Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Holy smokes. That is a long enough post that I might think you are serious about the title...

The Golem Project Harms Evolutionary Ideas?

a lot of the above is restating of wrong assumptions about the experiment. its interpeting weakly. sum things r true, like the absence of transitional fossils but it is overly simplified. the only creative thing there i think is the setting up of boundary conditions.

one thing i find wierd is that when it isnt TRADIOTIONAL evolution, why is it assumed that the only available alternative is intelligent design???? that is just ridiculous, if taken literally than its true that currently, sum kind of guiding variable wud make sense. but the phrase "intelligent design" implied multiple things which are far more unlikely than traditional evolution if not at all impossible to begin with.

so no, those interpretations, even if considered correct are not SUPPORT for intelligent design if intelligent design is considered as it normally is.

So scientists find a robotic way to show how evolution works, and ID advocates try to spin it sideways? Nice.

nature offers no "intelligence" or process to select the appropriate building blocks to ensure the availability of the largest number of workable design options.
...that would be natural selection providing the "intelligence." The rest are the same ID arguments that have been recycled for a couple decades now. Any self-respecting biologist can not only answer the question, but does so with very little trouble.

But we don't need robots for this either. We've observed "real" evolution in fruit flies in a controlled setting, whose life spans are so short that we can monitor progress through generations.

Evolution's a fact. The God of the Gaps theory is a convenient hiding place for ID'ists that cling tenuously to whatever they can, but they have never offered one iota of evidence for their theory...they just attempt to bring down the opposing, as so far correct, theory. This is no different. Even if evolving bots didn't support evolution (maybe they're neutral on the issue) it also doesn't support ID.

Well, either the Robots will destroy us like in Terminator.

Or they will please and serve us like in Dune.

Or they will take over our jobs...thus creating a world in which a proletariat will no longer have any means of survival.

Pick one and have fun with it.



Never understood why I remember the sequel more than the original.

Originally posted by ushomefree
www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots Fail. doped

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Fail. doped

Agreed... from the website:

"What we believe"

"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses."

They lack the ability to look at something objectively; it's not very "scientific", if you ask me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed... from the website:

"What we believe"

"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses."

They lack the ability to look at something objectively; it's not very "scientific", if you ask me.

Yes, science does not respect belief, it respects nature as it is observed.

Originally posted by ushomefree
www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots
There is a difference between "challenging evolution" and "having no real impact on evolution," whob.

my fav thing is when people use simulations to prove things in real life right or wrong. calculations are not always 100 % accurate. besides there are so many other factors. it doesnt take in weather envirnment predators prey etc. evolution is a fact like digimark stated.

if there is a god, maybe lets think about this people, he made creatures able to (*GASP*) evolve

Originally posted by chickenlover98
my fav thing is when people use simulations to prove things in real life right or wrong. calculations are not always 100 % accurate. besides there are so many other factors. it doesnt take in weather envirnment predators prey etc. evolution is a fact like digimark stated.

if there is a god, maybe lets think about this people, he made creatures able to (*GASP*) evolve

Edit

As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

You are wrong. Cats and dog have a common ancestor. Sure dogs can't become cats and cats can't become dogs, but long ago there was an animal that became both cats and dogs. You are looking at the tree of life in a backward way.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Ever heard of mutation?

Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html
About the author:

Originally posted by ushomefree
Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

Not all mutations are harmful (having part of the sickle cell mutation leads to immunity to certain diseases, having a large penis is benifical in finding a mate, different skin colors are preferable in different environments)

Really anyone who's made it through junior-high in a western nation can see the massive holes in those claims. Not to mention out and out lies.

Everything you stated are perfect examples of "microevolution," not macroevolution.

Originally posted by ushomefree


Everything you stated are perfect examples of "microevolution," not macroevolution.

There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction is man made, just like the idea of species is also man made. There is no real barrier between one species and another. This barrier is only in the minds of humans. Nature will do what it does. If there is a way, nature will find it, given enough time.

So ushomefree, how old is the Earth?

The cosmos are about 14 billion years old; the age of planet Earth is unknown to me, and I'm not willing to venture a guess. Why?

Originally posted by ushomefree
The cosmos are about 14 billion years old; the age of planet Earth is unknown to me, and I'm not willing to venture a guess. Why?

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. That is a long time. Evolution requires a long time to work in the way that it has in the past.

Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?" Shakyamunison, you have had interesting things to state on KMC forums, but in this case, you are being ridiculous; you are smarter than this. For someone to state that micro and macroevolution are indifferent, makes such a claim out of ignorance. What is your problem? I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth. You know damn well that my last few posts were an honest revelation of current scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?"

I though that was Lamarkians or ID people.

Even if it was Darwinists how would it matter in terms of this discussion?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth.

I suppose it's never occurred to you that you are plenty closed to truth

Originally posted by ushomefree
Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?" Shakyamunison, you have had interesting things to state on KMC forums, but in this case, you are being ridiculous; you are smarter than this. For someone to state that micro and macroevolution are indifferent, makes such a claim out of ignorance. What is your problem? I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth. You know damn well that my last few posts were an honest revelation of current scientific knowledge.

