapid speciation would be expected by an Intelligent Design scientist as "micro-evolution" or changes would be expected to fit such a niche due to adaptation, and that is what we have observed in nature and in the fossil record. That is also what we see in domesticated animals.
Originally posted by edgewaters
In the natural world, speciation events have been observed in larger organisms, where separated groups have evolved new features and further, have been physically incapable of rejoining the reproductive community of their former relatives (which is the test for speciation - dogs beget dogs, they do not beget bears or cats). Examples include the Faroe Island mice or the introduced goatsbeard plants in the US.
We have been through this one. Mice are still mice, would that be a Micro evolution or change? You right! Dogs begets dogs, bears begets bears or cats begets cats, yes that is exactly what the Bible says in Genesis. Read Genesis 1:24-25 coincidentally are you quoting this passage? Your words are very similar. I know it may be a coincidence.
Originally posted by edgewaters
Like most of IDs assertions, this one falls flat on its face
It looks like, edgewater my friend, your position or statement is the one that falls flat on its face.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?
