Evolution vs Intelligent Design...

Originally posted by Lana
Science USES them. I explained this already. Please go and re-read that post.

Most mutations are not beneficial but evolution rarely occurs though mutations, rather through a certain gene being selected (carried down through the survival of the carriers of that gene, who reproduce and continue to pass it down).

Evolution is something that takes thousands of years to occur. That is not something that we can directly observe ourselves.

Actually if we look at Micro organisms which have much quicker doubling times we can observe it, antibiotic resistance etc.

Even in short lived Mammals like mice its possible - for instance they have evolved through survival of the fittest to be immune to some poisons in some areas.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Actually if we look at Micro organisms which have much quicker doubling times we can observe it, antibiotic resistance etc.

Even in short lived Mammals like mice its possible - for instance they have evolved through survival of the fittest to be immune to some poisons in some areas.

According to whob, it's not evolution, since it doesn't become a whole new species 😉 I am well aware of the fact that at it IS possible to observe it in species with very short life spans.

Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics is a prime example though, and usually one of the first that people learn, along with the Galapagos finches and the fruit flies.

Originally posted by Lana
Science USES them. I explained this already. Please go and re-read that post.

So if science uses constants..then that means it has facts within it...I don't know how to break this down in any simpler terms for you my dear.

Most mutations are not beneficial but evolution rarely occurs though mutations, rather through a certain gene being selected (carried down through the survival of the carriers of that gene, who reproduce and continue to pass it down.

What the Hell are you talking about?!! Random Mutations are the entire crux behind modern evolutionary theory?!! If they don't generally exist within nature as "beneficial" Than that complete destroys the concept of Neo Darwinism. This staggering information has been presented to you Neo Darwinists..time and time again..and they continue to dogmatically follow their faith..even though it's essentially been decimated by this basic truth.

Evolution is something that takes thousands of years to occur. That is not something that we can directly observe ourselves.

You don't know if "Macro Evolution" even exists. Stop presenting it as if it were a fact. If it has not been observed, then the only thing that you have to support is faith.

Transitionals have been explained time and time again, I do get sick of repeating stuff that I've said already. Go look in one of the other damn threads.

Yes..transitionals such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Lucy..🙄

Oh yeah and the Neandrathal man, he's a different species of human..😆 😆

Originally posted by Lana
Well, looks like you're wrong there, hmmmm? Valid is very much an appropriate description for the satirical first post of this thread....and the word that I said it meant in this situation, relevant, which you claimed to NOT be a definition of valid....shows up as a definition of it.

You continue to represent your inability to understand the English language each time you post Lana...let's look at the definitions you've given...

valid

• adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.)well based or logical. legally binding or acceptable.

So if something is deemed to be valid..it is also deemed to be logical

A satire is based on irony.

Irony represents something that is illogical or incongruous. Let's move on...

valid

2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>

synonyms VALID, SOUND, COGENT, CONVINCING, TELLING mean having such force as to compel serious attention and usually acceptance. VALID implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority

The word "valid" is not used synonomously with the word "relevance" in this definition. Do you see "relevance" listed as a synonym for valid? I sure as hell don't. Also take note that valid..is still stated to represent something representing truth within this definition.

What the definition you've given asserts, is that a "valid" term denotes something that is "relevant and meaningful."

As we can clearly see in the definition that you've given. "Meaningful" in this context is used to express something that is "relvant and "true."

If a word/phrase does not have "relevance and truth" to it, it doesn't equate it to being valid.

Case in point..

If something is satirical: It is illogical and not true.
If something is valid: It is relevant and true

The words have OPPOSITE MEANINGS....😆

valid satirical refutation..😆😆

If Ush had just used the word valid or just the word "satirical" in front of the word "refutation"..that would have made sense. Instead...the dude used two adjectives that are essentially antonyms..

Antonyms are words with OPPOSITE meanings.

This is contradictory. This is illogical. How the hell can you guys even continue to argue this?!!!

It would be like if I as to say..

valid erroneous statement.. or
true fictional story.... or
incorrect valid refutation

Its Oxymoronic..and poor use of the English language..please don't argue this any further you all have no idea in hell what your talking about..😆😆

You have picked apart no arguments whatsoever, and have simply displayed your own inability to understand anything that contradicts what you believe.

Is that a valid argument..or a satirical one Lana?!! 😆 😆

The only one here that has displayed blindness, delusions, and arrogance, is yourself. I, unlike you, do not believe in something blindly. I never have in my life. And that's where science is different than religion. Science doesn't care less if you 'believe' it or not, it's there, it's supported. Religion and faith fall apart if you stop believing. Science is also ever-changing; theories are constantly being changed or updated as new evidence is found. Religion is rigid and doesn't change. This is why you quoting hundred-year-old sources makes you look foolish, because they are so outdated.

