For those of you who still accuse me of misrepresenting the theory of Darwinian evolution, please check out this imaginary drawing from, The Future is Wild, a publication by leading evolutionists in which they imagine what fish and animals will look like in millions of years.
The pictured "megasquid" is the place that evolution will take the common squid--a "cephalopod" (there are around 786 distinct living species of cephalopods) in a 100 million years. This is a squid transitioning into another species--a much larger oxygen-breathing, land-dwelling animal, with elephant-like legs. These creatures developed lungs because (over millions of years) "at last, cephalopods had discovered an efficient means of breathing air." I guess their gills didn't cut it for them. So both the male and female evolved lungs while under the water and crawled up on the land together.
This is nothing to do with "common ancestory." This is one species turning into another.
These men imagine the future, and Darwin imagined the past. Both are science fiction. . . . and evolutionists have the gall to call such wild speculation "science."
The theory is nothing but a joke, but the issue is so great it's not at all funny.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
You are Kidding
87 comments:
I don't think anyone is actually claiming this is science. The Future is Wild "documentary" and book are pure speculation, a big "what if" to bring in revenue to the Discovery Channel. No one actually takes this literally, and if they do, shame on them. It's just some cool imaginary animals, nothing more.
And the thing is, you should know this. The fact that you present this here as though this were actual serious science is a clear example of you saying, from one side of your mouth, that you don't misrepresent evolution, while misrepresenting evolution out of the other side.
Uh, I'm sure everyone will point this out again (you have done this in the past, with a childrens book on pretty much the same topic). This piece (the future is wild) is a work of speculation based on evolution. It is not what the theory of evolution predicts explicitly. I suppose when the discovery channel and such has those shows about what the future of society and technology will look like, you think that that discredits archaeology then too eh? "The future is wild" is not part of or central to the theory of evolution, it is entertainment; science fiction that uses evolution and throws in some speculation, NOT an official statement on evolution itself. I suppose that scientists aren't aloud to get speculative and have a little fun thinking about things now, hmm? Anything they say or create or do that involves scientific theories, you will now take as their statement about THE scientific theories themselves now won't you?
Come on Ray this is just pathetic.
The producers of the show willingly admit that it is SCIENCE FICTION.
This has NOTHING to do with the credibility and reliability of the theory of evolution by way of natural selection.
What's next? Are you going to parade around some Star Wars characters an posit that scientists are predicting that is the future for life on earth?
This is getting sad.
I'd never heard of that TV series before, so I googled it. It appears to be a science program which tries to engage people in the science of things, by speculating on the possibilities which could arise under particular circumstances. It does not appear to claim any knowledge of the future, or make any actual predictions.
It appears that the image you describe was imagined with the help of the known fact of "convergent evolution", where two (or more) lifeforms which diverged long ago can separately evolve similar traits. For example, the marsupial Tasmanian Tiger, which looks similar to a wolf, even though they both got to their appearance separately.
However, it's a television program Ray. It's not a scientific paper. You're right that it is speculation, which appears to perhaps get a few scientific principles right. However I'd wager that it gets more right on the subject than you ever have.
What was the point of your post anyway ? That someone bases a TV series on some fantastical speculation of future events, and you think that somehow negates evolution ?
On that basis, I conclude that the movie "The Davinci Code" disproves Christianity.
I don't see a problem here, unless the scientists had somehow claimed that the things they were saying were more than educated guesses based on their imaginations. I saw The Future Is Wild TV series and I can say that they did not (and the show was a lot of fun too). So what is the problem here? Biologists are not allowed to make educated guesses on things related to their field of study now? Nonsense.
It was fun to hear evolutionists talk about their imaginings of the future. But when they talk about the past, they're able to back up their conclusions with material evidence such as fossils, geology, and molecular biology. They spend lifetimes writing books and papers to explain exactly how they did their experiments and what backs up their conclusion. They explain their theories well and their research is (usually) extremely well founded.
Ray, the squid ancestor in the megasquid science fiction you posted is an example of a common ancestor of "megasquids."
Repeat -
Common Ancestor.
Evolution predicts common ancestors. To disprove evolution, you must disprove common ancestry.
If you want to disprove evolution, disprove what it predicts - common ancestors - not something it doesn't like cats turning into dogs.
Ray-
Here's a simple one for you.
I'm not going to ask you to prove that God, or Hell exists. Those are things that people with far greater minds than you or I posess have been unable to do.
I'm not going to ask you to prove that man and other animals haven't evolved from a common ancestor, even though there is a vast scientific concensus that they have.
I am going to ask you to show credible evidence to support your belief that just a few thousand years ago God destroyed all living things on Earth by means of a global flood, saving only Noah, seven other humans, and a boat full of animals.
If the Bible is, indeed, inerrant, and this actually happened, it shouldn't be hard for you to do.
But until you do, there is no reason for me, or anyone, for that matter, to rationally think that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories, written by men, replete with the errors and mistakes of men.
The pictured "megasquid" is one place that evolution might take one particular line of cephalopods, given enough time and open ecological niches on land. The authors did not think that this was the direction evolution must take, although presumably they thought that it was a direction it could (they speak of their assumptions in constructing these creatures: that, e.g. muscle tissue would not be much different from muscle tissue today, so that something like the megasquid would have to be constructible with the sorts of tissues available in living animals).
Although the TV version of The Future is Wild speaks carelessly as though scientists were predicting likely evolutionary trends, the interactions of species and their environments are too complex to permit confident predictions even over five million years, much less over a hundred million (and isn't the megasquid from the 200-million-year from now Pangaea Ultima?).
Males and females alike inherit mutant genes from their ancestors, and only a few of these genes are expressed very differently in the two sexes. There's no reason to suppose that an adaption that emerged gradually over many generations through the accumulation of many beneficial mutations would not be equally present in both males and females. Is this your strongest argument against the possibility of the megasquid?
Strictly speaking, what evolutionists call "science" is formulating and testing hypotheses about the past, based on evidence in the future. Reconstructions of the phylogeny of living species is based on comparisons of anatomy, genomes and proteins, augmented by evidence from fossils. It is far more than mere "speculation," and, given what scientists know about reproduction, inheritance, mutation, and natural selection, it is not "wild."
The Future is Wild, like speculations about other planets and star systems that we haven't visited yet, is based on science but is not science itself. I do not think anyone has claimed that it is. So yes, I do in fact still accuse you of misrepresenting the theory of evolution.
Ray, I was actually impressed that you had the decency to finally post your definition of 'species to species transitional forms'.
As was to be expected, it was repeatedly pointed out to you that the 'proof of evolution' you were demanding had nothing to do with what the theory of evolution actually claims. We're not just talking 'difference of opinion' here, it's spelled out in black and white for anyone to read. You don't understand the basics of the theory of evolution. That is now a proven fact. If the entire theory of Evolution were falsified tomorrow the fact would still remain, unarguably demonstrated in the comments section of your last post, you never understood what the theory of Evolution actually was (either that or, you were wilfully misrepresenting the theory).
I had hoped you would be man enough to accept and admit your misunderstanding. There's still time to do so. It would do a lot for your cause if you had the guts to admit your mistake and restructure your argument accordingly. It's all there for anyone to read, absolute proof that you've been either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting the actual claims of the theory of Evolution. The silence with which you answer the rebuttals of your last post only makes you look worse.
P.S. Anticipating a 'Why don't you answer the point I made here, chicken ??' response by Ray or one of his idolaters. As has already been pointed out, you're attempting to use a science fiction television program based on speculation about the types of creatures that could possibly exist in the future to disprove an actual proven scientific theory. That's as lame as me using old Dan Dare comics about 'Atomic supermen from Mars' to disprove atomic theory.
Ray,
I'm sorry if I sound a little blunt, it's just that I encourage the questioning of evolution, but if you do question evolution, you must not use straw man arguments.
Evolution predicts common ancestors, not sudden animal to animal transformations.
Species do not give birth to members of a different species. Evolution would be falsified if anyone observed a species giving birth to another species, even a new species.
Evolution is also not willful. No creature decides, "Oh, wouldn't it be great if I had lungs, I think I'll evolve a pair."
So, if you focus on what evolution actually predicts - common ancestry, more genetic similarities between similar species than distant species, random mutation, natural selection, etc... you might actually disprove evolution.
