Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, I don;t care about this distraction you are giving there. I am not an expert on biological specifics. I can only repeat that evolutionary theory meets the standards of a rigorous scientific method, and hence is not a belief but a scientifically supported model, and is the best explanation we have yet of the development of life upon Earth.Intelligent Design, however, IS just a belief, It is the belief that the only way that evolution works is if there is an intelligent designer. That is a hypothesis, NOT a scientifically supported theory, which is why it does not belong in science class.
If you want to tell me that our understanding of evolution is imperfect- big whoop, that's hardly news. But if you are trying to tell me that ID is a credible alternative in a scientific sense, then your sense of definition has gotten lost again.
So ID and Evo are different despite they both have problems proving the major bulk of there theory
ID: the designer
EVO:Macro evolution
How bias, but I'm not suprised.
Sorry for the double post.
No, you are wrong.
ID does not deny anything from Evolution, including macro evolution. It simply says that it is only possible if there is an intelligence behind it- which is supposition, not supported science.
Evolution itself does not rule in or out an intelligent designer or otherwise. It's not even a comment on such a thing- it is simply explaining an observed phenomenon. It doesn't have a need for an intelligent designer, though, so it does not assume one.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you are wrong.ID does not deny anything from Evolution, including macro evolution. It simply says that it is only possible if there is an intelligence behind it- which is supposition, not supported science.
Evolution itself does not rule in or out an intelligent designer or otherwise. It's not even a comment on such a thing- it is simply explaining an observed phenomenon. It doesn't have a need for an intelligent designer, though, so it does not assume one.
When has ID supported macro evolution, provide some proof.
The biggest advocate of ID to my knowledge "Discovery institue" does not mention ID supporting Evolution.
Originally posted by BackFire
He didn't say it supported it, he said it didn't deny it.
Why would it, just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it's not happening it could happen, but there is no proof so far.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeedy.ID is not an attempt to replace evolution, BN. Simply to explain how it came about.
My personal theory is that the universe is a collective conscious that breaks down into fragments and dimensions. these dimension are occupied by individual conscious that form the universe, they were not created they were already there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yet it is supported by the sacientific model.But you have dragged this off into irrelevance. it is your post above:
---
"So ID and Evo are different despite they both have problems proving the major bulk of there theory
ID: the designer
EVO:Macro evolution"
---
... that is totally erroneous.
The theory of Evolution acts as a “gathering principle” (under a select world view) it is not a “guiding principle” as other theories of science are (in that they drive new hypothesis and laboratory testing aims,A fundamental truth or method of operation that links, directs, and shows the way)
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How does this advocate evolution, the mutation does not change the species regardless if a trait is mutated the organism is still the same species.Pay attention, Natural systems are usually complex and more importantly have a purpose, take your circulatory system it's purpose is to provide blood to your various organs that it is purpose, if life is an accident then how do things have purpose furthermore why would life have a design that weeds at the weak according to you Darwinist when it's all an accident. In other words how can something have a purpose without being made with out a purpose. does this sentence make sense
"I accidentally created it for this purpose" No it doesn't it's an oxymoron, yet you Darwinist are basically saying that.
Sorry for the double post.
NO ****ING WONDER you don't understand evolution. You're missing the entire point completely. the mutations are random, and the purpose is always to enhance the ability ti survive.
Step 1. Fish in a semi large pond
Step 2. Water levels sink, meaning less food inside of the water
Step 3. Fish needs another source of food. it finds some where the water meets the land. has a hard time reaching it so it tries using its fins
*insert pointless random mutations between steps that don't effect how fish get food*
Step 4. Fish that have sturdier fins due to a random mutation get more food, and thus more of them survive
Step 5. A small number of that fish undergo another random mutation, which gives them thicker claw-like bone structures in their fins. the fish with these mutation survive longer and reproduce more than the earlier fish.
Step 6. water levels drop again. this time a small number of fish who have mutated respiratory systems survive longer, being able to draw oxygen from air and water.
Step 7. fish who have both air lungs and thick claw-like fins now venture oustide of the water for food and return
Step 8. another mutation occurs, and some fish have thicker scales. they can stay outside of water for longer, therefore gathering more food, therefore surviving longer to reproduce more.
Step 9. mutation occurs that changes the shape and placement of the eyes, again allowing for better food gathering
Step 10. a mutation occurs making the 'fish' lose it's gills. it can stay out of water almost indefinitly. making it not a fish anymore, but a lizard.
Awesome. That's somewhat how it happens. You YOURSELF have spoken on the BEHALF of micro evolution. Simply put a row of microevolutionary changes together and you have macroevolution, or the change from one species to another. and THAT takes millions of years, because the mutations are random.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
NO ****ING WONDER you don't understand evolution. You're missing the entire point completely. the mutations are random, and the purpose arises AFTER the mutation has occured.Step 1. Fish in a semi large pond
Step 2. Water levels sink, meaning less food inside of the water
Step 3. Fish needs another source of food. it finds some where the water meets the land. has a hard time reaching it so it tries using its fins
*insert pointless random mutations between steps that don't effect how fish get food*
Step 4. Fish that have sturdier fins due to a random mutation get more food, and thus more of them survive
You ASS-U-ME that the the sturdier fin is a mutation or a trait that was never there in the first place, The only thing that happened was that the fish that had sturdier fins population increased while the other fish dropped.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Step 6. water levels drop again. this time a small number of fish who have mutated respiratory systems survive longer, being able to draw oxygen from air and water.
When have fish, have the trait to take oxygen from air?
and how can the fish have two different respiratory systems at once?
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Awesome. That's somewhat how it happens. You YOURSELF have spoken on the BEHALF of micro evolution. Simply put a row of microevolutionary changes together and you have macroevolution, or the change from one species to another. and THAT takes millions of years, because the mutations are random.