Holy shit, man. Relax.

Almost from the beginning, you can tell that the article you posted was not objective. Of course you are going to get criticised for posting something like this.

I see a couple of flaws with this premise in the first place.

1. If you believe evolution is real and can logically support it, you can create software the mimics evolution. Creating that software does not prove evolution is real, it only proves that you can create software that fits into your idea of evolution.

2.(The following is my opinion.) Why can't the ID BE evolution? Why do we assign our God immature and short sighted powers such as spontaneous creation? Why can't our God actually be intelligent and have created all Earth life, including humans, over the course of 4.5 billion years? It would take immense intelligence to calculate all of those variables required to create humanity inside this 14 billion year old universe via evolution...and who knows, God may have created other intelligent species over the course of 14 billions years as that only seems probable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction is man made, just like the idea of species is also man made. There is no real barrier between one species and another. This barrier is only in the minds of humans. Nature will do what it does. If there is a way, nature will find it, given enough time.

So ushomefree, how old is the Earth?

i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now microevolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...2.(The following is my opinion.) Why can't the ID BE evolution? Why do we assign our God immature and short sighted powers such as spontaneous creation? Why can't our God actually be intelligent and have created all Earth life, including humans, over the course of 4.5 billion years? It would take immense intelligence to calculate all of those variables required to create humanity inside this 14 billion year old universe via evolution...and who knows, God may have created other intelligent species over the course of 14 billions years as that only seems probable.

Because it is not written in the bible.

Great post.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now microevolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

I don't believe in speciation. It's a cataloging system we invented. It is a snapshot of nature, but we don't understand how it functions over time. We are beginning to learn. Just because we can't reproduce something that takes millions of years to happen, only means we can't do it. Nature can, over time.

Using a larger font does nothing to validate religiously driven drivel. All it does is present an eyesore.

Yet another thread under the assumption that if one were to disprove evolution, then it would make ID or creationism any more valid.

Oh and whole genome duplication, ancestral species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, anaerobic metabolism of glucose, etc. Waste of time.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now micro-evolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

I have finally come to a conclusion about you. On the surface, someone looking over your posts may think you are stupid. I have read your posts for a while now and I have tried to assess you. You constantly misspell things and make many typos and sometimes things are out of whack in your posts. At first, I thought that you were a "straining intellectual". (In other words, you love this stuff but lack the intelligence to really "be there".) Then, I realized more and more that you have excellent incite, even if I don't agree with it. Now, I realize that you are very educated and intelligent. The problems I saw in your posts disappeared as I truly read your posts for what you intended. In other words, I have learned the lesson that I thought I already knew: just because a person misspells things and has disorder in their posts, does not mean they are unintelligent because their message is diluted with mistakes. Even though I never posted it, I apologize for misjudging you.

Back on topic...

I loved your post and it helped me better understand your perspective and I, of course, agree with it. Macro and micro evolution exist. Macro evolution, if successful, can make a huge evolutionary leap for a species and its progeny, but it is very unlikely to be successful. Over time, micro-evolution can have the same benefits, but it takes more time and it can lead to abrupt extinction. Really thinking about it, macro-evolution usually doesn't lead to the extinction of a species because the organism or organisms in that species that exhibit a fatal macro-evolutionary trait will die out usually at birth, thereby, damming the replication of those negative genes.

They can, however, be beneficial for a time but then lend itself to an extinction of a species as the environment changes thereby being, in the long run, a negative adaptation. (I am, of course, referring to micro and macro evolution...which are almost one in the same..they just differ in time frame and the number of genes involved, really.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because it is not written in the bible.

Great post.

Thanks...and yes, it is unfortunate that people like to interpret things literally instead of figuratively.

heeeheeeheeee{sneeky look} im glad you understand {whispers " have fallen under the spell of my hypnotic psuedointellectualism as you didnt realise that the spelling mistakes werent spelling mistakes at all but subtle messages being sent to your subconcious}.

really, im not that learnes, but i ended up thining about sum stuff a lot at times and can atleats make sense of sum things on a whole{terrible at actual studies though}. and i cant really help spelling mistakes, my fingers do not often do what my hands tell them to do, plus anxiety makes my hands shake a bit so it ends up with lotsa spelling mistakes.

anyway, as a theory, i think we need to come up with explanations where admittedly, classic evolution fails to provide convincing answer. not saying that ID does either, but we need to be scientific about it. ofcourse, nuthing wrong with pursuing evolution, as it may just be our lack of knowledge right now, and not the theory which is wrong.

oh yea, n as i said, mutation of alleales is very different from mutations of genes which lead to new species. you can have a million different beneficial mutations in alleales but you still end up with the same GENE and hence the same species. speciation is a hard nut to crack that way, really.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Please read Richard Dawkins' "The Information Challenge". I believe a google search will turn it up. It'll take you all of 15 minutes to read. ID theorists love using the "information of the genome" conundrum, without realizing that it is not quite the thorn in the side to Darwinists as they might think it is.

And if you think dogs and cats (or dogs and any other animal) don't have a common ancestor sometime in the past, you're just plain wrong.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And if you think dogs and cats (or dogs and any other animal) don't have a common ancestor sometime in the past, you're just plain wrong.