Blah.blah..blah....whatever..Cripes women..pick up a book Naturalistic Humanism!! You'll see that the whole.."Everthing is changing.."nothing is constant" speel is the central theme of the damn religion. The fact that you can't even objectively look at your viewpoints and clearly see that they mirror a "religious" doctrine is saddening..and represents how truly indoctrinated you and others who profess "Darwinistic" viewpoints have become.

Originally posted by Lana
According to whob, it's not evolution, since it doesn't become a whole new species 😉 I am well aware of the fact that at it IS possible to observe it in species with very short life spans.

Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics is a prime example though, and usually one of the first that people learn, along with the Galapagos finches and the fruit flies.

he is arguing Speciation - perhaps the best example of this is the woman of a desert tribe in Africa who are almost a new species - They have some quite unusual physiological traits and it has been hypothesised that the Westernisation of such areas will prevent them becoming a new species. They are still able to for the most part reproduce outside of the tribe they belong to.

What's the KMC record for most ever usernames for one person?

Originally posted by Lana
According to whob, it's not evolution, since it doesn't become a whole new species 😉 I am well aware of the fact that at it IS possible to observe it in species with very short life spans.

Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics is a prime example though, and usually one of the first that people learn, along with the Galapagos finches and the fruit flies.

How do variation and adaptation prove that "Macro evolution" exists?
Prove it to me Lana?

Give me a definitive process that can can be has tested within a lab, observed, whatever..just give me some cold hard facts woman. This whole..."Bacteria being able to build resistance antiobiotics" speel..is an example of "adaptation"

Hell, we as humans have the same ability to adapt as the bacteria. Why the hell do you believe our bodies become resistant to various virus's? Because our immune system "adapts" and develops a resistance to the virus. How the hell can you infer that this proof of a damn monkey changing into a man?!! I could just as easily infer that this is part of a good DESIGN. The evidence can be used to support different "philsophical conclusions"

I say that this is an example of good Design..

You say this is an example of the ability of a MONKEY to change to a MAN.

Which one of us sounds more rationale?!! 😆😆

Real simple stuff sweatheart..

Originally posted by botankus
What's the KMC record for most ever usernames for one person?

I don't know but I aim to have it 🙂

As I have explained already. Mathematical formulas and numbers that are used in science are based in theory. We don't know for sure if what we think they are is what they actually are, and for the large part, they are completely arbitrary. As I said before - with the equation e=mc², 'c', which stands for the speed of light, is presented as a constant. But we do not know for 100% certain if the number we use for it (which I cannot remember off the top of my head) is what it actually is, and when it comes right down to it it does not matter what number you actually use in that place. If Einstein decided that c=&#960; it still would work. Therefore constants are used -- but ultimately what that number presented as a constant is is not known for certain and is completely arbitrary.

I have never said anything about macro evolution, whob. You and you alone have been babbling on about it. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

You know, I do think that Ush is right -- that you won't be happy until the fossil of a monkey is found with the fossil of a human fetus in it's womb. Evolution is a web where there will ALWAYS be holes, for the simple facts that 1) we have not found everything yet, and 2) it is very rare for something to become fossilized.

You are the only one here who cannot seem to get a grasp on English. Apparently the thought never crossed your mind that a word can have multiple meanings! Wow. What a ****ing concept. Is that REALLY that hard to understand? The word 'valid' has more than one meaning. If you cannot grasp this, then I really am worried here.

I've never read anything before on humanism, and have had such thoughts before I started seriously studying science. Why? I've known since I was 11 - eleven years old! - that it'd be impossible to prove something absolute as there is no way to find and observe EVERY single instance of it happening.

And may I point out to you that scientific reasoning and the thought that there are no absolutes has existed far before humanism and even Christianity? I think that maybe humanism based itself on this idea -- NOT the other way around.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I don't know but I aim to have it 🙂

Tomorrow you should be Pee Wee Herman

Originally posted by botankus
Tomorrow you should be Pee Wee Herman

Tired Hiker is a Pee Wee Herman fan - I think my next one will be John Merrick 🙂

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Tired Hiker is a Pee Wee Herman fan - I think my next one will be John Merrick 🙂

Good one! I've got your sig line already picked out: "I am not an animal; I am a human being!"

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How do variation and adaptation prove that "Macro evolution" exists?
Prove it to me Lana?