When you use unscientific terms like "kinds" and make up terms like "species-to-species transitional forms" referring to cats turning into dogs, and then you poke at evolutionary straw men like asking for examples of cows turning into fish, it makes you sound like you don't even have a college level education in biological sciences.
So, while I encourage you to question biologists and scientists, it's hard to take you seriously when it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
So, if you want my advice, it would be this: focus on common ancestry. No evolutionary biologist would say evolution doesn't predict common ancestry.
To disprove evolution you can try doing one of the following:
- Show that a species could not have had an ancestor. For example, try showing the spontaneous generation of a creature that resembles a modern creature.
- Show unequivocally that common ancestry fails to explain two species in the same genus or order.
- Show an example of a species giving birth to another species.
- Demonstrate that DNA cannot mutate and therefore random mutation could play no part in evolutionary theory.
- Show that there are few to no genetic similarities between different species. Similarly, you can attempt to demonstrate that the similarities and differences in the genetic sequence of species does not correspond to evolutionary theory.
If you can scientifically demonstrate any of the suggestions above, then you have successfully disproved evolution and you'll be my hero.
I love it!
First your a liar, then you use their own words against them...and you're still a liar.
I guess this squid story is along the same lines as Dr Oliver Curry's{from Darwin@ LSE} article a few years ago about the human race evolving into beautiful, well endowed people.
Too bad we have to wait 10,000 years to find out if he's right.
google: "Dr Oliver Curry beautiful people" to find out more info on this bogus article.
Oh wait, is this story bogus too? In the same way this squid story is? I'm confused.
@Steven J.
Thank you again for your explanation. I wanted to say something similar to what you just said, but I felt I should focus on the technical realities of evolutionary theory as opposed to why science fiction is still fiction. You took the words out of my mouth and made them even better.
Thanks again as always,
- Kaitlyn
The file name you gave the picture is perfect!
And yes, people who dream up that stuff do call it science, despite what others here claim.
Jason,
The book demonstrates that Ray's viewpoint of evolution is not solitary. Others also see evolution involving a mixing of characteristics from two or more different species. Hence, Ray uses a crockoduck to ridicule the theory. The imaginary crockoduck exhibits characteristics from two different species.
The idea of a fish evolving into a purely air-breathing creature involves the fish taking on characteristics of a land-dwelling creature.
The tragedy is that this occurrence exists only in the imagination. There is no empirical evidence and the fact that you have to imagine evolution occurring over thousands or millions of years only exacerbates the theory's pitiful plight.
Kaitlyn:
Please provide empirical evidence that common ancestry a la the theory of evolution is true.
your right JG about transitional evolution being science fiction. The creatures in the tv show were concocted based on evolutionary ideas. I mean really, what else do you think a sea creature with gills on land breathing from its newly formed lungs would look like?
Just agree that it looks absurd, be honest with yourself, don't say Ray is the crazy one, considering your abundant willingness to stand by your science fiction.
@camport--
google: "Dr Oliver Curry beautiful people" to find out more info on this bogus article.
Oh wait, is this story bogus too? In the same way this squid story is? I'm confused.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. I know.
But what do you expect? You get your science information from a televangelist.
I hear Kent Hovind is running an income tax preparation service from his jail cell. If you think Ray Comfort is a reliable source of science info, maybe you should check Kent out too?
Are you getting tired Ray? Are you about to close the business and confess this was all an experiment about willful ignorance among fundamentalist christians?
G.E.
First your a liar, then you use their own words against them...and you're still a liar.
Which words were employed against those who initially spoke them?
@Erikloza
You wrote:
Kaitlyn:
Please provide empirical evidence that common ancestry a la the theory of evolution is true.
Four words: human chromosome number two.
Since apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only 23, evolutionary theory predicts that either a chomosome split into two for other ape species or (more likely) that a human chromosome is the result of two fused chromosome pairs.
If we cannot find a fusion or separation point, evolution is falsified and apes and humans do not share a common ancestor.
The human genome project found that human chromosome two has such a telomere fusion point with the telomore bases "5'TTAGGG" running backwards and forward fusing the chromosome we find in apes with our own chromosome number two.
How do we know for certain that human chromosome 2 contains the missing ape chromosome DNA? Remember that apes and humans share between 95% to 99% of the same genetic material depending on how you do the counting. Our genetic code is nearly indistinguishable, so it's fairly trivial to compare chromosomes between humans and other apes for similarities.
Thus our chromosomes follow a prediction only possible if apes and humans have a common ancestor.
Do a google search for human chromosome two for more information and illustrations.
The tragedy is that this occurrence exists only in the imagination.
Please substantiate this assertion.
There is no empirical evidence
Please explain the extensive evidence of evolution given your above claim.
and the fact that you have to imagine evolution occurring over thousands or millions of years only exacerbates the theory's pitiful plight.
Who, specifically, has claimed that it is required to "imagine" evolution occurring?
Please provide empirical evidence that common ancestry a la the theory of evolution is true.
Are you unfamiliar with multiple lineages of descent constructed from the fossil record, the genetic record and the record of mitochondrial DNA all corroborating one another independently, or do you discount it for reasons that you have not yet disclosed?
Only stupid people get their science information from televangelists.
Ray is a religious fanatic who will say anything to sell DVDs and pick up credulous new converts to his religion. Trying to reason with religious fanatics about whether or not evolution is true is like trying to reason with neo-nazis about whether or not the holocaust really happened or not.
What I don't get is: After all the scandals there have been involving the likes of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Tilton and Ted Haggard, how is it possible anybody would believe somebody like Ray Comfort about what time of day it is?
The Future is Wild
Isn't this a book of evolution prophecy?
And the evolutionists still try to claim that their worldview is not “religious.”
While I despise these excessive exercises of imagination, I can see that this is a way of attracting students into thinking. Are these organisms possible at all? Do the make sense in any way? Can evolution produce such things?
I think the exaggeration, and letting programs calculate whatever thing does help get students interested and ask questions that will lead them into understanding the true concepts of evolution instead of the strawmen versions postulated by Ray and the like, and also to correct those versions taught by well-intentioned teachers who have not understood the theory well enough yet.
Now the part:
This is nothing to do with "common ancestory." This is one species turning into another.
Sure Ray? If so, can you send them a comment telling them about the mistake? If these are "experts" (I doubt "leading" is correct, but who knows), then they will correct the statement if there is such, or maybe they just used such description as a metaphor and you got them wrong.
G.E.
camport,
Despite his displays of ignorance, Ray is still a willful liar, and a treacherous charlatan.
G.E.
jeremy spears said:
"your right JG about transitional evolution being science fiction."
Clearly you do not understand the topic at hand and are trying to twist my words.
Debate honestly or not at all.
Kaitlyn said...
If you want to disprove evolution, disprove what it predicts - common ancestors - not something it doesn't like cats turning into dogs.
___
I don’t get this challenge. Common ancestors are in the past. Predictions are about the future. How do you predict what's happened? I suppose this is exactly why I think evolution is the greatest farce of our age because scientists can easily make fossils fit their preconceptions. “Oh, it looks like a lizard with feathers. Let’s force as much inferred evidence into this fossil to line up with our “predicted” assumptions, and then call it a fact.”
So what if I were to ask you, what is the common ancestor of the very first living cell? If the scientist can't get explain or prove the foundation of life itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don’t fall for it.
One thing that Ray has proven over and over is that Evolution is dogma for the Atheists. They just about foam at the mouth when we begin to question their sacred doctrines or reject the teachings of their scientist priesthood. Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally, how it went from one cell to two, how it did anything after that, how it split into male and female, how it began to breath air, and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke, will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith.
Jason said... pure speculation, a big "what if"
Just like evolution. A big "what if".
Kaitlyn said...
If we cannot find a fusion or separation point, evolution is falsified and apes and humans do not share a common ancestor.
How would have that "falsified" the theory? The theory was invented long before genes were even discovered. Evolutionists just simply changes the predictions (like Progressive revelation or an open Cannon.) Evolution cannot be falsified because it's religious and philosophical by nature - it's not science.
Thus our chromosomes follow a prediction only possible if apes and humans have a common ancestor.
Or common Designer.
