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 macro-evolution 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.
Scientific knowledge? I'm not a scientist; I'm a mechanical designer. I'm not up on the latest and the greatest. When I learned evolution in school and collage, it was a simple, straightforward theory.
Let me explain it to you:
1. The animals of the past were different then the animals today.
2. The animals of the future will be different from today.
3. All animals are related in a family tree of life.
4. Animals live in an echo system, and that echo system changes over time.
5. Animals in response to their environment change over time.
6. The Earth in very old, therefore this process of change is very old.
I see evolution as a river that is constantly changing in response to the environment. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from an animal that doesn't exist today. monkeys evolved from the same animal as humans. And that makes us a distant cousin to monkeys; they are not our ancestors.
Punctuated Equilibrium, micro-evolution and macro-evolution, just seem to muddy the water. I don’t know what the truth is or is not, but I always go with the simpler and more elegant theory, and I don’t trust the extremist on the Christian side of the arguments.
Originally posted by ushomefree
[B]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.[/size]
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.
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Scientific knowledge? I'm not a scientist; I'm a mechanical designer. I'm not up on the latest and the greatest. When I learned evolution in school and collage, it was a simple, straightforward theory.
Yes, evolution is a simple, straightforward theory; but it is characterised into micro and macro processes.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me explain it to you:1. The animals of the past were different then the animals today.
Yes, but only in variation (microevolution). This applies to all organisms of course.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. The animals of the future will be different from today.
Yes, but only in variation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
3. All animals are related in a family tree of life.
Only in a biological sense. All organisms share similar characteristics, but all are fundamentally different.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4. Animals live in an echo system, and that echo system changes over time.
Absolutely!
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
5. Animals in response to their environment change over time.
Yes, but only in variation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
6. The Earth in very old, therefore this process of change is very old.
Yes, but the variations are "limited in scope." Molecular Biology proves this.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see evolution as a river that is constantly changing in response to the environment. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from an animal that doesn't exist today. monkeys evolved from the same animal as humans. And that makes us a distant cousin to monkeys; they are not our ancestors.
Exactly, because macroevolution is false.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Punctuated Equilibrium, micro-evolution and macro-evolution, just seem to muddy the water. I don’t know what the truth is or is not, but I always go with the simpler and more elegant theory, and I don’t trust the extremist on the Christian side of the arguments.
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.
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 mistakesor the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes
Exactly, because macroevolution is false.just like that, no proof to back your claim
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.
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.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Macroevolution is microevolution over a long long time (millions of year). Therefore, the distinction is not important to the big picture.
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.