Jump to content


Photo

All Your Questions Answered


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

#21 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 16 September 2010 - 05:28 PM

Looks like the guy left. He didn't answer anything.

#22 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 September 2010 - 05:48 PM

I guess Truth thought we were a bunch of Bible thumping hicks. You think he'll be back?

I wanted to find out how octopuses evolved to mimic coral. Orchids female bees, and some insects plants (i.e. leaves, flowers)--like katydids, matises, and walking sticks.

But maybe Truth will be back and let us know these mysteries of evolution. We really don't understand the power of selection--he will surely help us. :D

#23 Kaliko

Kaliko

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 16 September 2010 - 08:46 PM

I guess Truth thought we were a bunch of Bible thumping hicks.  You think he'll be back?

I wanted to find out how octopuses evolved to mimic coral.  Orchids female bees, and some insects plants (i.e. leaves, flowers)--like katydids, matises, and walking sticks. 

View Post

(Kaliko, you told yourself you wouldn't get involved with this thread...)

The reason that octopi and the insects mentioned mimic their surroundings is the same reason I do it. Camouflage.
That's probably not the answer you're looking for, because it's obvious. The question (i'm assuming, and feel free to correct me) is how.

This is a clear cut case of natural selection at work. Their ancestors attempted to mimic their surroundings as well, and the more camouflaged you are, the less likely you are to be found.

Posted Image

Posted Image
(I added these both to illustrate the point, and because that ghillie is just too cool)
They're both camouflaged, but one is clearly better hidden for his environment than the others.

Also, plant life has undergone relatively few drastic changes compared to the modern bugs/octopi, and therefore haven't changed as much as the animals due to having fewer selective pressures on them.

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 September 2010 - 01:10 AM

Why has evolution never been directly observed?

View Post


It has been observed. Don't you know that words, thoughts and wants create new realities, and anyone whom does not agree is confused, uneducated, morons, retarded etc...? Who really don't understand evolution because we refuse to play in their self created reality. :)

#25 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:08 AM

Why has evolution never been directly observed?

View Post



In some ways it has been observed eg nylon eating bacteria and peppered moths etc

But I suspect you mean the evoluton of a completely new species.

Remember it takes a very very very very very very very very very....(big number..... cubed)....very long time and is a very very gradual process. The average human lifespan is under 100years, evolution has been going on Earth for about 3.5 billion years. You just wouldnt expect to directly observe it.

#26 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:19 AM

If evolution is the process by which organisms adapt to their environments by mutation and selection, then what mutated into that first living organism?

Were's the "TRUTH"?

View Post


Also to others who asked similar questions.

Evolution makes no comment about how life arose. It simply describes a quite beautiful mechanism by which a simple life form can develop into the vast array of life seen on Earth after about 3.5billion years.

At the moment no one knows how life began. I think that the most likely explanation is that life arose from simple chemistry over a period of about a billion years. I certainly think this is far more likely than some supernatural being temporarily suspending the laws of physics and "creating" life by some completely unknown mechanism.

#27 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:40 AM

What was the creature that mankind evolved from?

View Post



The current thinking is that all life evolved from the same start point, the first living thing. Personally I dont think that this has been fully established. It is quite possible that several living and almost living "species" developed in the same chemical mix and that the ancestral organism from which all life on Earth today evolved emerged as the dominant form from this mix.

Of course you may have meant which creature is mans closest ancestor. ie a creature that is not a human (homo sapiens) but which gave rise to humans. Of course the answer to this (The Truth!) is that I don't know. That may well be why you asked the question. Remember science and evolution cannot answer every question in that kind of detail. What evolution does say about the origin of mankind is that there was an ape which gradually over a period of several 10's of thousands of years (perhaps more) accumulated mutations leading to larger brain size, intelligence, and a bipedal posture. This ape was isolated in some way from other apes so that the mutations accumulated and were passed on. These apes became successful, good survivors and breeders and gradually became homo sapiens.

#28 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 02:49 AM

I see you have Newton in your signiture. You might want to take him out, since he was a Young Earth Creationist.

View Post



Yes he was, but first and formost he was great mathmetician and scientist. He lived before Darwin and others began to find explanations for the diversity of life. I dont know for sure, but I suspect that if Newton lived today he would accept evolution as a fact.

He stays in my list :)

#29 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:00 AM

I guess Truth thought we were a bunch of Bible thumping hicks.  You think he'll be back?

I wanted to find out how octopuses evolved to mimic coral.  Orchids female bees, and some insects plants (i.e. leaves, flowers)--like katydids, matises, and walking sticks. 

But maybe Truth will be back and let us know these mysteries of evolution.  We really don't understand the power of selection--he will surely help us. :)

View Post



The mechanism of evolution is the same. Mutations that confer a selective advantage in survival and/or breeding eventually spread throughout a population. If that population is an isolated sub group of a species then eventually a new species will result.

It is likely that octopuses that mutated to be able to mimic coral were better survivors and hence more successful breeders. The ability to mimic coral probably took a very long time to develop.

The outcomes you describe are the results of evolution at work.

#30 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:20 AM

So what You are basically saying is it cant be observed, case closed :)

Peppered moths didnt evolve into another kind of insect, its still a moth, same with the nylon eating bacteria, what was it before it started eating nylon?

#31 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:26 AM

Let's not ask sarcastic/loaded questions. We'll become no better than the Occam's Razor crowd. 

My question is an honest one because it deals with survival, confusion that comes with descent of features, co-evolution, organism's response to ecosystems, and pretty much all progress we've supposedly seen down the line.

How did instinct evolve?

We look at bees and their highly complex lifestyle, we see the honey guide and honey badger, we see a few of the things as what's on Fred's slideshow, and we realize that no matter what physical adaptations arise, instinct must follow for its proper usage. 

If we are to believe that all life originated from a single-celled organism, we have to comply that there are no givens beyond the abilities and responses available to it.  That is, if the feature comes and there is no ingrained knowledge of its usage it can become a burden, and sometimes life threatening.  Even the simple things.  For instance, the line of creatures after it had to know to breathe once they attained a breathing apparatus.  If they had limbs, their mind had to connect with the purpose and usage of them as soon as  they were there.  If you had legs, but no idea what walking is (which is actually highly likely early on in a species' leg development) you would be basically screwed.  Even going back to fins, flagella, or gastropods, muscle and motor knowledge and instinct is essential to survival. 

More importantly, if these gained instincts cannot be bred, how can evolution stand?  What is the likelihood that the right instinct will correspond to the right body parts?  How does the body know what to shut off and what to keep going during sleep?  How do we know what to do when we're hungry or when our s@x drive goes nuts?  How did the brain know to give us indicators of those needs?  The list goes on and on, and I'm sorry if I'm overloading, but instinct is the crux of my whole point.

View Post



Your question seems a little confused, but I hope this will help.

Instincts are difficult to define. Some things we call instincts are in fact learned behaviours. Others are "hard wired" actions of the central nervous system and musculature. Single celled organisms have neither central nervous systems nor muscles, but can still react to environmental stimuli and can still move by reorganising the molecules in their cell. They do not "know" how to do this, it is simply a chemical reaction to a stimulus.
In multicelled organisisms with central nervous systems the ability to move say a leg has evolved in parallel with the evolution of the leg itself. Do not imagine that suddenly there was an organism with a leg, but it had no idea how to make it work and this ability had to evolve later. Both the leg and the ability to move it evolved slowly and together.

Don't forget that everything alive we see today is the product of 3.5billion years of selection.

#32 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:35 AM

So what You are basically saying is it cant be observed, case closed :)

Peppered moths didnt evolve into another kind of insect, its still a moth, same with the nylon eating bacteria, what was it before it started eating nylon?

View Post




No, what I am saying is that it will take a lot of time to see it actually happening. We have only known about the idea of evolution for 150years! It probably takes several thousand years for one species to evolve into another.

What we can observe is lots and lots of evidence that evolution has occured, and most importantly not one single piece of evidence that conflicts with evolution.

#33 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:51 AM

In some ways it has been observed eg nylon eating bacteria and peppered moths etc

View Post

Bad example… nylon eating bacteria is nothing more than adaptation, the bacteria remain bacteria. And the peppered moth hoax was exposed long ago:
http://www.arn.org/d.../jw_pepmoth.htm
http://tribes.tribe....36-8281854156ca
http://www.exchanged...on/pepper.shtml
http://www.museumofh..._peppered_moth/
http://www.museumofh..._evolution_kit/

Anyway, aside from the hoax factor, the peppered moth is still… Well, a MOTH!

But I suspect you mean the evoluton of a completely new species

View Post

An obvious deduction.

Remember it takes a very very very very very very very very very....(big number..... cubed)....very long time and is a very very gradual process.

View Post

Which makes it a “faith based” proposition and a commitment to the “Argumentum ad Futuris” logical fallacy. There is absolutely no evidence for said process, it is an “a priori” presupposition that survives on a “wing and a prayer”.

The average human lifespan is under 100years,

View Post

Indeed, it is.

evolution has been going on Earth for about 3.5 billion years.

View Post

Another faith statement.

You just wouldnt expect to directly observe it.

View Post

So, are you saying macroevolution is a fact then?

#34 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 03:54 AM

I have another. Coming from an atheistic viewpoint everything in the world is a product of evolution... so if religion is a bad thing then why does it exist at all? How has it contributed to natural selection and if it has, then why would someone try to get rid of it?

That is correct. Thank you.

A lot of people assume that because I am a Christian and a Jehovah's Witness that I don't question what I have been told or look into other viewpoints. They are seriously mistaken. On the subject of origins, for one example... Jehovah's Witnesses have a couple of publications that are very well done for what they are, but they remain neutral on the age of the earth which I felt was essential for the explanations that I was looking for, so I started asking around. :)

In my reply to the OP I assumed that like the "10 myths of evolution" this thread will not add anything to my understanding of evolution but rather repeat the same arguments that don't really hold any weight, while implying that I am just ignorant on the topic. I suppose that is presumptuous of me.

View Post



Hey, who said religion was a bad thing? I am not religious and I hate seeing children brainwashed (it happens believe me), but that doesnt make religion a bad thing per se.

I think religions grew out of mankinds desire to explain amazing things. Earthquakes, electric storms, the sun, moon and stars, life, solar eclipses, comets, death, memory, birth, disease.............
All these things must have seemed supernatural to human beings just a few thousand years ago. Now we can explain all of them at least to some extent in scientific terms.

All Earthly religions are the product of human imaginations.

There are still many things science cannot explain very well if at all. My problem is that religion doesnt even attempt to explain them.

#35 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:11 AM

Bad example… nylon eating bacteria is nothing more than adaptation, the bacteria remain bacteria. And the peppered moth hoax was exposed long ago:
http://www.arn.org/d.../jw_pepmoth.htm
http://tribes.tribe....36-8281854156ca
http://www.exchanged...on/pepper.shtml
http://www.museumofh..._peppered_moth/
http://www.museumofh..._evolution_kit/

Anyway, aside from the hoax factor, the peppered moth is still… Well, a MOTH!
An obvious deduction.
Which makes it a “faith based” proposition and a commitment to the “Argumentum ad Futuris” logical fallacy. There is absolutely no evidence for said process, it is an “a priori” presupposition that survives on a “wing and a prayer”.

Indeed, it is.

Another faith statement.

So, are you saying macroevolution is a fact then?

View Post



I don't think I have made any faith statements. A faith statement is made when the statement has no supporting evidence to back it up. There is a vast amount of evidence to support the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years and that life has existed and evolved on Erath for 3.5billion years.

That one species can evolve into another as a result of isolation and natural selection is supported by millions of separate pieces of evidence, with zero contradictory evidence. Does that make it a fact? I don't know, but it is far more likely than magic.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:16 AM

Evolution makes no comment about how life arose.

View Post

That is because evolution is not sentient; therefore Evolution cannot make any commitments. But, aside from that, without origins, evolution has no foundation at all. At least some “theistic evolutionists” have somewhat of a claim to origins. Atheistic evolutionists have only the faith of “abiogenesis” to hang their hats on (and most of them run from that).

It simply describes a quite beautiful mechanism by which a simple life form can develop into the vast array of life seen on Earth after about 3.5billion years.

View Post

Aside from that being nothing more than a religious-type faith statement; provide for us then, an example (real example, not hypothetical) of a “simple” life form, AND further empirical evidences of it gradually developing into a vast array of life. This would include incremental graduation of fin to limb, and limb to wing evidences (fossils for example), and not the usual evolution of the gaps hoaxes either. Also, provide evidence that this so-called “simple life form” is any different from “simple” life forms found today.

At the moment no one knows how life began.

View Post

Well; based on logic, rationale, and science, we know it couldn’t have arisen from nothing, or non-life. And again, all the actual “evidence” we have, shows life only begets similar life! Fish give birth to fish, birds give birth to birds, apes give birth to apes, and man gives birth to man.

I think that the most likely explanation is that life arose from simple chemistry over a period of about a billion years.

View Post

Another faith based statement. And it isn’t “most likely”, its apparently what atheists would “most like”. But that explanation is;
Not Logical
Not Rational
Not Scientific

I certainly think this is far more likely than some supernatural being temporarily suspending the laws of physics and "creating" life by some completely unknown mechanism.

View Post

Not only is abiogenesis “not” far more likely, it isn’t even within the realm of probability.

#37 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:19 AM

Bad example… nylon eating bacteria is nothing more than adaptation, the bacteria remain bacteria.

BUT......adaptation is what evolution is all about!

#38 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:33 AM

Typical faith statements, and that's all he's offered us, no truth.

Evolution makes no comment about how life arose. It simply describes a quite beautiful mechanism by which a simple life form can develop into the vast array of life seen on Earth after about 3.5billion years.


Remember it takes a very very very very very very very very very....(big number..... cubed)....very long time and is a very very gradual process. The average human lifespan is under 100years, evolution has been going on Earth for about 3.5 billion years


There is a vast amount of evidence to support the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years and that life has existed and evolved on Erath for 3.5billion years.



#39 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:35 AM

I don't think I have made any faith statements.

View Post

Actually, yes you did:

evolution has been going on Earth for about 3.5 billion years.

View Post

There is absolutely NO evidence that one kind/species has evolved into another. No evidence that goo has become fish, has become bird or mammal, has become man. It is cut completely from fabrication.

A faith statement is made when the statement has no supporting evidence to back it up.

View Post

i.e. macroevolution.

There is a vast amount of evidence to support the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years and that life has existed and evolved on Erath for 3.5billion years.

View Post

Sorry my friend, we are talking about macroevolution, not age of the earth, so please stay on topic. There is absolutely NO evidence for macroevolution, and to say “macroevolution is true because life has been on earth for 3.5 billion years” is circular reasoning and faith based.

That one species can evolve into another as a result of isolation and natural selection is supported by millions of separate pieces of evidence, with zero contradictory evidence.

View Post

No, there is absolutely NO evidence for one kind/species evolving into another. All the evidence extant is in support of:

1- fish giving birth to fish
2- bird giving birth to bird
3- gorilla giving birth to gorilla
4- human giving birth to human

And you have provided absolutely NO “contradictory evidence” to the facts I’ve stated. You’ve only provided the “saying its so, makes it so” statements.

Does that make it a fact?  I don't know, but it is far more likely than magic.

View Post

Macroevolutiuon is magic, because it lacks ANY substantiation.

I would also warn you to heed the rules of the forum you agreed to when you signed up here:
http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

#40 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:36 AM

Bad example… nylon eating bacteria is nothing more than adaptation, the bacteria remain bacteria.

BUT......adaptation is what evolution is all about!

View Post


No, evolutionists twisted "adaptation" to fit the goal of evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users