It depends on where you place your faith. In God or In Man's very limited and often mistaken understanding.
Keith wrote:
"Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally, how it went from one cell to two, how it did anything after that, how it split into male and female, how it began to breath air, and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke, will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith."
Keith: you put the quote marks in the wrong place. They should have been around the word "thinking".
Before I try to answer any of this, I'd like to know: are you willing to listen? Do you even care that myself and other evolutionists have logical, reasoned answers to each and every one of these points? Or are you simply going to follow Rays shining example, and ignore us and continue to post rubbish?
Please: answer truthfully.
captain howdy said...
/"What I don't get is: After all the scandals there have been involving the likes of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Tilton and Ted Haggard, how is it possible anybody would believe somebody like Ray Comfort about what time of day it is?"/
Why play the “bad preachers” card, when you know that their have been cons, and liars, and fakes in the science world to deceive the masses with the fraud of evolution? You seem like a frustrated man, who’s a little immature to take life and death seriously. Why don’t you spend five minutes and use the brain God gave you to think about your sin… the sins you love and are willing to throw away your life for. Is it worth it?
I don’t get this challenge. Common ancestors are in the past. Predictions are about the future. How do you predict what's happened?
If the events of the past are not yet known with certainty, educated hypotheses regarding events of the past can yield predictions of what will be observed in the future as a result of those events occurring. These predictions can then be confirmed -- or falsified -- once new data is gathered. For example, the established lineage of hominid fossils led to the deduction of the prediction that any retrotransposon that is found in both chimpanzees and orangutans will also be found in humans; thus far, this prediction has been accurate as every retrotransposon found both in chimpanzees and orangutans is also found in humans.
A "prediction" is a statement speculating upon the nature of a future observation, not necessarily of an event. In the case of evolutionary science, predictions are frequently made about observations that will occur in the future; similarly, evolution leads to predictions of observations that should never occur -- as they would show that the theory is false -- such as precambrian rabbit fossils or a retrotransposon that is present in both whales and bovines but not in hippopotamuses.
I suppose this is exactly why I think evolution is the greatest farce of our age
It is not surprising that the basis of your belief is a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific methodology, however it is more rational to withhold conclusions when you are not yet informed regarding a subject.
because scientists can easily make fossils fit their preconceptions. “Oh, it looks like a lizard with feathers. Let’s force as much inferred evidence into this fossil to line up with our “predicted” assumptions, and then call it a fact.”
Perhaps you could demonstrate that this occurs, rather than merely assert it.
So what if I were to ask you, what is the common ancestor of the very first living cell? If the scientist can't get explain or prove the foundation of life itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don’t fall for it.
Your assertion is illogical. That the ultimate origin of a series of events cannot be discerned does not logically imply that no event in the series can be deduced. For example, it is not necessary for a police detective to explain the conditions and nature of the birth of a murder suspect in order to rationally explain why evidence indicates that the suspect committed murder.
One thing that Ray has proven over and over is that Evolution is dogma for the Atheists.
What, then, of theists who accept the validity of the theory of evolution?
Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally, how it went from one cell to two, how it did anything after that, how it split into male and female, how it began to breath air, and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke, will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith.
You are appealing to personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. As you have already demonstrated a lack of understanding of scientific methodoly, the rational basis for your incredulity itself is questionable.
@Keith
You pose some interesting points, and I think it might help to examine what you say in light of another theory such as gravity. I'll put what you write in bold.
I don’t get this challenge. Common ancestors are in the past. Predictions are about the future. How do you predict what's happened?
The main value of a theory is in its ability to make predictions as to the outcome of an experiment or observation before you do it.
Evolutionary theory predicts that all living creatures share common ancestors while gravitational theory predicts all matter that has ever existed exerts a gravitational force.
So we should look at any piece of matter and find a gravitational field, and we should look at every creature and find they descended from a common ancestor.
So what if I were to ask you, what is the common ancestor of the very first living cell? If the scientist can't get explain or prove the foundation of life itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don’t fall for it.
Let's apply your logic to gravity and see if it works any better.
What is the cause of gravity? If the scientist can't explain or prove the foundation of gravity itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don't fall for it.
Well, as it turns out, we don't need to understand the foundations of gravity and why it's so weak for our current theories and equations of gravity to work and make accurate predictions.
We may never know how life began on Earth, but evolutionary theory still has practical applications in modern biology and medicine.
They just about foam at the mouth when we begin to question their sacred doctrines or reject the teachings of their scientist priesthood.
I disagree with your assertion that evolution is a kind of dogma to atheists. In fact, I feel it's important to question the work done by not only evolutionary biologists, but all scientists.
However, I really get the impression that creationists are not approaching biological evolution from an objective or even scientific standpoint. Creationism feels more like a religious effort rather than an academic pursuit.
As such, I feel creationism feels like an effort to discredit evolution in an effort to bring praise and glory to God as opposed to an honest scientific endeavor to bring more scrutiny to the peer-review process.
And when you get to the point where your position on a scientific matter is more about proving your point than doing any actual science, you have lost all objectivity. You'll want to believe anything to win the argument and discard evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's ignorance.
In peace and love, and I hope I didn't offend,
- Kaitlyn
Keith,
Thus our chromosomes follow a prediction only possible if apes and humans have a common ancestor.
Or common Designer.
Why would a designer put remnants of a centromere in the fused human chromosome? Why would the designer put remnants of telomeres in the fused chromosome. In other words, why would the designer put evidence of fusion into the chromosome at all? Why would a designer put retroviruses in the very same position in several closely related species with changes enough to predict that the retrovirus inserted itself there before the separation of such species? (humans, chimps, bonobos)? Why the remnants of a gene that does not produce vitamin C? Why give these useless vitamin C-related genes the appearance that they are older than the separation of humans from chimps at all too?
G.E.
Blogger Ethan said...
"The Future is Wild
Isn't this a book of evolution prophecy?
And the evolutionists still try to claim that their worldview is not 'religious.'"
I've never see "The Future Is Wild" but it seems, to me, to be very much like "The World Without Us" in that it is a speculation of what would happen if certain events took place.
It is not a prophecy any more than my saying "Tomorrow, my boss will take me out to lunch."
Do I believe this event will ACTUALLY take place? No. But it has happen before (when my boss forgot to bring his lunch and hastily arranged a "business lunch") so it IS possible. I do not claim "divine inspiration" and, therefore, it is no prophecy.
Ethan said:
The Future is Wild
Isn't this a book of evolution prophecy?
And the evolutionists still try to claim that their worldview is not “religious.”
First, The Future is Wild is not a book of "evolution prophecy;" its authors were not trying to predict what would evolve, but to describe some things that might evolve.
There's more of this than you might suspect; there's a thriving niche market in "speculative evolution," discussing what might have evolved if, e.g. the nonavian dinosaurs had never gone extinct, or what might evolve in the future (Dougal Dixon has done at least three books on such topics). It has somewhat the same relationship to actual evolutionary biology that alternate history has to actual historians; it's not quite respectable but it's fairly popular.
Second, attempting to predict the future doesn't make an activity into a "religion," unless you're willing to declare that political pundits, the CIA, and your stockbrokers' office are all religious sects. Indeed, confusing predicting the future with "prophecy" is a fairly crude theological order: biblically, the point of prophecy is to reveal the will of God, not just to give people a heads-up on future events. The Future is Wild is not an attempt to persuade people to adopt some transcendental purpose, and so would not be "prophecy" in the religious sense even if it were an attempt to say what would happen rather than what could happen.
"These men imagine the future, and Darwin imagined the past. Both are science fiction. . . "
The past is science fiction? What are you talking about? Do you think before you type?
You do realise people are alowd to speculate right? You do it CONSTANTLY on your blog. God exists is pure speculation. I have not seen The Future is Wild but I know for a fact that you are using it as a strawman so as to be able to create more lies to spout to your followers.
You really are very dishonest Ray.
How would have that "falsified" the theory? The theory was invented long before genes were even discovered.
The timing of the discovery of genes is irrelevant; knowledge of genetics combined with the direct predictions of evolution imply that the lack of a fusion point in human DNA would have falsified evolution. Your question has no rational basis.
Evolutionists just simply changes the predictions (like Progressive revelation or an open Cannon.)