Ahhh, but you see, he is just plain wrong based on the theory of evolution...something we believe to be true based on facts.

It got to the point where I needed to say something, if only for the benefit of those who know evolution's a fact but don't have the technical knowledge to refute ushome (who I gave up a while ago on trying to convince of anything). I could paraphrase Dawkins point about the genome that ushome was trying to exploit, but it's a multi-tiered answer that is ideal for ID advocates because it's hard to answer in a short sound-bite or a few brief paragraphs.

Some duplicitous creationists actually tried to trick Dawkins himself into faltering over the question, which is what sparked the article he wrote on it.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

...the first 2 paragraphs I find particular funny, despite the fact that the reality of it is a bit sobering.

^ k , but all that i found relevant there was the presence of common, non functional genes in most animals which maye suggets a common ancestor. i dont see anything there which can be desribed as a practical example of changes in GENES{not just alleales} leading to mutation which can lead to the development of a new species.

ill due fairness though, u were probably referring to ushom's points.

Yes, evolution is a simple, straightforward theory; but it is characterised into micro and macro processes.



Yes, but only in variation (microevolution). This applies to all organisms of course.



Yes, but only in variation.



Only in a biological sense. All organisms share similar characteristics, but all are fundamentally different.



Absolutely!



Yes, but only in variation.



Yes, but the variations are "limited in scope." Molecular Biology proves this.



Exactly, because macroevolution is false.



Science confirms that life arose quickly--hence the theory punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian Period alone affirms that life arose quickly.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes, evolution is a simple, straightforward theory; but it is characterised into micro and macro processes.



Yes, but only in variation (microevolution). This applies to all organisms of course.



Yes, but only in variation.



Only in a biological sense. All organisms share similar characteristics, but all are fundamentally different.



Absolutely!



Yes, but only in variation.



Yes, but the variations are "limited in scope." Molecular Biology proves this.



Exactly, because macroevolution is false.



Science confirms that life arose quickly--hence the theory punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian Period alone affirms that life arose quickly.

All life is simply variations. From the amoeba to the tree and to the human, we are all variations. The limits you talk about are the limits that we human have in our minds. Nature is not limited in the way you think it is.

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long long time (millions of year). Therefore, the distinction is not important to the big picture.

or the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes


just like that, no proof to back your claim

Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

Symmetric Chaos-

Macroevolution was first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko) in his work entitled, "Variabilitat und Variation." Filipchenko was an evolutionist.

he also "coined" microevolution, so that bring us too......................

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

You sure do have a lot of faith in science. There were a great number of scientists who believe the Steady State theory, but it was wrong aslo.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

a lot of people believe in the teaching and ways of this buddah too, is that trhoug faith or just because nothing else really sounded cool

Originally posted by anaconda
a lot of people believe in the teaching and ways of this buddah too, is that trhoug faith or just because nothing else really sounded cool

I assume it's because something about Buddhism resonated with them. So it would be because nothing else sounded quite as "cool".

How does that apply here?

It seems others are doing a pretty good job of debunking whatever ridiculous ID claims surface. I won't touch on most of them, but will add one more.

The "Cambrian Explosion" happened simply due to the fact that prior to that period in history, animals did not have skeletal structures with enough density to survive into fossilization. So it seems like we suddenly have all sorts of new lifeforms during that period, but it is a misleading claim.

The Cambrian Explosion has been used for all sorts of purposes by people who wish to further their own agenda. Wonderful as it is to our fossil records, it has done just as much harm by those who misuse it.

because its a way of reasoning

DNA Wrapping and Replication

Pj9cdVeIntY

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

Originally posted by ushomefree
DNA Wrapping and Replication

Pj9cdVeIntY

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

bravo you find a high school science video. would you like a cookie?

I have a feeling ushome isn't talking about robots anymore, and is just using the thread as a thinly veiled excuse to post whatever material he wants....most of it, seemingly, erroneous interpretations of evolutionary science.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

I'd like to post this again, because it's really a synopsis of the death knell for anything having to do with ID. I guess ushome didn't read the article I posted, which answers the question of genome information that he's been harping about for a couple pages. Or if he did, he's remained silent on it.

But SC's point, and the best one, is that ID has no evidence for itself. It's great at telling evolutionary theorists what they can't yet explain (which they usually can). But not so great at coming up with a new theory that is testable or even scientific. You can call it selective interpretation, you can call it the God of the Gaps theory, you can call it what you want. It's the same tripe that has slowly morphed from its creationist beginnings, and has been soundly defeated at every turn.

The Supreme Court ruling against the teaching of ID in schools as a scientific theory was voted on by a majority of conservative judges, who, if anything, would be supportive of ID. But the bid to give it equal footing with evolution failed miserably, due to an utter lack of evidence for their theory. Only in local school systems that are overrun and/or governed by religious extremists has the ruling been overturned.

...

...and at this point, like I stated before, this thread become nothing more than a soapbox for ushome's material. It should be merged with the evolution/creationism thread, or (better yet) just closed. It's not a new topic, just an old one dressed up (much like ID itself).

