Originally posted by Transfinitum
Excuse me, I had asked if you had any evidence for these "stories". Could you please provide a citation to an Evolutionary Biologist providing evidence. You tell me that proteins "naturally attract one another". If this event is so common; why have we never observed chains of proteins assembling themselves into living organisms in the laboratory? I appreciate your attempt to make this sound so easy, unfortunately it does not appear that your stories are susceptible to scientific verification. In this regard, they strike me as belonging to the literary genre of creation myths. Also, the experiments on Drosophila (fruit flies) have shown that no mutations have ever arisen which added anything new to genome of Drosophila! Indeed all mutations (extra legs, wings, etc.) disappeared within a few generations and the stock reverted to its pre-mutation form. This would seem to directly contradict the predictions of Darwinian Evolution.
No, he just outed himself folks, so don't bother responding. He threw a couple softballs before stepping up to regular ID arguments, but he's clearly just an ID advocate with an axe to grind.
I spent about 2 pages explaining how additional information in a genome occurs to ushomefree about a week ago, and he ignored it. I don't make the same mistakes twice, and don't feel like debating with someone whose sole tactic is demanding answers to things he doesn't think can be answered, so enjoy your ranting.
Originally posted by Bardock42
YouTube video
Frakking Awesome. This will save me time in the future.
👆
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, he just outed himself folks, so don't bother responding. He threw a couple softballs before stepping up to regular ID arguments, but he's clearly just an ID advocate with an axe to grind.I spent about 2 pages explaining how additional information in a genome occurs to ushomefree about a week ago, and he ignored it. I don't make the same mistakes twice, and don't feel like debating with someone whose sole tactic is demanding answers to things he doesn't think can be answered, so enjoy your ranting.
sorry, i hadnt referred him to that, post a link for him. btw he thinks that not taking a stance will mean he's just on the offensive, just letting you know he does support ID. just post a link to that so he'll stfu about micro and macro evolution, i forgot the thread 😮
edit: transfinitum check the evolving robots thread, all micro and macro arguments posted by digi are there
Hello, I am sorry that I have not been responding for a while (i have school and such), but I did not run away from this argument. On the subject of my own personal opinion, I am a skeptic of Darwinism though I am required to know it to graduate; not Creationism or Intelligent Design. Because this is taught to me as "proven" I expect answers for my questions in a rational scientific manner. My own personal belief matters not. Also I would like to thank Newjack for his fair mindedness. We probably do disagree on Darwinism, but at least his mind is open to fairness on these issues.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Hello, I am sorry that I have not been responding for a while (i have school and such), but I did not run away from this argument. On the subject of my own personal opinion, I am a skeptic of Darwinism though I am required to know it to graduate; not Creationism or Intelligent Design. Because this is taught to me as "proven" I expect answers for my questions in a rational scientific manner. My own personal belief matters not. Also I would like to thank Newjack for his fair mindedness. We probably do disagree on Darwinism, but at least his mind is open to fairness on these issues.
Forget about Darwinism. What are the problems with evolution?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Hello, I am sorry that I have not been responding for a while (i have school and such), but I did not run away from this argument. On the subject of my own personal opinion, I am a skeptic of Darwinism though I am required to know it to graduate; not Creationism or Intelligent Design. Because this is taught to me as "proven" I expect answers for my questions in a rational scientific manner. My own personal belief matters not. Also I would like to thank Newjack for his fair mindedness. We probably do disagree on Darwinism, but at least his mind is open to fairness on these issues.
read digimarks posts on micro and macro evolution in the evolvin robots thread and dont post again on this subject until you do
Originally posted by chickenlover98
read digimarks posts on micro and macro evolution in the evolvin robots thread and dont post again on this subject until you do
Excuse me, I will post when, where, and how its seems best to me. I invite you, of course, to do the same. "Micro-evolution", as you call it, is entirely non-controversial. However micro-evolution cannot account for the "supposed" decent from a common ancestor since in neither accounts for the first ancestor, nor does it account for the obvious truth that there was no genetic information present in the ancestor that accounts for the difference between the ancestor and the biodiversity we witness today.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Excuse me, I will post when, where, and how its seems best to me. I invite you, of course, to do the same. "Micro-evolution", as you call it, is entirely non-controversial. However micro-evolution cannot account for the "supposed" decent from a common ancestor since in neither accounts for the first ancestor, nor does it account for the obvious truth that there was no genetic information present in the ancestor that accounts for the difference between the ancestor and the biodiversity we witness today.
Micro and macro evolution is an incorrect division of evolution. It does not work because it is an incorrect application of evolution.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Micro and macro evolution is an incorrect division of evolution. It does not work because it is an incorrect application of evolution.
ok shaky maybe you dont like categories. its all semantics really. we have classified it as such.... just kinda.....deal with it 😕
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Excuse me, I will post when, where, and how its seems best to me. I invite you, of course, to do the same. "Micro-evolution", as you call it, is entirely non-controversial. However micro-evolution cannot account for the "supposed" decent from a common ancestor since in neither accounts for the first ancestor, nor does it account for the obvious truth that there was no genetic information present in the ancestor that accounts for the difference between the ancestor and the biodiversity we witness today.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
That very well may be since Evolution is such a broad term subject to such confusion and malleability. When I speak of Evolution I speak of the notion that natural process account for the decent of all life from a randomly assembled "primal form", as Charles Darwin said himself.
thats all very well, but if you want a debate, why dont you read already posted material on the subject, then bring them up in arguments?
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok shaky maybe you dont like categories. its all semantics really. we have classified it as such.... just kinda.....deal with it 😕
Well, I just want people to know we classified it as such. Our lack of understanding does not constitute a rule for nature the does not agree with observations.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I just want people to know we classified it as such. Our lack of understanding does not constitute a rule for nature the does not agree with observations.
well seeing as that there is no higher authority on classifications other than humans, it seems fit that WE classify stuff. so our classifications are done by observation and the like.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
I will let him make his case. I am not going to read something in a different context. If he really has the answer, tell me; don't make me run off to look at something else as if he is "greater" in some way. I'm not going to do his homework for he surely hasn't done mine.
different context? why dont you read it before you judge. he made his case on the exact subject. honestly are you so lazy as to click through a few pages on a thread that i must give u a link?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=472722&pagenumber=5
Originally posted by chickenlover98
different context? why dont you read it before you judge. he made his case on the exact subject. honestly are you so lazy as to click through a few pages on a thread that i must give u a link?