Please justify this assertion.
Evolution cannot be falsified because it's religious and philosophical by nature - it's not science.
Asserting that evolution is "not science" is not a logical argument; you do not demonstrate that evolution is "not science" merely by declaring such. Your assertion that evolution is not falsifiable is demonstrably false.
Or common Designer.
Please explain the observed physical processes that would form the basis of such an event.
It depends on where you place your faith. In God or In Man's very limited and often mistaken understanding.
Please explain this statement. Show that what you claim to be "God" is extant, and that your assertions regarding this "God" are entirely accurate.
Why play the “bad preachers” card, when you know that their have been cons, and liars, and fakes in the science world to deceive the masses with the fraud of evolution?
Please demonstrate that evolution is a "fraud". Please identify all of the "cons, liars and fakes" in the "science world" that have intentionally engaged in acts of deception.
Why don’t you spend five minutes and use the brain God gave you to think about your sin… the sins you love and are willing to throw away your life for. Is it worth it?
Please explain the relevance of your statement to the current discussion.
To all you lovely perfectly imperfect Christians. Why don't you "put your money" where your collective mouths are. You think evolution is a big fraud.
Consequently you should have nothing to do with anything that has resulted from scientist's understanding of evolutionary theory.
So don't go to the doctor. Don't use any medicines or eat anything. Let God "do it" just like you said he did everything else.
Keith (ex-atheist) replied to Kaitlyn:
If you want to disprove evolution, disprove what it predicts - common ancestors - not something it doesn't like cats turning into dogs.
___
I don’t get this challenge. Common ancestors are in the past. Predictions are about the future. How do you predict what's happened?
Things that have happened in the past often leave effects, evidence that can still be examined. A theory that a particular building was deliberately burned by an arsonist predicts, e.g. that examination of the burned ruins will find traces of accelerant. The theory that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to orangutans predicts that there will be some pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and chimps that are not shared by orangutans; furthermore, it predicts that where one of these genetic structures is shared by all three species, the sequence of nucleotides will be more similar between humans and chimps than between chimps and orangutans. If you'd prefer to discuss fossils, consider Tiktaalik roseae; the idea that tetrapods (land vertebrates) evolved from lobe-finned fish predicted that a transitional fossil with roughly these features would be found in rocks of this age.
I suppose this is exactly why I think evolution is the greatest farce of our age because scientists can easily make fossils fit their preconceptions. “Oh, it looks like a lizard with feathers. Let’s force as much inferred evidence into this fossil to line up with our “predicted” assumptions, and then call it a fact.”
Actually, the only fossil that looks much like a "lizard with feathers" is something called Longisquama, and evolutionists are not sure what to make of it (in part because it's not terribly well preserved). The feathered dinosaurs that are thought to show intermediate stages between primitive theropods and modern birds look like theropods, not lizards.
To go back to Tiktaalik, evolutionists would have been mightily confounded if they'd found, in those Devonian sediments, the fossils of an ichthyosaur, or of a primitive legged whale like Basilosaurus. Making discoveries like that fit their preconceptions would not be easy; it might not be possible at all.
So what if I were to ask you, what is the common ancestor of the very first living cell? If the scientist can't get explain or prove the foundation of life itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don’t fall for it.
By that token, if I can't explain where the Slavs originally came from, I can't know anything about the history of Russia. If I can't tell you how the Anglo-Saxons originally settled Britain, then nothing I tell you about the American Civil War can possibly be correct. On the other hand, if you can't tell me who Seth's wife was, we must conclude that creationists have no grounds for concluding that the human race exists, since according to the Bible it's all descended from him and her.
Just as one can write a history of World War II without knowing much about the Volkswanderung early in the Christian era that established the modern peoples of Europe, so one can reconstruct the phylogeny of vertebrates, or indeed of eukaryote life in general, without knowing how the first living cell came into being.
One thing that Ray has proven over and over is that Evolution is dogma for the Atheists. They just about foam at the mouth when we begin to question their sacred doctrines or reject the teachings of their scientist priesthood. Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally, how it went from one cell to two, how it did anything after that, how it split into male and female, how it began to breath air, and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke, will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith.
I've seen precious little evidence that you or Ray do even a little thinking about evolution, or desire to understand anything about it. Certainly, you don't seem to respond to attempts to answer your questions.
"Come on Ray this is just pathetic.
The producers of the show willingly admit that it is SCIENCE FICTION.
This has NOTHING to do with the credibility and reliability of the theory of evolution by way of natural selection.
What's next? Are you going to parade around some Star Wars characters an posit that scientists are predicting that is the future for life on earth?
This is getting sad."
JG
debate huh? twisting words huh? common man, you can do better than that. If you really wanted to debate you'd have posted a better original comment. Star Wars characters?
you didn't answer the question I posed to you....what would a creature coming from the sea which had gills yet had newly developed lungs look like(in your mind)? ....I'd bet it'd look alot like those bad CG animations of creatures in this discovery channel show.
JG answer that question and tell us all how that does not look like science fiction! Way to go Jeremy!
Isn't that just a book for children? It's just speculation for fun.
Ray, this sis starting to get a bit uncomfortable:
Either I'm watching the slow, lingering final death throes of what remains of your intellect.
Or I'm watching a liar, a thief, and a con man scraping the barrel to find increasingly bizzare concoctions to put in his snake oil bottles so that he can continue living off the backs of the poor, ignorant, unsuspecting individuals that he lies to on a daily basis.
Either way, its starting to make uncomfortable viewing.
Phil
So anyone who speculates on the future, based on the past, is engaging in lies?
Eternal damnation anyone?
Hi Quasar,
I can't speak for Keith, but I would really be interested in your answers to the questions provided.
Thanks in advance.
Oh that is priceless!
Great post Ray!
Ray,
Trying to disprove evolution with a post like this is totally disengenuous, and very foolish on your part. It makes you look like a boob.
Jeremy Spears said:
"debate huh? twisting words huh? common man, you can do better than that. If you really wanted to debate you'd have posted a better original comment. Star Wars characters?"
I really doubt that you understand what is going on here.
Ray posts a false dillema to try to discredit evolution. A self admitted, by the producers, SCIENCE FICTION series. How does this possibly discredit the fact of evolution?
I thought that Ray could do better and YOU missed the obvious irony in my bringing up Star Wars characters. Seriously, 3 posts to try to explain that to you is comical and you discredit Ray in the process because my Star Wars comment was another flavour of his argument to show to frivolity of his post.
So you really do not have issue with my point, it is with Ray's that you take issue.
Jeremy Spears said:
"you didn't answer the question I posed to you....what would a creature coming from the sea which had gills yet had newly developed lungs look like(in your mind)? ....I'd bet it'd look alot like those bad CG animations of creatures in this discovery channel show."
It does not matter what I can conceive of. What does that have to do with reality? Have you done in any research into the DOCUMENTED evidence of transition from fish to tetrapods? Lungfish? Tiktaalik? I doubt it.
@higklmeno--
Why don’t you spend five minutes and use the brain God gave you to think about your sin… the sins you love and are willing to throw away your life for. Is it worth it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There it is. You reject evolution because you're a religious fanatic. Evolution is a "sin."
Arguing with religious fanatics about whether evolution is true or not is like arguing with neo-nazis about whether the holocaust happened or not.
Let me ask you something--Do you also believe that all those evil scientists are lying about the earth going around the sun too? Because the book of Joshua says that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in the sky and it did.
In another post Ray says that:
Wolves, coyotes and German shepherds are of the same species (the canine family or "kind"), but they can't breed with cats or tigers (which are the felidae family or "kind").
Wolves, coyotes and german shepherds are not the same species. "Species" is not the same as "family." Spend 5 minutes yourself to look it up.
Only stupid people get their science information from televangelists. I have little doubt that when you read what Ray wrote (above) instead of saying 'what the ****' you went into an "amen" and "halleluya" spasm instead.
camport said...
I love it!
First your a liar, then you use their own words against them...and you're still a liar.
It is obvious that you do not have the intelligence to understand why Ray's post is disengenuous or what the subject of the documentary is trying to show.
You come off as a boob.
Saying this example disproves evolution is like saying Jesus Christ Superstar disproves Christianity because there were no electric guitars in 30 CE.