And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

Originally posted by ushomefree
And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

this is about robots evolving not genetics. stop trying to disprove evolution using the human genome. first of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic

Originally posted by anaconda
or the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes


just like that, no proof to back your claim

i have two first languages, english and urdu. even though urdu is my native tongue, i am better at english because it is an easier language.

chickenlover98-

I don't even want to know how you came up with your membership name, but I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98-

I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

In all honesty, outside of your short discussion with Shaky, you yourself have yet to make a single argument in the entirety of this thread.

Posting the opinions of others is not debate, it is, as Digi puts it, soapboxing.

If you want to convince someone of something you must provide support for an alternative. You have done no such thing so you cannot rationally expect to alter anyone's opinion which means you are interesting purely in causing conflict.

What do you mean? Provide an example?

sigh, a lot of people here are under the impression that micro evolution and macro evolution are the same. they are NOT, micro evolution deals with variations or mutation of ALLEALES not "GENES" {i.e. EYE COLOUR is a gene, however BLUE EYECOLOUR/BLACK EYE COLOUR/HAZEL EYE COLOUR, is an ALLEALE} . when mutation in alleales occur, a vairiation in the EXISTING characteristic is introduced{i.e. purple eye colour}, it still leads to the same species with the same genes. but when a GEANE mutates, a whole characteristic changes{i.e. eye changes to bio doppler radar}. the first happens enough to be observed, because changes in the bases{a c g t, if i remember corretcly} which basically make up all our dna, an happen at one place due to ionisation etc . and MAY create a new sequaence which creates a new protien for the given function{eye colou etc}. the PROBLEM with GENE mutation is that not only a number of bases have to change into sumthing compatible at the same time{very very very unlikely at random if not impossible} but also that unless the change happens in such a way that the start and stop codons {the genetic pointers which tell define and seperate sequences of bases into specific GENES for the mRNA which translates and forms the corresponding tRNA which forms the corrsponding protiens} remain wheere they are{very very unlikely} and ALSO are suitable for the newly introduced base sequences for the new gene{very very evry very evry unlikely as to the probability being almost null} , then the WHOLE frame of reference of the dna is thrown off for the mrna and hence it forms all sorts of random protiens

to elaborate it in a way that can be understoof, take the below sentence

i.am.a.boy.

now imagine that a reader can only understand the words which are seperated by the dots.

now THIS is what a mutation in an ALLEALE {lets define the GENE as the space where the sex of the character is written} looks like {microevolution}

i.am.a.girl.

however, this is what an IDEAL mutation in a GENE looks like

i.am.a.tree.

not only do the numbers of words have to be the same, but they have to form a coeherent meaning with the previous words

usually what happens in this

ia.ma.b.roker. {the frame of reference is thrown of my addition of a base or word and the start and stop codon remain the same i.e. the dots/fullstop }

or this

i.am.atree.. {the stop and start codon are mutated/changed}

now assume that the sentence is millions of alphabets long with even more dots in between them. once the WHOLE frame of reference is thrown uff, EVERYTHING in the cell gets screwed up. and it starts producing random protiens which usually end up killing the cell.

to top it off, it normally takes a combination of different kinds of genes to create changes in the phenotype{physical characteristics that you observe} so the new code has to work in ocnjunction with many other things {or EVERYTHING has to precisely change} to produce a compatible chnage which makes it even more unlikely.

it does not mean that ID is viable at all, but traditional evolution, taken at the basic level only works well for micro evolutution, not macro evolution.

leonheartmm-

Excellent post; I enjoyed the read! And thank you. I'd enjoy expressing our views regarding intelligent design in the future, but not tonight. I have been on this forum (off and on) for the past 5 to 6 hours (ha ha ha)!

By the way, can you recommend any good books and/or DVD movies covering evolution or intelligent design? Perhaps the Anthropic Principle? I can surely spend a moment surfing the web to find some, but I just thought I would ask. I have DVD movies that you may find interesting. Examples are, but not limited to:

(1) Journey towards Creation www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=736&cat=0&bestseller],

(2) Unlocking the Mystery of Life www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=386&cat=25&page=3],

(3) The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old Earth www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=520&cat=25&page=3], and

(4) The Elegant Universe www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=529&cat=25&page=3].

Take care.

^ erm, u DO know that im a very anti organised relegion{i.e. christianity n stuff} right?

anyway ur welcome

Yes, I do. The only DVD having anything to do with Christianity is the "John Ankerberg Show Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old Earth," but even in that, the debate covers scientific issues--the big bang theory for example. In my opinion, even an atheist would enjoy watching it. There is talk about theology and so forth, but the debate keeps in line with science for the most part. "Journey towards Creation" is about the big bang theory. The others cover physics and molecular biology, not Christianity (or any religion for the matter).