I have spoken for micro evolution, but again when do fish have the trait for breathing air? and once again this "stupid millions of years argument" I knew this argument would appear again
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
You ASS-U-ME that the the sturdier fin is a mutation or a trait that was never there in the first place, The only thing that happened was that the fish that had sturdier fins population increased while the other fish dropped.When have fish, have the trait to take oxygen from air?
and how can the fish have two different respiratory systems at once?I have spoken for micro evolution, but again when do fish have the trait for breathing air? and once again this "stupid millions of years argument" I knew this argument would appear again
I never said the sturdier fin was NEVER there. I'd like you to show me where I said that. And you just described natural selection, a base for evolution.
There are several lung fish and fish that can leave water that exist right now, look them up.
And yes, millions of years is going to come up again, do you know what the statistics are for a postitive random mutation to occur? IT NEEDS TIME TO CHANGE AN ENTIRE SPECIES. Maybe you don't grasp the magnitude of that sentence. Mutations on the individual level happen everyday, but for mutations to change an entire species it takes millions of years of reproduction
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I never said the sturdier fin was NEVER there. I'd like you to show me where I said that. And you just described natural selection, a base for evolution.
Alone natural selection changes the ratio of trait's in a population, combined with other factors (Mutations,Genetic drift) it leads to a new species with less genes that does not support evolution which believe that these populations with less gene's become completely different overtime but do not gain new traits
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakAnd yes, millions of years is going to come up again, do you know what the statistics are for a postitive random mutation to occur? IT NEEDS TIME TO CHANGE AN ENTIRE SPECIES. Maybe you don't grasp the magnitude of that sentence. Mutations on the individual level happen everyday, but for mutations to change an entire species it takes millions of years of reproduction
CORRECTION, they are speculated to take time. There is no proof this even happens let alone takeing millions of years
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakThere are several lung fish and fish that can leave water that exist right now, look them up.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Alone natural selection changes the ratio of trait's in a population, combined with other factors (Mutations,Genetic drift) it leads to a new species with less genes that does not support evolution which believe that these populations with less gene's become completely different overtime but do not gain new traits
You're misusing the phrase 'new traits' again, even though I've explained to you that all animals carry the potential for every trait you can possibly think of.
CORRECTION, they are speculated to take time. There is no proof this even happens let alone takeing millions of years
No, the correction would be that you just refuse to see what the hell I am talking about. You agree to micro -evolution, which says mutations change the physical anatomy of an animal in one way or another. Now compound those physical changes hundreds of times over. Just keep changing things. Suddenly you end up with something different.
Last I checked Amphibious fish were still fish, and lung fish use there external gills there respiratory system is nothing like a lizards and the eggs of a lizard a hard shell did a mutation add that trait?
Last I checked amphibians were amphibians. What the hell is your point? Evolution is a web, not a chain. One species evolving from another doesn't mean the extinction of the previous species. A lung fish's respiratory system isn't supposed to be the same as a lizard's...because then it'd be called a lizard and not a ****ing lung fish.
Bingo, mutation, you got it. Hard shells are suitable for land. Survival of the fittest, remember.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Jaden how are these new traits introduced, last I checked there isn't any evidence showing mutations add new traits so where is your evidence.Sorry for the double post.
of course its been proven...hence it is the dictionary definition of the word mutation
because you choose not to believe doesn't make it untrue...and the fact that you choose to ignore completely all the evidence that i and others have given you despite the fact that you've put nothing to support your own belief...
besides if genetic drift causes loss of information and traits then why is there constantly new species being discovered despite the fact that there are many going extinct all the time?
if evolution doesnt occur that why is the fact that many animals have adaptations to enviroments they did not originate from
hell even the creationists are proving evolution
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
The theory of Evolution acts as a “gathering principle” (under a select world view) it is not a “guiding principle” as other theories of science are (in that they drive new hypothesis and laboratory testing aims,A fundamental truth or method of operation that links, directs, and shows the way)
I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about there.
Science is a way of explaining observed phenomena. Whilst many of these explanations then allow us to advance progress and technology, many are of no particular use other than simple understanding of truth. That is a noble goal in of itself.
But even if it wasn't... that's what science is about. Discovering, to the best of our ability, how the world (and beyond) works.
Meanwhile,. you seem to keep trying to knock small holes in evolutionary theory, as if that kills it sone dead, or puts it on the level of ID.
We still have no consensus as to why hot water freezes faster than cold water, but does that therefore mean we have to redfine our entire notion of heat in physics? No, that would be silly, because it perfectly fits so many other areas. It just means our understanding is not yet totally complete. So it is with Evolution. The basics are extremely solid, the details are still under debate. That's science for you.
Originally posted by lord xyz
this is so ****ing funny. I told you your a moron BN. Oh how dumb you creationists are. 😂ID isn't based on any facts, any science or anything, they just made it up. It's not science, it's not even philosphy or RELIGION! It's just bullshit.
Holy shit man, I hate creationists as much as the next guy, but will you stop bashing!?
One would think you'd learn your lesson after being banned once already.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreakto be honest, I knew I'd get banned, I just never got banned before. And I bash to stop. Stupid I know, but I'm a very stupid person 😉
Holy shit man, I hate creationists as much as the next guy, but will you stop bashing!?One would think you'd learn your lesson after being banned once already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Nocture in a nutshell:
"crybaby Wa wa wa evolution is wrong and I know it therefore it must be true. I'm not a creationist, but I support ID even though it's the same ****ing thing. Wa wa wa, I know I'm right therefore I'll post crap, and change what I say every 5 seconds without them noticing and then I'll look smart. Yeah, that'll work. baby