PhilG said "Ray, this sis starting to get a bit uncomfortable...."
My feelings exactly PhilG, well said.
Actually Capt Howdy...
The Oliver Curry story was a headline on Yahoo when I went to check my email one day.
It actually said something like "according to evolution, we'll all be beautiful people!"
I've never seen this particular story mentioned by Ray. I actually googled Oliver Curry and read this article{and reviews] every place I could find it. I honestly didn't know if it was a joke or not. Turns out, the guy is an ACTUAL scientist, with ACTUAL publications, working at a for real university.
As I figured, any article that makes evolution look stupid is discredited.
captain howdy asked-
"What I don't get is: After all the scandals there have been involving the likes of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Robert Tilton and Ted Haggard, how is it possible anybody would believe somebody like Ray Comfort about what time of day it is?"
Captain, although this is ofen incorrectly attributed to PT Barnum, his competitor, Mr. George Hull said-
"There's a sucker born every minute"
Many of them can be identified on this very site, usually prefacing their comments with "The fool says...", or "I am a graduate of WoTM..."
Correction-
It was actually Barnum's competitor David Hannum who was quoted as saying
"There's a sucker born every minute"
sorry for the confusion.
dale-
Thank you for taking the time to read my post, copy and paste, and insult me.
It reminds me of the need to pray for you.
;)
@Keith
Thanks for asking more questions. It seems like others took the task of answering them already. Thank you get_education, steven j, and dimensio.
If we cannot find a fusion or separation point, evolution is falsified and apes and humans do not share a common ancestor.
How would have that "falsified" the theory?
Because evolutionary theory predicts that something had to happen to that missing chromosome with as few genetic changes as possible. There's no evolutionary explanation if the chromosome disappeared or if we found it perfectly within another chromosome.
If evolutionary theory predicts that we should find a fusion or separation point, and we don't find a fusion or separation point, then the prediction is wrong and there's something wrong with evolutionary theory.
The theory was invented long before genes were even discovered.
The date of the theory's invention is irrelevant. If anything, it becomes easier to falsify theories as technology improves and our understanding of the world increases.
For example, it's rather trivial to falsify a flat earth theory and show that the Earth is a sphere today, but it wouldn't be so easy 6,000 years ago.
Thus our chromosomes follow a prediction only possible if apes and humans have a common ancestor.
Or common Designer.
No, because fusing two chromosomes together is an accurate prediction made by evolutionary theory.
However, such a fusion makes no sense from the standpoint of a common designer.
Even if we assume that the reason apes and humans share most of our DNA is because of an intelligent designer, we would expect our chromosomes to be intelligently laid out too.
Instead what we find are telomeres in the middle of our chromosomes which serve no coding purpose. There's no reason to put telomeres in the middle of a chromosome unless two chromosomes were fused together in a previous generation.
The conclusion is inescapable, if we were intelligently designed, predictions made about what to find in our chromosomes wouldn't conform to evolutionary theory. However, evolutionary predictions match what we see in our genes perfectly.
Look up the Coconut Crab, Ray. It is a perfect example of a sea creature that has evolved the ability to breathe air. In fact, it can no longer even survive in the water - it will drown just like you and me. Why is it any less believable that a squid could evolve this ability than a crab could?
Jason said "I don't think anyone is actually claiming this is science. The Future is Wild "documentary" and book are pure speculation, a big "what if" to bring in revenue to the Discovery Channel. No one actually takes this literally, and if they do, shame on them. It's just some cool imaginary animals, nothing more."
Well the list of 17 scientists involved in the project, believe it is more than just "imaginary".
Here's the list:
* R McNeill Alexander, zoologist
* Leticia Aviles, evolutionary biologist
* Phillip Currie, paleontologist and paleoornithologist (the study of prehistoric birds)
* Dougal Dixon, geologist
* Richard Fortey, paleontologist
* William Gilly, cell biologist, developmental biologist, and marine biologist
* Stephen Harris, mammalogist
* Kurt M. Kotrschal, zoologist
* Mike Linley, herpetologist
* Roy Livermore, palaeogeographer
* R. McNeill Alexander, specialist in biomechanics
* Karl J. Niklas, botanist
* Stephen Palumbi, marine biologist
* Jeremy Rayner, zoologist
* Stephen Sparks, geologist
* Bruce H. Tiffney, palaeobotanist
* Paul Valdes, paleoclimatologist"
See, your common average joe isn't going to bother with the gory details of peer-review articles.
The general public isn't going to sit and just read peer reviews all day.
Instead, they will watch Discovery Channel for their science intake.
And form their opinions based on TV.
We see this happen all the time.
So the Discovery channel putting on "Future is Wild" will have a much greater impact than some scientific data sheets to the public.
For instance, just browsing through the public reviews of the DVD's on Amazon...
One commentator on says "This program could be looked upon as a way to teach the fundamental ideas of natural selection in a new and different manner; looking to the future instead of the past."
Another reviewer says "The Future is Wild" is based on scientific assumptions as to what will live on Earth in millions of years from now. This series is not as far-fetched as it seems. Scientists comment through the whole series and explain how and why these animals might evolve."
And another reviewer, a Teacher, is using it in her classroom to teach her students: "I use it in high school, but it is just as useful for middle school. Please, if you are a science teacher, you owe it to yourself to see these DVDs. When you see how good a teaching tool they can be, you'll want to purchase these (or get your school media center to purchase them!)."
The Future is Wild website offers resources for teachers.
Now if this is just pure science fiction, why is the public allowing this series to be taught in schools?
And I thought that atheists thought ID was stupid and should not be taught in schools.?!? Yet they clearly don't have a problem teaching this science fiction in schools!
Talk about the greatest hypocrisy!
Even atheists here on this blog are contradicting themselves.
One says it's science fiction, another says it's plausible. Then others get on a rant to tell Ray he's an idiot when Ray is only pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
If anything is pathetic, it's the atheists trying too hard and falling over themselves on this blog.
They are quite addicted, to Ray.
One phrase sums up atheists here...
"Thou dost protest too much, methinks."
HAHAHAHA!! This is so funny! HAHAH!!
As I figured, any article that makes evolution look stupid is discredited.
Please explain and justify your assertion. In what way have articles made evolution appear to be "stupid"?
you didn't answer the question I posed to you....what would a creature coming from the sea which had gills yet had newly developed lungs look like(in your mind)?
It would likely appear to be a fish with larger and more effective gas bladders.
I'd bet it'd look alot like those bad CG animations of creatures in this discovery channel show.
Evidently you have done little research, then.
Woohoo! This is great news!
Most of you guys might be fearing the megasquid, but not me! Nope. I'm going to evolve into a MEGA-MAN! I'll have a lazer cannon on my arm... it'll be so cool!
Now... who do I pray to if I want to get something from the god of atheism?
Oh yeah. Myself.
"Dear me..."
Jeremy Spears,
you didn't answer the question I posed to you....what would a creature coming from the sea which had gills yet had newly developed lungs look like(in your mind)? ....I'd bet it'd look alot like those bad CG animations of creatures in this discovery channel show.
Google "mudskipper" and you will get some images of true animals that might give you an idea of what those fish that first evolved into semi-land lifestyles would look like. They do not have those lungs, though. Yes, they look strange, like those animation of the discovery channel.
Lungs derived from structures used as flotation devices by fish.
G.E.
I'm sure I'll get smacked for this question, but I'll ask anyways b/c I really like to be insulted.
What evolutionary need is there for a squid to become a land dwelling creature? Is he not getting what he needs in the water? I mean, for the last 800 googabillion years, the water has been just fine for him. Why does he need to evolve lungs?
Just wondering.
Dimensio-
Have you not read Oliver Curry's beautiful people article? You honestly don't think it makes the evolutionary tale look stupid?
That's the article of which I was referring. Though there are more...this one for example. Seriously, an elephant squid? I know, I know, this is just speculation, but still...
camport asked:
I'm sure I'll get smacked for this question, but I'll ask anyways b/c I really like to be insulted.
Well, then, in the spirit of Christian charity, "Methink'st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee, thou rank malmsey-nosed mumble-news! [Thou art] sick in the world's regard, wretched and low, a poor unminded outlaw sneaking home."
I do hope that was satisfactory.
What evolutionary need is there for a squid to become a land dwelling creature? Is he not getting what he needs in the water? I mean, for the last 800 googabillion years, the water has been just fine for him. Why does he need to evolve lungs?
Note that "a squid" in your question means, in fact, an entire population of squids, with variation among the different members of the population. Individual squids compete for resources, such as food, space, etc. Even if the species as a whole is doing well, individuals compete against each other (even if they don't actively strive against or fight one another; they can outbreed the carrying capacity of any environment, so that there's no longer enough for all, and if some get enough, some must get too little). In such a situation, the ability to exploit new resources can be very beneficial. A squid that could survive for a little while longer than other squids on land might be able to find food, or get to another body of water, that was unavailable to squids who couldn't stay out of water that long (I'm not sure what modifications to the squid's anatomy might do this; the gills of aquatic arachnids can keep them alive a long time on land if they're kept wet, and relatively small modifications were needed to turn them into "book lungs" that were suitable for full-time life on land, but I don't know whether anything similar could be done with squid gills). So even if a species as a whole has no use for colonizing the land, individuals and local populations might benefit from the ability.
Of course, when colonizing a new niche, it's helpful if the niche is empty: if our hypothetical future squids won't run into animals that are already better adapted to an aquatic or fully terrestrial lifestyle than the squids are. If I recall the premise of the scenario, the megasquid and other land squids evolve after a mass extinction that kills off many land animals and leaves land niches open even for initially weak competitors.
Just wondering.
camport replied to Dimensio:
Have you not read Oliver Curry's beautiful people article? You honestly don't think it makes the evolutionary tale look stupid?
I have read a couple of evolutionists who think that the article makes Oliver Curry look stupid, but that's not quite the same thing. What makes Curry's ideas look stupid? Not, surely, anything having to do with common ancestry of men and monkeys, and little enough to do with natural selection; he's describing a process of microevolution through sexual selection. Any creationists who accepts (as most young-earth creationists do) that Neanderthals, and even Homo erectus, were descendants of Adam and Eve already accept as much evolution (in as short a time) as Curry is proposing; this is purely "within kinds" evolution that creationists accept, so in what respect do his ideas make evolutionists look stupid without making creationists look equally stupid?
That's the article of which I was referring. Though there are more...this one for example. Seriously, an elephant squid? I know, I know, this is just speculation, but still...
Marine animals adapted to a terrestrial existence several times: vertebrates, molluscs, arthropods, and various worms all did it at least once. Having it done at least once more doesn't seem that much of a stretch.
What evolutionary need is there for a squid to become a land dwelling creature?
I am aware of none. I am aware of no biologist who has suggested that such a need exists, nor am I aware of any biologist who has predicted that such a transition is a reasonable expectation. I do not understand the basis for your inquiry.
Have you not read Oliver Curry's beautiful people article? You honestly don't think it makes the evolutionary tale look stupid?
I am unable to locate the original article authored by Dr. Curry, thus I am unable to evaluate the validity of his research. From various articles, Dr. Curry's hypothesis is derived from a number of considerations regarding the reliance upon humans of various technologies, and of current human sexual selection trends. I believe that the latter consideration is not a reliable indicator of future trends, however, as human sexual selection criteria is demonstrably subject to change over time.
It would appear that you are appealing to ridicule of a claim, rather than presenting a logical demonstration that the claim is false. Additionally, you have neglected to consider that even if Dr. Curry's predictions have no rational basis, it may be that it is Dr. Curry's research and personal biases that have resulted in such irrational conclusions, rather than any actual failing of the theory of evolution.
camport,
What evolutionary need is there for a squid to become a land dwelling creature? Is he not getting what he needs in the water? I mean, for the last 800 googabillion years, the water has been just fine for him. Why does he need to evolve lungs?
For a population of squids to get into evolving into a land animal there would be a bunch of necessary things to happen. However, having students thinking about it would clarify their understanding of evolution, which might be one source of inspiration for the authors of these more-than-wild-guesses. It is not just whether squids are happy or not in the water, but whether there would be a semi-land niche available for a sub-population to start covering, and whether there would be a sub-population that could, at least partially, take advantage of such niche. And this is but one little step ... I would have to speculate way too much to lead these squids into land, but you get the idea, I hope.
Have you not read Oliver Curry's beautiful people article?
Nope, nor will I.
You honestly don't think it makes the evolutionary tale look stupid?
Evolution is not a tale, and yes, the beautiful people thingie makes evolution look stupid. But that is because such thing is not evolution, it is an excessive exercise of imagination. People are entitled to imagine whatever they want, and the media is bound to pick up on things that look spectacular. So, I am not surprised if this came into some news. That does not mean thus guy represents science, nor that he understands evolution, truly, and if he does, it does not mean that his exercise represents what evolution is all about.
I hope this helps.
G.E.
Sophia wrote:
"Hi Quasar,
I can't speak for Keith, but I would really be interested in your answers to the questions provided.
Thanks in advance."
Seems fair enough. So long as someone is interested. Let's see...
Keith wrote:
"Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally,
Well, this depends on what Keith means by this. The common ancestor of modern life came from millions of years of evolution: it's just the only one who's decendants happened to survive. And because very early life was pretty... well... gooey, there may well not have been a single common ancestor: everything was capable of getting genetic material from everything else, and it was later that mechanisms developed which prevented this.
"I don't know whether to say "Ew", or "That sounds like a party!". Actually... ew." - Torg
If, however, he is talking about the common ancestor of all life: i.e. the first replicator, then you get into some rather complex chemistry. The thing to remember is that the first life needed only one feature: the ability to reproduce itself imperfectly. After that, evolution takes over, and starts to steadily increase complexity amonst the 'population', because complexity is often good for survival. And even when it isn't, there was plenty of room on earth. Not much competition, after all.
There are plenty of chemical compounds which are capable of replicating themselves.
The nicest explanation for someone who has no formal education in the area (like myself) that I've seen can be found on the TalkOrigins website, under the title "Lies, D*mn*d Lies,Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations". It points out why many of the proposed abiogenesis mechanisms are actually a lot more probable that you'd expect (certainly more probable that I thought, and I had already accepted abiogenesis as having occured).
Keith wrote
"how it went from one cell to two,"
This would have had to have happened much later, after what we'd call 'cells' had developed from that original replicating base. Consider a relationship where the cells group together, for safety. This is simple enough to evolve: creatures that group have a lesser chance of being eaten, or something equally unpleasant.
The new cells in this environment would gain a benefit from further symbosis, making larger and larger cell societies. These societies would share food and energy, because although this would be detrimental to the individual, it would be beneficial to the society. Some variations of individual would now be able to survive solely on what the others collect. They could then specialise: putting more energy into moving the society, or keeping it together, or grabbing nearby food. What we have now is the cellular equivilent of an anthill.
With some cells focusing entirely on moving the society as a whole, the others need not develop the ability to move: they can simply glue themselves to the congregate society, and move with it.
Eventually, you end up with this giant, multi-cellular congregate society/being, where each individual is incapable of suviving without the whole.
Keith wrote
"how it did anything after that,"
Errr... ?
Keith wrote
"how it split into male and female"
Well, there are many examples in nature of creatures who use reproduction methods alien to us. From simple asexual cloning, to storing both male and female genetic codes in the same creature, to simple lateral gene transfer, to more than two genders, reproduction has gone in many different directions, so it's hard to work out what path our ancestors may have taken.
One possible pathway: The basic organisms developed two sets of genes, because this is an advantage (both can be passed to offspring, offspring have more variation than simple cloning, offspring adapt to change faster). After this, the creatures began to use lateral gene transfer to 'share' their code (insert Ewwww...), and the effects were passed down to offspring. Combined with 'male and 'female' parts in each creature, lateral gene transfer gave creatures the ability to select which members of their species they would share their genes with. Slowly, this process became more refined: certain cells developed with the sole purpose of transferring genes (you know the ones), creatures began to 'judge' other creatures, and only share their genes with high quality members of their species... etc.
And thus was sexual reproduction born. Creepy, huh?