As a matter of fact leonheartmm, send me an e-mail message containing your mailing address--could also be your work address--and I will mail you a copy of anyone of the DVD videos you'd like. But I will not have the time to do this until after Christmas and New Years; you could bet on mid-January. And did you have any DVD material to recommend?

canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

dude u still have dialup? jesus christ man. maybe its time for an upgrade. cable isnt really expensive ne more ne ways. like 20 $ a month. i recommend time warner or comcast

actually i wanted a broadband which didnt have a download limit, otherwise, its useless{everything or nuthig kinda thing} cause im an anime addict. but that one is 1mbp/s and costs like 5000 rupeas{around 70 dollars } per month. and that is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy TOOO expensive for me and my parents wud never agree. so im stuck with dialup for now.{n all the other here are like 256-500 kbps with a 4 gb download limit which kinda sucks for me}

Fair enough. If you are open to further discussion, please provide an example. I'm not doubting that people carelessly misrepresent biblical scripture to support an ideal, specifically in science; but you must refrain from sterotyping, not that you do. Other people within the Christian community are not bent on deception and fashion objective views--just fair and balanced inquiry. Hugh Ross, an Astronomer, who created the "Reasons to Believe" institute, is one of many examples. His website contains over a hundred articles categorized in organized fashion. And all articles contained therein have corresponding bibliographies; for an idea of what I preach, read the article, "The Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First." URL: www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first.

DigiMark007-

I read the article, "The Information Challenge" authored by Richard Dawkins; I enjoyed the article, but it lacked persuasive power in my view. And, I do not mean that in a condescending way. In retrospect, I thought the article was shortsighted, not to mention over-simplified. Richard Dawkins is a genius, and I am incapable of refuting his article word-for-word; but I did find a response to his article authored by Casey Luskin entitled, "A Response to Dr. Dawkins' 'The Information Challenge.'" Please, extend the same courtesy and read his response. URL: http://www.discovery.org/a/4278.

^ no i do not stereotype. there are many good people who follow organised relegion, but generally organised relegion is a negetive force.

what i was talking about though, was not necessarily people who follow it, but the ideology itself, in most of the probable and viable interpretations of christianity/judaism/islam/hinduism etc u find much which has no logical bases and which is very negetive for the individual and the society.

Elaborate please.

sigh, i do not wanna start another huge debate which starts from square one. look at sum of the other threads here.

No problem; but did you have DVD recommendations regarding topics that I mentioned?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

where do you live. no offense i thought rupees was a the currency of zelda games. here in the states high speed internet like cable is around like 20 $ a month and it usually downloads a file at around 650 kb/s. no download limit usually.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
where do you live. no offense i thought rupees was a the currency of zelda games. here in the states high speed internet like cable is around like 20 $ a month and it usually downloads a file at around 650 kb/s. no download limit usually.

LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

well how would i know. im sorry dude, but im 15. how would i have ne clue of what the currency of a middle eastern country is?

and i meant KB/s i think

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

pakistan. n i was talking about bIts.

Hehe. Like I said in the other thread (where you, mercifully, haven't attempted to pull me into a debate yet) I haven't the time currently to offer a full rebuttal. I will though, when time allows.

Though it is important to note that Professor Dawkins refuses to "debate" creationists/ID'ists for the reason that it seems to put them on a level playing field with evolution. There isn't a debate among anyone versed in the field (and unswayed by religious tendencies), but debating creationists makes it seem like they are on equal footing with one another, as if there's actually something to debate.

So I'm thrilled that I'll get to respond to that man's article regarding the Information Challenge (which was only written because Dawkins was tricked and wanted to clear his name...not because he had any actual desire to debate with them). Because for me to respond will be far less dignified that if Dawkins were to respond to it (which I assure you he never will) because it would lend credibility to the argument based solely on the opponent, not its content.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well how would i know. im sorry dude, but im 15. how would i have ne clue of what the currency of a middle eastern country is?

and i meant KB/s i think

Being 15 is not really an excuse.

I learned that stuff in middle school in like the 5th or 6th grade. You should pay attention in school and learn how to use an internet search engine so that you don't come off so ignorant to a foreigner.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster, that's all.

and it isnt a middle easter country, its a central/southern asian one.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and it isnt a middle easter country, its a central/southern asian one.

LOL!!! I missed that commenting on that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Being 15 is not really an excuse.

I learned that stuff in middle school in like the 5th or 6th grade. You should pay attention in school and learn how to use an internet search engine so that you don't come off so ignorant to a foreigner.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster, that's all.

sorry, but public schools here do not focus on foreign countries much man. and it really is an excuse to be 15, at least in LA it is. and even when we learn about other countries we usually dont learn their currency. try coming here and watch the teachers. every teacher here pretty much fails. dont be suprised when you find out most people have F's or D's. all im saying is honestly, how the **** would i know what kind of currency they use in pakistan. we havent studied that country for a millisecond

Originally posted by chickenlover98
sorry, but public schools here do not focus on foreign countries much man. and it really is an excuse to be 15, at least in LA it is. and even when we learn about other countries we usually dont learn their currency. try coming here and watch the teachers. every teacher here pretty much fails. dont be suprised when you find out most people have F's or D's. all im saying is honestly, how the **** would i know what kind of currency they use in pakistan. we havent studied that country for a millisecond

I guess you were that "child left behind"?

google it you whiner! You know how to use the interwebz...get over it mr. links rupees!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you were that "child left behind"?

google it you whiner! You know how to use the interwebz...get over it mr. links rupees!

