Login

Join for Free!
112532 members


Evolutions unsolved questions!

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Springer » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:50 pm

Life is far too complex to be the result of random events. Therefore, there has to be design.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:48 am

Read my previous responses to excalibur.
Who is to say what is too complex and what isn't complex enough? If we're assuming that the simplest organism is the simplest of today, we would be wrong.

Incase you start debating on irreducible complexity, let me show you in advance an article on blood clotting in response to noted ID proponent Michael Behe.Behe has claimed blood clotting to be definite evidence of irreducible complexity(and design) in Darwin's Black Box.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... tting.html

In a nutshell, Miller shows that it isnt simply random events which create complex systems such as blood clots but complex systems are shaped by natural selection and may come about through the use of mechanisms with other functions.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby canalon » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:56 am

Springer wrote:Life is far too complex to be the result of random events. Therefore, there has to be design.


Proof of that?
The fact that you, or Behe cannot grasp cannot grasp how something works doesn't mean it's necessary false. Otherwise, considering how bad I have always been at physics, I should assume that all physical sciences are worthless. ANd we should probably come back to something that I could understand, like if things are falling it's because they are inclined to fall by nature (or God) :roll:

But sorry, it doesn't work. And if you say something is impossible, you better prove it with something more convincing than that. But maybe if you were to write it in bigger letters and repeating it you could convince me :P
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada


Postby canalon » Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:30 am

It's interesting that evolutionists, not creationists, use philosophical/ideological arguments to defend evolution. You are supposing how a designer would or would not conduct the creative process. You assume that God would be constrained by certain laws that you think are reasonable from your limited perspective.


How you are not using any philosophy? Open your eyes both of us are doing it. And it is good. Philosophy is the about understanding what is underlying our research. Defining what is science, what is a proof, is as important as gathering data.
And my assumption are simple, I use the definition of science given by Popper, and stick to the law of chemistry and physics, until the existence of something out of it can be proven to exist.
When I am suggesting that the design is poor it's not because I suppose God is limited, it's just to say that for something designed it is indeed poorly designed considering all the problems, and I rather say that random tinkering with what present could indde explain all those design flaws (and believe I wish I had been designed with good back rather than often suffering from it).
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Springer » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:27 am

[quote="Canalon
Proof of that?
The fact that you, or Behe cannot grasp cannot grasp how something works doesn't mean it's necessary false. Otherwise, considering how bad I have always been at physics, I should assume that all physical sciences are worthless. ANd we should probably come back to something that I could understand, like if things are falling it's because they are inclined to fall by nature (or God) :roll:

Acceptance of evolution requires that one has a preconceived belief in it, because the facts of nature do not support it. You are apparently using the "fact" that evolution is operational as support for the theory. You are using evolution to prove evolution. Thus, you see no need to understand any of its mechanisms. You can always hide behind the general theory of evolution and ignore it's fatal flaws, such as irreducible complexity. When confronted with impossible gaps from one form to another, the evolutionist will never give specific answers, but will gloss over the criticism or sweep it under the rug, with the hope that "someday evolution will explain how it happened." You expect the skeptic to just swallow evolution regardless of the fact that you have no rational explanation as to how it could have happened. Thus, evolution is non-falsifiable.

But sorry, it doesn't work. And if you say something is impossible, you better prove it with something more convincing than that. But maybe if you were to write it in bigger letters and repeating it you could convince me


The grand claims of evolution are both conceptually and biologically impossible. It is, for example, conceptually impossible to envision how a land mammal could evolve into a whale, unless one speaks only in broad generalizations (which evolutionists always do), and ignores critical details. You cannot explain, for example, the bird gradually evolved from a reptile. You cannot explain the evolution of powered flight in specific terms, or the evolution of the feather. You cannot explain the evolution of the bat's wing or of the whale from a land animal. All explanations are broad generalizations, which completely ignore the numerous gaps that cannot even be conceptually bridged. It is biologically impossible because of the infrequency of favorable mutations and the necessity that specific mutations would be required sequentially, and that simple is impossible by known laws of probability.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:03 pm

again, read miller's article, there's no need for sequential mutations
re.php?redir=true&xurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millerandlevine.com%2Fkm%2Fevol%2FDI%2Fclot%2FClotting.html
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby alextemplet » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:00 pm

If we're going to start debating on the evolution of whales or birds, then perhaps the extensively documented fossil evidence of amphibious whales (Ambulocetus, for example) or of half-bird-half-reptile animals such as Archaeopteryx, would demonstrate that these lineages are not broad generalizations, but contain exactly the critical details to show how these animals evolved.

If intelligent design is correct, then two things must be true:
1) The "perfect" designer created numerous organs that contain very obvious flaws, such as the already-mentioned back problems and the backwards wiring of the human eye; that is, the designer is not perfect.
2) This designer created in such a way as to make it look like evolution occurred, such as the remarkable similarity in structure among vertebrates and the fossil evidence of the many missing links that creationists wrongly claim don't exist; that is, the designer is a liar.

As a Catholic, I believe very strongly in a good and perfect God, and I raise very strong objections against any theory that calls God an imperfect liar. I have no problems with the idea that the entire universe was intelligently designed. The universe does seem to be precisely balanced to support life, and we'll probably never know what happened before the big bang, so perhaps this will always remain a valid idea. But that's just my opinion, and that debate lies beyond the scope of biology, so I'll leave it at that. As for using ID to attack evolution, it's a lost cause.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Excalibur » Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:40 pm

Hello Im back 8)

I do not believe in the theory of Evolution due to its incredible discrepencies!