Keith wrote
"how it began to breath air"
This is a bit of a jump ahead from the micro-organisms we werte discussing, but it really isn't that hard. Modify gills enough and air becomes breathable. Just ask the lungfish and it's friends. ;)
In reality, there was an entire environment with no competition, and heaps of food. The first creatures capable of coming out of the water for very short periods (maybe a minute?) had everything their way: lots of food, protection from predators, etc. The longer they could stay out, the better. Eventually they became so good at leaving the water they had no need to return to it: but this would be many many generations later.
Keith wrote
" and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke"
I assume you mean intelligence? Well, that one is easy, at least. Creatures were already reacting to events: simply increase this capability. Social interactions even in simple creatures require a certain amount of smarts... just keep adding stuff to that squishy organ between your ears and hooking it up to the necessary segments.
Keith wrote
"will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith."
What it proves to me is that evolution takes a lot of deductive reasoning. I've not said anything that takes faith: everything above is backed up with evidence and is an extrapolation of the simple mechanisms of Natural Selection and Variation. But don't take my word for it: do the research! Look at the evidence for yourself! And don't just take the word of an illinformed, uneducated and frankly not very bright televangelist like Ray Comfort, (I'm sorry Ray, but it's true) about one of the deepest and most interesting subjects in modern science.
Qu.
Quasar said...
…there may well not have been a single common ancestor:
Speculation
…everything was capable of getting genetic material from everything else,
Strange Assumption
and it was later that mechanisms developed which prevented this.
Assumption but hinting toward Intelligence.
the first life needed only one feature: the ability to reproduce itself imperfectly.
How did it learn that? Miracle? Accident? Planned or unplaned?
After that, evolution takes over, and starts to steadily increase complexity amonst the 'population'
How? More Miracles? ...Accidents? If it's accidents, that's even more of a miracle.
So after many many more assumptions and speculations and inferences spoken as though you were there… a sucker might be brainwashed into the religion of evolution without a shred of evidence. Oh… but I'm suppose do the research myself for the evidence.
That’s the problem. Until I get a Phd. in microbiology and every other earth science field, you want me to put my faith in your worldview. It’s a mater of trust – and I don’t trust man’s ability to figure out life and death, especially apart from the revelation of God. I trust God. You have your faith I have mine.
AllFiredUp said:
Jason said "I don't think anyone is actually claiming this is science. The Future is Wild "documentary" and book are pure speculation, a big "what if" to bring in revenue to the Discovery Channel. No one actually takes this literally, and if they do, shame on them. It's just some cool imaginary animals, nothing more."
Well the list of 17 scientists involved in the project, believe it is more than just "imaginary".
Here's the list:
* R McNeill Alexander, zoologist
* Leticia Aviles, evolutionary biologist
* Phillip Currie, paleontologist and paleoornithologist (the study of prehistoric birds)
* Dougal Dixon, geologist
* Richard Fortey, paleontologist
* William Gilly, cell biologist, developmental biologist, and marine biologist
* Stephen Harris, mammalogist
* Kurt M. Kotrschal, zoologist
* Mike Linley, herpetologist
* Roy Livermore, palaeogeographer
* R. McNeill Alexander, specialist in biomechanics
* Karl J. Niklas, botanist
* Stephen Palumbi, marine biologist
* Jeremy Rayner, zoologist
* Stephen Sparks, geologist
* Bruce H. Tiffney, palaeobotanist
* Paul Valdes, paleoclimatologist"
See, your common average joe isn't going to bother with the gory details of peer-review articles.
The general public isn't going to sit and just read peer reviews all day.
Instead, they will watch Discovery Channel for their science intake.
And form their opinions based on TV.
We see this happen all the time.
So the Discovery channel putting on "Future is Wild" will have a much greater impact than some scientific data sheets to the public.
For instance, just browsing through the public reviews of the DVD's on Amazon...
One commentator on says "This program could be looked upon as a way to teach the fundamental ideas of natural selection in a new and different manner; looking to the future instead of the past."
Another reviewer says "The Future is Wild" is based on scientific assumptions as to what will live on Earth in millions of years from now. This series is not as far-fetched as it seems. Scientists comment through the whole series and explain how and why these animals might evolve."
And another reviewer, a Teacher, is using it in her classroom to teach her students: "I use it in high school, but it is just as useful for middle school. Please, if you are a science teacher, you owe it to yourself to see these DVDs. When you see how good a teaching tool they can be, you'll want to purchase these (or get your school media center to purchase them!)."
The Future is Wild website offers resources for teachers.
Now if this is just pure science fiction, why is the public allowing this series to be taught in schools?
And I thought that atheists thought ID was stupid and should not be taught in schools.?!? Yet they clearly don't have a problem teaching this science fiction in schools!
Talk about the greatest hypocrisy!
Even atheists here on this blog are contradicting themselves.
One says it's science fiction, another says it's plausible. Then others get on a rant to tell Ray he's an idiot when Ray is only pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.
If anything is pathetic, it's the atheists trying too hard and falling over themselves on this blog.
They are quite addicted, to Ray.
One phrase sums up atheists here...
"Thou dost protest too much, methinks."
I'm not an atheist. Have you ever heard of a book called The Physics of Star Trek? Star Trek is science fiction. No one thinks that the future will actually be Star Trek. And yet, some of it is based upon science. If it weren't based on science, it couldn't rightly be called science fiction, now could it? So you can use discussions of Star Trek as a jumping off point to discuss actual science. Do you see what I'm getting at? Do you see how nothing you've said negates what I said?
I do regret saying one thing: "It's just some cool imaginary animals, nothing more." I should have said, "It's just some cool imaginary animals whose existence has been postulated using known scientific principles, nothing more."
And I'm not an atheist.
"Blogger Keith (ex-atheist) said...
Quasar said...
the first life needed only one feature: the ability to reproduce itself imperfectly.
How did it learn that? Miracle? Accident? Planned or unplaned?"
Chemistry. Learn it.
Jason said:
I'm not an atheist. Have you ever heard of a book called The Physics of Star Trek? Star Trek is science fiction. No one thinks that the future will actually be Star Trek. And yet, some of it is based upon science. If it weren't based on science, it couldn't rightly be called science fiction, now could it? So you can use discussions of Star Trek as a jumping off point to discuss actual science. Do you see what I'm getting at? Do you see how nothing you've said negates what I said?
I do regret saying one thing: "It's just some cool imaginary animals, nothing more." I should have said, "It's just some cool imaginary animals whose existence has been postulated using known scientific principles, nothing more."
And I'm not an atheist.
I didn't meant to repeat myself. One "I'm not an atheist" is enough.
I don't get these comments:
"So what if I were to ask you, what is the common ancestor of the very first living cell? If the scientist can't get explain or prove the foundation of life itself, then their theory is build in midair. Don’t fall for it."
"Just a little thinking about where that “common ancestor” came from originally, how it went from one cell to two, how it did anything after that, how it split into male and female, how it began to breath air, and how it became a creature to figure out it’s all a fluke, will prove that Evolution takes a lot of faith."
"We may never know how life began on Earth, but evolutionary theory still has practical applications in modern biology and medicine."
The theories of how life began are coming along well, and there are some pretty remarkable things coming out of it.
The nonsense about mud being struck by lightning is just that - nonsense; nothing more than a metaphor at best.
Search out the video on youtube by cdk007 "The origin of life - abiogenesis" which demonstrates in not TOO technical terms how various chemicals floating around in a primordial earth can naturally become organised in such a way as to resemble extremely primitive not-even-proto-cells, replicate, and replicate with errors; thus beginning evolution, and life.
From the video quote:
"Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don't be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about."
See there are actually people out there applying their intelligence and discovering this amazing stuff. Isn't it cool?
It’s a mater of trust – and I don’t trust man’s ability to figure out life and death, especially apart from the revelation of God. I trust God.
Please demonstrate that what you trust actually is "God". Explain how you have discerned that what you believe to be "the revelation of God" is actually a "revelation of God", and not merely the product of human imagining or misinterpretation.
If you cannot do this, then your rejection of established science in favour of "revelation of God" is not rational.
Mr Smith said...
Chemistry. Learn it.
Who or what designed the laws for chemicals?
Were their properties planed or unplanned?
Who or what designed the laws for chemicals?
You are assuming that the "laws for chemicals" were in some way designed. Until you can demonstrate this, your question does not have a justified foundation.