dont get me started on george W. bush. the no child left behind system is flawed and teachs children more poorly than before. in fact all the teachers are fighting it. im not saying im stupid, im saying the system is flawed. we are not taught about other countries usually. and besides no offense to anyone, but pakistan hasnt made a gigantic mark in history. i9t isnt the first country we would learn about ne way

actually it has. the birthplace of sum of the most ancient{if not the most ancient} indus valley civilisation. the development of the most ancient advaced civilisation. the leading architecture and technology of the most olden times. the oldest relegion in the world{hinduism}-{this is along with india btw} . hmm, the mughal empire, prolly one of the greatest in the world ever. hmmmm,wars, culture, architecture, contributions to art and science in the dark ages of europe, atomic power of the world. well ltosa stuff. besides, the food here is AWESOME! the thing is, about as much has happened in pakistan as in india, historically, but india projects itself in an unreal and superfitial way so every1 outside it{specially in the western world} seems to think its sum place of wonderous mysticism and spirituality when actually its nuthing more than a shithole of corruption, unbeleiveable poverty and waste disposal problems + rigid caste syste, where most peopel only care about becoming like the materialistic west - kinda sad and ironic. its kinda like pakistan, only worse, in all those areas other than corruption.

infact{and this is without bias} pakistan has more cultural significance of the two, more old architectural and cultural triumphs which can be seen, better food, and MUCH better geography {infact, it is in many ways, one of the , if not THE most beutiful country in thw world in the northern areas, atleast geographically}. relegious extremis is the only problem but it is nowhere as overwhelming as the media makes it sound.

oh no wait, what was this thread about ?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
dont get me started on george W. bush. the no child left behind system is flawed and teachs children more poorly than before. in fact all the teachers are fighting it. im not saying im stupid, im saying the system is flawed. we are not taught about other countries usually. and besides no offense to anyone, but pakistan hasnt made a gigantic mark in history. i9t isnt the first country we would learn about ne way

The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".

lol, true. i guess i didnt think about it.

Dongs, dong, dongs, fifty-two dongs.

^saint jingle dongs is among us.

^agree 100%. i find it rather funny though that creationists who are PAYED to do this stuff are not even versed enough in the subject to call out any REAL arguments hampering traditional macroevolution{i.e, the one i TRIED to convey a page or two back concerning alleales/stop codons/multiple tranlations required before a phenotype is produced}.
no, theyd rather stick to sumthing silly like "information" in the genome{the definition to which they themselves wont be able to give u as they constantly mix up INFORMATION with observable and non harmful change in the entire GENE/phenotype}. its a FACT that new information is added every time a minor or major mutations takes place. otherwise, the world wud be RID OF CANCER!

just silly. anyhow, ur right, just because traditional evolution MIGHT not account for all phenomenon{and the above example isnt even an ARGUMENT against the thing} doesnt mean a very specific form of I.D that the other purson proposes, is.

I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

We figured that one out.

Too long for me to read.

Originally posted by JackieCD
Too long for me to read.

I tried to be a brief as possible.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

True, which is why I specified that my response was not intended for him, because I don't expect any changes in his attitude and tactics. But if enough people see the rebuttal, either as a justification for evolution, or just a crippling knock against ID, it will do some good.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if im ever in court, can you be my lawyer?

Sure.



...though I don't know the first thing about law. Somehow I doubt internet debating skills translate directly to the courtroom...but I guess one can hope.

tinkabear

Originally posted by DigiMark007
True, which is why I specified that my response was not intended for him, because I don't expect any changes in his attitude and tactics. But if enough people see the rebuttal, either as a justification for evolution, or just a crippling knock against ID, it will do some good.



Sure.



...though I don't know the first thing about law. Somehow I doubt internet debating skills translate directly to the courtroom...but I guess one can hope.

tinkabear

you should become a lawyer then. your a VERY good debater, and you'd do very well. you provide very good arguments, word them well and substantiate them much better than pretty much anyone else in the forum, although leonheartmm and shaky come close. and when you do become a lawyer, ima call you and higher u.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
tinkabear Aww... cute.

Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.

Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Aww... cute.

Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.

I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

Once again, it's gene duplication, not genome. But read my response to ushome's article to get a better understanding of how it adds to total genome information. It's back on the last page.

Shakya's newspaper analogy works fairly well too.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you should become a lawyer then. your a VERY good debater, and you'd do very well. you provide very good arguments, word them well and substantiate them much better than pretty much anyone else in the forum, although leonheartmm and shaky come close. and when you do become a lawyer, ima call you and higher u.

Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.

Fine. I should have said two newspaper articles.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.

somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Fine. I should have said two newspaper articles.
even with 2 articles you could write 1 new 1. however a duplicated phrase or sentence may have been a better example for your case

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument? For the former:Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper. For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people. My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the former: For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

The problem is, we humans have put up a wall (species) that really isn't a wall, but a line in nature.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

Many thanks. I've actually referred to fruit fly research in posts, but didn't know the technical term for it.

And yes, it would throw a wrench into the ID argument (even besides my comprehensive rebuttal on the last page...have to plug it as much as possible. It took me a while.). They'd likely still trumpet the lack of increased "information" (which would be sufficiently defined to erroneously support themselves) but observed evolution on such a large level is pretty much the final step in solidifying any remaining (legit) complaints.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?

You'd be surprised. I tend to forget points when I'm talking, or bring something up and fail to support it sufficiently, because the justification is already in my mind but I don't articulate it. I'm more thorough when writing because I can look over everything and fix it...generally not everything comes out right the first time, which it would need to in a debate. I suppose that would be remedied with some prep for a courtroom setting. But being a lawyer would still be rather dull (imo, at least).

But thanks. And I'm an English teacher. Or will be once I find a job ( ).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
I think the idea is that flies will always make flies.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I think the idea is that flies will always make flies.

Then how would you explain this:?

100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then how would you explain this:?

100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.
That would depend on the viewpoint, now wouldn't it? A YEC would say that the universe has not been around for 100 million years while an OEC/IDT might say that such changes would involve intervention (divine, alien, or otherwise).

Of course, sabertooth tigers were just cats, and mammoths were just a type of elephant (in a sense). So, the species might be different, but they are the same "kind" of creature.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That would depend on the viewpoint, now wouldn't it? A YEC would say that the universe has not been around for 100 million years while an OEC/IDT might say that such changes would involve intervention (divine, alien, or otherwise).

Of course, Saber-tooth tigers were just cats, and mammoths were just a type of elephant (in a sense). So, the species might be different, but they are the same "kind" of creature.

Saber-tooth tigers and mammoths lived 10,000 years ago, not 100 million.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saber-tooth tigers and mammoths lived 10,000 years ago, not 100 million.

No...they did live just in different forms...you know the light from one candle to another...the candle can be complete different but the flame is the same...albeit a different flame....

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No...they did live just in different forms...you know the light from one candle to another...the candle can be complete different but the flame is the same...albeit a different flame....

I agree with that. I think that species change over time. The body we live in is like clay. From generation to generation the body can and does change to adapt to the environment. However, once an animal is born, it is locked in and will survive or not, but the larger picture, from generation to generation to not fixed.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
\



You'd be surprised. I tend to forget points when I'm talking, or bring something up and fail to support it sufficiently, because the justification is already in my mind but I don't articulate it. I'm more thorough when writing because I can look over everything and fix it...generally not everything comes out right the first time, which it would need to in a debate. I suppose that would be remedied with some prep for a courtroom setting. But being a lawyer would still be rather dull (imo, at least).

But thanks. And I'm an English teacher. Or will be once I find a job ( ). i personally will give you 50 dollars if you come to my school in LA.

(and btw ppl, never forget the dancing banana always gotta get 1 of those in every once in a while

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saber-tooth tigers and mammoths lived 10,000 years ago, not 100 million.
Yes, I was going to correct this, but then I fell asleep. Although, the sabertooth tiger might have lived 2.5 million years ago.

Of course, your post doesn't address anything I said but rather points out the gaff I made in dating.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, I was going to correct this, but then I fell asleep. Although, the sabertooth tiger might have lived 2.5 million years ago.

Of course, your post doesn't address anything I said but rather points out the gaff I made in dating.

The rest of what you said? There are people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, also. How old is the Earth?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".


"we dine in hell" because you put "ruppes" in quotes and spelled it wrong. Now "all your base are belong to us".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I tried to be a brief as possible.

LOL!!! That was teh funnies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"we dine in hell" because you put "ruppes" in quotes and spelled it wrong. Now "all your base are belong to us".

zomg no soup for me!

Originally posted by chickenlover98
i personally will give you 50 thousand dollars if you come to my school in LA.

Deal.

And you didn't stipulate that I do sh*t. I'm going to show up at the school, eat some cafeteria food, punch a lunch lady in the face, then demand my 50K.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And you didn't stipulate that I do sh*t. I'm going to show up at the school, eat some cafeteria food, punch a lunch lady in the face, then demand my 50K.


punch MY english teacher in the face. lol.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And you didn't stipulate that I do sh*t. I'm going to show up at the school, eat some cafeteria food, punch a lunch lady in the face, then demand my 50K.



You shouldn't be so mean to the lunch lady..."you should be kissing her feet and kissing her mole", no doubt. If you don't, the robots will clearly evolve and steal our internets.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You shouldn't be so mean to the lunch lady..."you should be kissing her feet and kissing her mole", no doubt. If you don't, the robots will clearly evolve and steal our internets.

lunch ladies dont really have ne moles ne more. its not a movie from the 80's. in LA its either an A: ultra pissed off fat black lady or B: some pissy(usually fat) mexican lady

DigiMark007-

Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.

ur clearly blind/dislexic. digi and dawkins stated the reason he was angry is because he usually does not argue with id theorists because they ask rediculus answers. luskin tricked him into an interview which made him angry. macroevolution is there otherwise speciation would not occur. it is not clear as of now because evolution is a gradual process.

How and why Dawkins felt the way he did is irrelevent. And for the record, "speciation" is the product of microevolution, not macroevolution. In any case, don't you understand how important the question is that the creationists proposed during the interview?

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.