Give me a definitive process that can can be has tested within a lab, observed, whatever..just give me some cold hard facts woman. This whole..."Bacteria being able to build resistance antiobiotics" speel..is an example of "adaptation"

Hell, we as humans have the same ability to adapt as the bacteria. Why the hell do you believe our bodies become resistant to various virus's? Because our immune system "adapts" and develops a resistance to the virus. How the hell can you infer that this proof of a damn monkey changing into a man?!! I could just as easily infer that this is part of a good DESIGN. The evidence can be used to support different "philsophical conclusions"

I say that this is an example of good Design..

You say this is an example of the ability of a MONKEY to change to a MAN.

Which one of us sounds more rationale?!! 😆😆

Real simple stuff sweatheart..

Adaptation is the basis of evolution. YOU are the one who needs to read up here.

ev·o·lu·tion n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity

Through survival of the fittest (which is a slightly misleading term, it's not just surviving, but surviving to reproduce and pass down the seelcted gene), a population adapts to it's environment. After time, if it is isolated enough from the main population and these adaptations continue, it will be different enough to be classed as a new species. Humans have antibodies to fight off viruses, that's not adapting. That's the antibodies doing their job. But even viruses change constantly....adapting....EVOLVING. Why do you think that every year there's a new flu shot? A new cold or flu virus going around? Because it has changed so that our immunities we have built up to it are ineffective. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics through continued exposure to it when it's unneeded. Some bacteria may have a gene that causes them to not be harmed by the antibiotic; as the ones without this gene (or mutation) are killed off, the ones with it are the ones that will multiply until eventually you have a population of bacteria that is completely resistant -- and different enough to be classed as a species in it's own.

For the who-the-hell-knows-how-many time....monkeys did not become man! Simple thing is, we at one point shared a common ancestor. One part of the population became seperated from the rest, isolated, if you will. As it no longer interacted with this parent population, it did not reproduce with them anymore and stopped 'sharing' genes with them. Over time as this happened, the genes that got selected for or against by survival of the fittest and adaptation began to differ more and more from the parent population, until eventually the differences were great enough for them to be classed as a species in it's own.

However - your idea that some intelligent being in the sky created everything? Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone is religious, and most religious people do not believe that creationism is true, nor that everything in the bible should be taken as fact. Because that is the only thing you have on your side in this argument - the bible. And that is not evidence.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
he is arguing Speciation - perhaps the best example of this is the woman of a desert tribe in Africa who are almost a new species - They have some quite unusual physiological traits and it has been hypothesised that the Westernisation of such areas will prevent them becoming a new species. They are still able to for the most part reproduce outside of the tribe they belong to.

I'm interested... have you any sites about this tribe... what physiological traits they have...

Originally posted by botankus
Good one! I've got your sig line already picked out: "I am not an animal; I am a human being!"

that was going to be it 🙂 great minds

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm interested... have you any sites about this tribe... what physiological traits they have...

Its mainly to do with water retention and the ladies have a crazy sand flap (guess where). I will try and find something on it, I read about it in Nature about 5 or 6 years ago.

Originally posted by Lana
As I have explained already. Mathematical formulas and numbers that are used in science are based in theory. We don't know for sure if what we think they are is what they actually are, and for the large part, they are completely arbitrary. As I said before - with the equation e=mc², 'c', which stands for the speed of light, is presented as a constant. But we do not know for 100% certain if the number we use for it (which I cannot remember off the top of my head) is what it actually is, and when it comes right down to it it does not matter what number you actually use in that place. If Einstein decided that c=&#960; it still would work. Therefore constants are used -- but ultimately what that number presented as a constant is is not known for certain and is completely arbitrary.

Let's simplify things.

What you are trying to assert..is that there is no way of proving 100% that something exists.

What I am stating..is that in order to try to prove something's existence...we have to assume certain "truths" exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So can we agree...that is it is necessary for us to assume that "absolute truths" exist within life..in order to conduct a scientific experiment, or make a rationale/reasonable assertion? A Simple yes or no will do.

I have never said anything about macro evolution, whob. You and you alone have been babbling on about it. Don't put words in other people's mouths.

You remarked to Whirly that I stated there was no "proof" support evolution. That was a lie. What I have stated countless times, is that "Macro Evolution" has no proof supporting it. Evolution is just change...simple as that. There is example of change or Adaptation/Variation within nature. However there is no example of "Change" on a large schale..like a monkey changing to a human, lizard to bird..etc..I have posted this multiple times in many threads...and you know this, however, you like so many others who support Darwinian Theory...choose to wordplay around with the definition of "Evolution", to confuse the masses.

You know, I do think that Ush is right -- that you won't be happy until the fossil of a monkey is found with the fossil of a human fetus in it's womb. Evolution is a web where there will ALWAYS be holes, for the simple facts that 1) we have not found everything yet, and 2) it is very rare for something to become fossilized.

Why not just provide valid transitionals from the fossil record. It would be much easier, as well as demonstrate the ability to replicate the process. If you could do these two things, then you would have no objections from me.

You are the only one here who cannot seem to get a grasp on English. Apparently the thought never crossed your mind that a word can have multiple meanings! Wow. What a ****ing concept. Is that REALLY that hard to understand? The word 'valid' has more than one meaning. If you cannot grasp this, then I really am worried here.

😆 😆 Relevant is not a synonym for Valid. Get over it.

I've never read anything before on humanism, and have had such thoughts before I started seriously studying science. Why? I've known since I was 11 - eleven years old! - that it'd be impossible to prove something absolute as there is no way to find and observe EVERY single instance of it happening.

And may I point out to you that scientific reasoning and the thought that there are no absolutes has existed far before humanism and even Christianity? I think that maybe humanism based itself on this idea -- NOT the other way around.

I can't understand how you and others can get any meaning out of life following such nonsense. "Nothing is purposeful..everything is relative..everyman for himself" seems like a sad way to live.

Originally posted by Lana
Adaptation is the basis of evolution. YOU are the one who needs to read up here.

Evolution is "change" stop trying to use that damn wordplay speel. If something adapts..it "changes." Simple as that. I've never disagreed to that, merely I've asserted that an organisms ability to adapt does not have to logically infer that MACRO EVOLUTION or GRAND CHANGE exists!!!!

How the hell can you not understand this?!!!

Through survival of the fittest (which is a slightly misleading term, it's not just surviving, but surviving to reproduce and pass down the seelcted gene), a population adapts to it's environment. After time, if it is isolated enough from the main population and these adaptations continue, it will be different enough to be classed as a new species. Humans have antibodies to fight off viruses, that's not adapting. That's the antibodies doing their job. But even viruses change constantly....adapting....EVOLVING. Why do you think that every year there's a new flu shot? A new cold or flu virus going around? Because it has changed so that our immunities we have built up to it are ineffective. Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics through continued exposure to it when it's unneeded. Some bacteria may have a gene that causes them to not be harmed by the antibiotic; as the ones without this gene (or mutation) are killed off, the ones with it are the ones that will multiply until eventually you have a population of bacteria that is completely resistant -- and different enough to be classed as a species in it's own.

For the who-the-hell-knows-how-many time....monkeys did not become man! Simple thing is, we at one point shared a common ancestor. One part of the population became seperated from the rest, isolated, if you will. As it no longer interacted with this parent population, it did not reproduce with them anymore and stopped 'sharing' genes with them. Over time as this happened, the genes that got selected for or against by survival of the fittest and adaptation began to differ more and more from the parent population, until eventually the differences were great enough for them to be classed as a species in it's own.

However - your idea that some intelligent being in the sky created everything? Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone is religious, and most religious people do not believe that creationism is true, nor that everything in the bible should be taken as fact. Because that is the only thing you have on your side in this argument - the bible. And that is not evidence.

Does the virus change into something else other than a virus?

Is it possible for a damn MONKEY to "evolve" into something reminiscent of a MAN?

Is it possible for a damn Gorilla to evolve into something reminiscent of a MAN?

Where the hell is the COMMON link that puts a monkey and a man in the same damn family?!!!

If you give me cold hard proof of "Macro Evolution" existing/being testable/replicatable/etc..people would stop questioning you. Thus far you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its mainly to do with water retention and the ladies have a crazy sand flap (guess where). I will try and find something on it, I read about it in Nature about 5 or 6 years ago.

Its a particular South Sudanese tribe but I'm damned if anything is coming up on a web search and I can't remember the tribes name dammit!!!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
While we're on the grammar subject...

What a dink..he attacks me attacking someone else's grammar...and then uses improper grammar himself..

Ain't hypocrisy grand? :laugh 😆 😆

You said "ain't", so shut up. Not to mention you completely avoided my actual response. 🙄

whobdamandog your understanding of evolution is so miss guided that I don't even know where to begin. You need to go to collage and spend some time on the subject. I am a person who believes that evolution is the hand of God. Not the limited Christian God but the true nature of the universe. Here is one of the worst examples of this absolute ignorance on the subject of evolution “Is it possible for a damn MONKEY to "evolve" into something reminiscent of a MAN?” the answer is no. A monkey is a modern animal and so are humans. There was a time long ago when humans and monkeys did not exist; at that time there was a different animal that lived on the Earth. That animal is now extinct but its descendants have continued to change slowly over time and due to environmental adaptation have become monkeys, apes, and humans.