Dimensio said...
You are assuming that the "laws for chemicals" were in some way designed. Until you can demonstrate this, your question does not have a justified foundation.
We all have assumptions. We aren't God. Do you assume that the laws of this universe happened by chance, a fluke, an accident, unplanned? That's big assumption. It also seems contrary to logic. Anything that I see that's complex, designed, and follows laws, it was created by someone intelligent. I think you just like to avoid the bigger questions because you really don’t have any answers and because your position is irrational.
Go ahead and ask your rhetorical questions to avoid being reasonable. You know you’re going to – you can’t help it. You so badly want to sound smart. Got to feed that ego somehow.
We all have assumptions.
I have not disputed this. This does not justify making an inquiry based upon an unsubstantiated premise.
We aren't God.
I will accept that this is generally true, though it may be dependent upon a specific definition of "God".
Do you assume that the laws of this universe happened by chance, a fluke, an accident, unplanned?
I do not claim to know the cause of the fundamental properties of the universe. As such, I make no assumption; I merely acknowledge my lack of knowledge upon the subject.
That's big assumption.
It is not one that I make, however.
It also seems contrary to logic.
Please justify this claim.
Anything that I see that's complex, designed, and follows laws, it was created by someone intelligent.
You are, in your justification, assuming the conclusion of your justification. You have not demonstrated that the fundamental properties of the universe were "designed", thus you cannot rationally employ that property in demonstrating that they were "created". Additionally, your assertion that the fundamental properties of the universe "follow laws" is puzzling; you are referencing the "laws" that are being followed as following those laws. I do not believe that is syntactically meaningful.
I think you just like to avoid the bigger questions because you really don’t have any answers and because your position is irrational.
You have not demonstrated any irrationality of my position. Additionally, that I acknowledge that I do not have an answer to a question is not an avoidance of the question, it is an honest admission of ignorance. Were I avoiding the question, I would not have made such an acknowledgement, nor would I have addressed the equestion at all.
Go ahead and ask your rhetorical questions to avoid being reasonable. You know you’re going to – you can’t help it. You so badly want to sound smart. Got to feed that ego somehow.
Your pre-emptive ad-hominem accusations do not justify your position.
"We all have assumptions."
Assumptions based on common trends yes.
"Anything that I see that's complex, designed, and follows laws, it was created by someone intelligent."
WHY? You have to actually make the connection, not just a declaration.
1. Particles themselves are quite simple in behavior, despite the way that we portray them with big words and lengthy math equations in textbooks. The simpler the object (in this case, particles) the simpler and more redundant a group of them will behave.
2. The reason we could pick up a mechanical device on the beach (let's remove watch, because that has the obvious indicator of a timepiece that we've seen humans specifically carrying and making) and assume it was made by an intelligent being is because the nature of it's parts aren't such that they would naturally form in that way. We know that the natural materials of living organisms do form components such as found in living organisms when left to their own devices.
3. Even if you showed that the simplest parts of the universe were designed, that still doesn't change the fact that, once those particles were created with all of their little behaviors, "complex" things such as life could still form without any help simply because of the nature of the materials that make up life.
"Go ahead and ask your rhetorical questions to avoid being reasonable. You know you’re going to – you can’t help it. You so badly want to sound smart. Got to feed that ego somehow."
Projection anyone? You're the one putting your "common sense", un-thoughtout perception over more than a century of hard work, discovery and the HUMILITY of people that knew that they had to actually prove and discover to know things, rather than just declaring themselves the winner because their "common sense" perceptions said so.
The reason we could pick up a mechanical device on the beach (let's remove watch, because that has the obvious indicator of a timepiece that we've seen humans specifically carrying and making) and assume it was made by an intelligent being is because the nature of it's parts aren't such that they would naturally form in that way. We know that the natural materials of living organisms do form components such as found in living organisms when left to their own devices.
There is another aspect to the contrasting of the two classes of entities, however. Not only are no "natural" processes -- that is, processes not known to involve intelligent entities of any kind -- known to produce mechanical devices, but such devices are known to be constructed by intelligent beings, and the means by which the construction is accomplished can be defined, demonstrated to occur and even directly replicated. Even if the mechanical device was not immediately obvious in function or overall construction, it could likely be compared to similar devices and possibly even reverse-engineered to reasonably estimate the construction method.
As has been thus far observed, there is no analogous process for the construction of living organisms. Thus far, no definition of a process for the construction of a living organism by an intelligent entity has been demonstrated. Not only are most creationists aware of this fact, but several have cited this in their own arguments. However, if no process is known for designing and constructing living organisms, it can not rationally be concluded that any living organism was "designed", as there is no possible means to derive an event: an event that is not meaningfully defined cannot rationally be deduced. If a process is not defined, then the results of that process, including artifacts that would be produced by the process, cannot be reasonably deduced and, as such, it is not possible to declare that any given observation constitutes evidence of the undefined process.
Note that defining a process by which living organisms could be "designed" would not be sufficient to demonstrate that extant organisms were "designed". The defined design process would necessarily lend itself toward predictions of what this process would leave behind, which could then be tested, however this would also directly imply the question of the identity of the 'designer'; asserting that living organisms 'require' a designer implies a designer that is itself a living organism, which can create the implication of an infinite regress.
Quasar wrote:
…there may well not have been a single common ancestor:
Keith replied:
Speculation
One possibility, among others, and one which fits the evidence a little better than the 'single common ancestor' to modern life. Yes, it is speculation, but it's also extragenous and irrelevant to the central point of my reply. I added it in there because it was an interesting and gooey side note, no other reason.
Quasar wrote:
…everything was capable of getting genetic material from everything else,
Keith replied:
Strange Assumption
Once again: it's also extragenous and irrelevant to the central point of my reply. An interesting side-note, nothing more.
Besides which, lateral gene transfer still happens today amongst many simple organisms. That, and a number of modern features which don't quite match a single ancestor theory, is why this concept is plausible.
Quasar wrote:
and it was later that mechanisms developed which prevented this.
Keith replied:
Assumption but hinting toward Intelligence
Lateral gene transfer doesn't allow natural selection to act efficiently, because even harmful mutations can spread very quickly through a population. A more controlled mechanism works better. Re-read my comments on gender evolution: I commented on it there.
Quasar wrote:
the first life needed only one feature: the ability to reproduce itself imperfectly.
Keith replied:
How did it learn that? Miracle? Accident? Planned or unplaned?
Once again, I recommend "Lies, D*mn*d Lies,Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" on TalkOrigins.
There are a number of non-biological chemical processes which can act as a replicating base, and many of them could have formed on early earth.
Quasar wrote:
After that, evolution takes over, and starts to steadily increase complexity amonst the 'population'
Keith replied:
How? More Miracles? Accidents? If it's accidents, that's even more of a miracle.
Mutation (imperfect replication) and natural selection (as a guiding force). You know: evolution.
Keith wrote:
So after many many more assumptions and speculations and inferences spoken as though you were there…
No, spoken as if I was giving a plausible, but speculative, explanation of how these things could occur, given what we know about how the world works and not contradicting it anywhere.
Keith wrote:
a sucker might be brainwashed into the religion of evolution without a shred of evidence.
I assure you, were links allowed, I would have provided references for all of these concepts and those references would have provided references to other references.
References!
As it is, I was giving a basic summary of the concepts, a logical explanation of how the events could have occured. All I wanted to do was show that these things aren't as far-fetched as you would have others believe.
Keith wrote:
Oh… but I'm suppose do the research myself for the evidence.
That’s the problem. Until I get a Phd. in microbiology and every other earth science field, you want me to put my faith in your worldview.
Good heavens no. For a start, I have no formal education whatsoever, unless you count two years in a Bachelor of Civil Engineering.
The only reason I know about these is that I'm interested in the theory of evolution, and have done a bit of research on my own with the help of Mr Internet.
And I consider faith a terrible thing. Don't have faith in anything. Do the research, find out the facts, make up your own mind. What you're currently doing is taking on faith that my explanations are without merit simply because they contradict your predefined opinion that evolution is a load of bull.
I don't want you or anyone to take anything on faith, especially not science, because faith strangles rational thought, and rational thought is what science is all about.
Post a Comment