He looked like a fool because the creationists doctored the footage to make it seem like he couldn't answer the question. His "response" to the question was actually an answer to a different question, played in the video to make it seem like he was trying to dodge it.

Anyway, both Dawkins and myself answered the questions thoroughly. And you debunked none of it. If you want to maintain any credibility, I'd start there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The rest of what you said? There are people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, also. How old is the Earth?
Depends on whom you ask. Some say ~6,000 years, others say 4.6 billion.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Depends on whom you ask. Some say ~6,000 years, others say 4.6 billion.

In this case, the latter would be correct.

31

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Depends on whom you ask. Some say ~6,000 years, others say 4.6 billion.

And what evidence do they have to support ~6,000 years?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And what evidence do they have to support ~6,000 years?
The divine revelation of Scripture, the fact that fossilization fits in with the Noachian Flood, and the lack of reliability of radiometric dating.

The Human Genome Project:
Exploring Our Molecular Selves

XuUpnAz5y1g

"The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not." --Casey Luskin

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The divine revelation of Scripture, the fact that fossilization fits in with the Noachian Flood, and the lack of reliability of radiometric dating.

1. There are no divine scriptures, for all books were written my humans. I don't believe in magic.
2. Fossilization does not fit with a Noachian Flood. It takes millions of years for a true fossil to form. Also, there was never a flood that covered the Earth. There may have been floods all over the Earth through out time that have found their way into stories, but the Earth was never covered with a flood.
3. Radiometric dating is very reliable now. Also, as the science for carbon dating has progressed, we have found that the dates of fossil have only been corrected by the fossils being found to be older.

You are confusing your beliefs with facts.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The divine revelation of Scripture, the fact that fossilization fits in with the Noachian Flood, and the lack of reliability of radiometric dating.

oh my GOD! noachian floods?????? really, youve been reading the enoch gospels too much. i suppose your gonna try to find evidence for the existance of the nephilim next!

and even the MOST unreliable form of carbon dating can at the very least put a minimum age on samples, concerning how OLD they are. and that has often been well over 6000 years. so even there, the argument wud fail.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The divine revelation of Scripture, the fact that fossilization fits in with the Noachian Flood, and the lack of reliability of radiometric dating.

If fossilization fit with Biblical floods there should be giant humanoid skeletons all over the place.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh this is just getting ridiculously stupid, as if it wasn't stupid enough already. Three giant posts, the equivalent of spam, that did nothing to dismiss anything Digi posted.

We get it. Scientists must "document" evolution step by step, base pair by base pair, amino acid by amino acid, of a species into another species at I don't know how high a level in the Linnaean taxonomy to be deemed a different "kind" - a wholly unscientific term with no real criterion - for you to accept evolution. Because scientists haven't been able to document something that takes thousands if not millions of years, base pair by base pair, despite that humans haven't been around that long, you'll go on about how evolution is "just a theory." Of course not realizing that in science "theory" isn't a synonym for "conjecture." Therefore we get a thread seemingly about robots for you to try and prove ID by trying to discredit evolution as "just a theory" with links to the Discovery Institute - which has never really discovered anything (except how to steal videos from Harvard/XVIVO via the internet) and is thus a gross misnomer - despite that this doesn't in any way prove ID.

We get it. No one cares. Stop posting videos. Believe in your god all you want, just keep him out of science classes.

Speciation is the divergence of species is the evolution of reproductively isolated organisms. Don't subvert actual scientific terms into your bullshit.

Casey Luskin is a lawyer, and a bad one, whose scientific knowledge consists of skimming abstracts to quote-mine. No one uses Dembski's "information model" and his work has been highly criticized particularly for the misinterpretation of theorems which it regurgitates by the original authors of those theorems.

And of course there was no pun intended with "your a tool" sic because the clause doesn't even have a single coherent meaning, let alone two.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If fossilization fit with Biblical floods there should be giant humanoid skeletons all over the place.
The Flood didn't happen overnight, you know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. There are no divine scriptures, for all books were written my humans. I don't believe in magic.


You can say that about any religious book. Take for instance Eastern spiritual books. They were writen by men...so...

As I said before, I'm not here to debate ushome because it's a pointless endeavor. The explanation was for others. My original posts answer any post he made on the last page, so there's no need for further rebuttal.

Also, the Hoyle allusion is simply laughable. The Boeing 747 analogy isn't even close to true, yet it's the most quoted argument for ID. If you're still relying on it as a debating point, it's clear you know nothing important about evolution.

Though I'd once again point out that the majority of ushome's post was demanding evidence, not providing rational backing for his own position. And often times I did provide evidence when he was demanding it, leading me to believe it's more of a rote response when he doesn't know what to say than an actual critique of my post.

xmarks above post is also commendable as analysis of ushome's tactics, and amusingly scathing.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The Flood didn't happen overnight, you know.

I do know that. How would it change anything?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You can say that about any religious book. Take for instance Eastern spiritual books. They were writen by men...so...

They are not divine inspired books of god.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do know that. How would it change anything?
Humans are notorious for climbing out of reach of floodwaters.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Humans are notorious for climbing out of reach of floodwaters.

katrina says otherwise.