The large human brain for one has proven extremely difficult for evolutionistis to account for.

One of the problems in the theories of human evolution has been the huge difference between the brain capacity of our genus (Homo) and the genus of our supposed ancestors (Australopithecus).

A recent discovery of a large Australopithecine skull was anticipated to lessen the gap between the two genera. However, a recent study, using computerized tomography technology has determined that the new skull (Stw 505) has a brain capacity no larger than the size of the largest published value.

However, in doing the measurements and checking their validity, the group determined that nearly all of the brain capacities of Australopithecine skulls is inflated. In reality, many Australopithecine skulls have brain capacities no larger than those of chimpanzees. Thus, there exists a huge difference between the brain capacity of the oldest Homo specimen and the largest Australopithecine skull. :?

Stay tuned for Excalibur 8) :!:
Excalibur
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:50 am

Postby Springer » Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:43 pm

alextemplet wrote:
If we're going to start debating on the evolution of whales or birds, then perhaps the extensively documented fossil evidence of amphibious whales (Ambulocetus, for example) or of half-bird-half-reptile animals such as Archaeopteryx, would demonstrate that these lineages are not broad generalizations, but contain exactly the critical details to show how these animals evolved.


None of the supposed repile-bird or land mammal-whale "intermediates are convincing. Just because someone names Ambulocetus and "amphibious whale" doesn't make it one. There are no unequivocal intermediates in existence...either living or in the fossil record. Darwin's theory of evolution requires millions of them... not just one or two of questionable validity.

If intelligent design is correct, then two things must be true:
1) The "perfect" designer created numerous organs that contain very obvious flaws, such as the already-mentioned back problems and the backwards wiring of the human eye; that is, the designer is not perfect.
2) This designer created in such a way as to make it look like evolution occurred, such as the remarkable similarity in structure among vertebrates and the fossil evidence of the many missing links that creationists wrongly claim don't exist; that is, the designer is a liar.


Your arguments are only a reflection of your religious philosophy and have no place in science. You have a preconceived believe as to how a creator would or would not act.

I have no problems with the idea that the entire universe was intelligently designed. The universe does seem to be precisely balanced to support life, and we'll probably never know what happened before the big bang, so perhaps this will always remain a valid idea. But that's just my opinion, and that debate lies beyond the scope of biology, so I'll leave it at that. As for using ID to attack evolution, it's a lost cause.[/
quote]
You've stated that you believe in God. If you deny that there is any evidence in intelligent design in nature, then why do you believe in intelligent design? Why do you believe in God if you see no evidence of HIs existence?
Darwinism assumes atheism. Although never expressly stated, it is always implied. The theory of evolution presumes that no intelligent design is operative in nature.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:50 am

First of all, I believe Ambulocetus means walking whale, not amphibious whale, and it was given that name because that's what it was, not because that's what we want it to be. And there aren't just one or two missing links, but many, many of them. Nor is their validity questionable, but solidly proven.

And perhaps my main arguments to ID are influenced by my religious background, but you also seem to have a preconceived notion of how a creator would act, or else you wouldn't have written that paragraph asking why I believe in God. That's really not an issue for this forum, but since you have asked, I will tell you. Read my previous post very carefully. I never once stated that I see no evidence of God's existence. In fact, I believe I said something along the lines of:

"I have no problems with the idea that the entire universe was intelligently designed. The universe does seem to be precisely balanced to support life, and we'll probably never know what happened before the big bang, so perhaps this will always remain a valid idea."

There it is. I believe that the entire universe was designed by God in such a way as to be able to support and evolve life. As I said before, we'll probably never know what happened before the big bang, and the fact that the universe is so perfectly designed to make life possible convinces me that God was behind it. Once that was done, God may or may not have intervened in the evolution of life on earth; if He did, He kept the evidence of His interference carefully hidden. Perhaps God sent the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs and made the evolution of man possible? Maybe, or maybe not; we'll probably never know for sure. God designed the universe in such a way as to let it run on its own according the natural laws that He designed; evolution simply falls under those natural laws just like the cycle of the seasons or the orbits of the planets. And I don't believe that because I have a preconceived notion that that's how it happened, but because that's what I see in the world around me and in the universe as a whole. That is why I believe in God.

If you wish to continue this discussion further, then I'll gladly discuss it, but here is not the place. Please send me an email if you wish to continue questioning my faith. My address is atemplet1985@yahoo.com. And if this post is deleted for its overly religious nature, I both understand and apologize.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby Excalibur » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:27 am

Did you know that There is not even a single fossil verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed.

This fact is confirmed, albeit reluctantly, by a well-known evolutionist authority, Robert L. Carroll, who is the author of Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution: "We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians."

Whilest reading the debate between Springer and alextemplet I remembered the Coelacanth fish.

The so called absence between an intermediate of a fish and an amphibian which evolutionists considered as the ancestor of all land animals. However this mythical story was proven wrong when a living specimen of the fish was caught in the Indian ocean!!! :lol:

The evolutionist paleontologist, J.L.B. Smith, said that he could not have been more surprised if he had come across a living dinosaur. :shock:
Excalibur
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:50 am

Postby alextemplet » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:37 am

What about walking fish like Acanthostega or Ichthyostega? Those were literally walking fish, exactly the missing links you claim do not exist.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron