As in the days of Noah.....

tommyjones

New Member
I'm trying to have a civil, reasonable discussion on this, Tommy. Do you realize there are no answers or testable, repeatable, peer reviewable, demonstratable theories from science, either, to any of these questions? Have you gotten the point that you don't know, and have no better way of proving any of science's theories than ID can?

see the part you dont get is that evloution does not talk to the biginings of the universe. It is only a theory about how life may have developed and changed over time. To this theory there is numerous evidence. you, foodbigot and the woman who doesn't believe she has a brain becasue she has never seen it are having trouble with staying on point.

thats why i put the same stupid questions back to foodbigot, they have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.
 

tirdun

staring into the abyss
Where the first DNA came from
And where did those come from?

And if I answer that? Will you ask where THAT came from? And then again? And so forth until I give up?

Why don't you go find out? Why don't you go find that out, again? Why don't you go find THAT out? Heck, make a career of it and you can stop asking people on internet forums to do research papers for you.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
see the part you dont get is that evloution does not talk to the biginings of the universe. It is only a theory about how life may have developed and changed over time. To this theory there is numerous evidence. you, foodbigot and the woman who doesn't believe she has a brain becasue she has never seen it are having trouble with staying on point.

thats why i put the same stupid questions back to foodbigot, they have nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution.
So, let's stick with evolution.

What is the mechanism? Is there a "strategic design", or is it just happenstance?

Because, if there's a strategic design in how species change, then there must be something that set up the design (i.e., a designer).

If there is just happenstance, than the answer that sharks haven't evolved because they didn't need to wouldn't stand up to logical argument regarding change happening just because of random mutations and variations that come naturally?

So, which is it, wrong, or wronger?
 

tommyjones

New Member
So, let's stick with evolution.

What is the mechanism? Is there a "strategic design", or is it just happenstance?

Because, if there's a strategic design in how species change, then there must be something that set up the design (i.e., a designer).

If there is just happenstance, than the answer that sharks haven't evolved because they didn't need to wouldn't stand up to logical argument regarding change happening just because of random mutations and variations that come naturally?

So, which is it, wrong, or wronger?

you really dont understand the question do you?

its survival of the fittest. changes happen by 'happenstance' and wether or not this change developes within a species has to do with if that change is beneficial.

so the answer is yes, somehow you have found a way to be wrong, and wronger in the same post
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I didn't attempt to prove anything. I answered flippant, ignorant questions with answers that are supported by modern science.
Except, they're not. They're guesses, suppositions, etc., not answers.
The environment is not fully understood, mostly because it doesn't exist anymore. The question, however, supposes that the environment was pure acid and nothing could have come from it.
For me, the answer is no one knows what the environment was, so it's pointless to say whether it was hostile or not. She says it was, you say it wasn't, and neither of you have anything but guesswork and supposition to answer. You don't know. That's the point.
That there are bones in the ground?
No, not that there are bones in the ground. No one disputes that. That those bones are actually there and prove your point. You don't know, you have faith in that belief, not knowledge.
The "drive" is evolution. The biological mechanisms of evolution have little effect in successful species except over very large numbers of generations.
Again, what mechanisms? Why are the mechanisms different for different species? What causes the mechanisms to effect change in some, but not others.

In other words, are you suggesting giraffes grew longer necks because trees got taller, or that some random mutation that caused longer necks caused a species that adapted to taller trees? If their necks got longer through need, then something triggered it to happen when it did. If they got longer through random mutations, why do we still have species that don't much mutate and change anymore (ie, over a few million years)? It can't be both!
Sponges are successful in specific environments and less successful in others. Environments that change, which creates pressures, which drives the mechanics of evolution.
Yet, we still have the sponges. Why didn't they just stay where they were, or die where the environment changed on them? What was the mechanism that affected the change at that point?
Don't know, and neither do you.
Thank God, you finally get it. Nothing else need be said, because you finally see the light. YOU DON"T KNOW, and that makes your arguments no more valid than mine!!!! Glory be, you found the light.
Different day, same argument. Science = faith for you and that's the end, therefore any conclusions met by science that don't line up with conclusions reached by faith are dismissable.
I've yet to find any conclusions met by science that don't line up with faith. Even the guesses and suppostions line up with faith, and are nothing but faith themselves, as there are no proofs.
This entire exercise was, as stated in the first line, a fast refutation of a set of cut and paste questions that argue purely by overwhelming. Ask a hundred short questions that require tedious and complicated answers and you can win the debate by wearing down anyone attempting to rebut.
I cut and paste nothing in regards to my questions. I don't know if any other poster was or not, and I don't care - questions are questions.

At least you realize you don't know, can't know, and that anything beyond that is faith, not fact.
 

baydoll

New Member
Shown by who? the Theory of Evolution itself is sound, the fine print may get altered.
are you Catholic you might want to click here.

No I'm not Catholic, LOL. No offense to the Catholics on here. (I'm married to one, btw) .


What fake "Theories" are being Tuaght? What facts did Darwin make up


The Tree of Life is an example. It has an amoeba at the bottom, fishes and amphibians on the bottom branches, up higher there are birds and reptiles, then apes toward the top, and man on the highest branch. It looks very 'convincing' and true but is it?

Not according to the fossil record it isn't.....the fossil record doesn't support it at all:


We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search through younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find gradual transition of the most primitive life forms into more complex ones…Since the transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of years (during which time millions, even billions, of transitional forms must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be discovered. (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 15).


But they have not been discovered.

Dr. White and Dr. Comninellis continue,

If reptiles turned into birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to find fossils with gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile into the form of wings like a bird…The fossil record ought to reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They should fill museum collections

But they don't. There is not one credible fossil evidence to support evolution.

Here's another one: Embryonic Recapitulation (the theory that human embryos develop by evolutionary stages of animal ancestry and have the organs of our 'supposed' evolutionary ancestors at different stages in devoloment as an embryo) :



*ERNST HAECKEL
Before concluding this study on recapitulation, we should consider *Haeckel himself.

*Haeckel invented the word, "recapitulation," also calling it the "biogenetic law." He said that embryos repeat (recapitulate) the shapes of their evolutionary forebearers.

But he needed proof for his theories, first proclaimed in 1866; so, since he had drafting ability, he doctored sketches of embryos, to make them appear alike! In 1874, he published his fraudulent charts, and fooled many people in Germany into believing that evolution must be true.

Later, a leading German embryologist, *Wilhelm His, Sr., exposed the hoax for what it was. He printed sketches of what those embryos really looked like, and declared *Haeckel to be a liar and a fraud.

But the facts about the fraudulent aspect of *Haeckel's work have never been widely published in English. Instead, you will find the recapitulation theory in standard schoolbooks, along with similarities, mimicry, and vestiges.—pp. 38-39, 41.

The human heart. Some lower level creatures have a single chamber in their heart, others have two or three. So, if we—who have four chambers in our hearts—"recapitulated" lower creatures while we were embryos, we should have first one, then two, then three, and then four chambers in our hearts, as we progress through our embryonic development.

But the truth is that, when you were conceived, you first had two chambers in your heart. They later fused into a single chamber. Eventually, before birth, they developed into four chambers. So, instead of the evolutionary 1-2-3-4, humans have 2-1-4.

Basic flaw. There is a basic flaw in *Haeckel's theory. It is this:

Man is supposed to have descended from a bird. And an animal, whose ancestor was a fish, which got tired of swimming around, came out of the water and spent the rest of its life on land while giving birth to nonfish.

But, aside from the oddity of such a yarn, why do fish embryos also have—not only their own fish gills,—but also the bird yoke sac and the animal tail? Did the fish descend from the bird? It is clear that *Haeckel's theory does not even agree with itself.

This theory is not merely foolish; it is the result of an outright hoax, initially developed by *Ernst Haeckel in 1866.

In the 19th century, when relatively little was known about the human body, some evolutionists came up with a strange idea which does not agree with modern scientific facts. Then, in order to make the theory appear even more convincing, one of those men produced woodcut illustrations which were soon afterward proven to be hoaxes.

The concept of "recapitulation" is based on the fact that there are similarities among embryos of people, animals, reptiles, birds, and fish. All creatures are so tiny when they first begin life that one would expect certain similarities to initially exist between, say, a fish and a bird. All babies begin as extremely tiny round balls and all look similar for the first few weeks. When very small, there is only one ideal way for them to develop. The problem here is size and packaging. Literally thousands of structures and organs are developing within a very small space.

The evolutionary theory of "recapitulation" declares that human embryos have organs which are leftovers from evolutionary ancestors. Human embryos are said to have a yolk sac like a chicken, a tail like a lizard, and gill slits like a fish! Is this true? No, it is not. Reputable scientists laugh at the idea, but evolutionists keep saying it is so.

THE "CHICKEN SAC"
In a baby chick, the yolk sac is its source of nourishment until it hatches. This is because the chick is in a shell, without a connection to its mother.

In a human, the only similarity of this bulging sac is its shape. Your blood is made in your bones; but, when you were an embryo, you had no bones! So God gave you a tiny sac-like organ to initially make your blood for you. That is what that sac is for. It takes blood to make the bones which will make the blood! You have reason to be thankful for that little sac.

THE "LIZARD TAIL"
When you were an embryo, your spine was longer than your body. Therefore, it stuck out and looked like a "tail." This is because your spine is very complicated and it initially required extra space to develop. Later your body grew larger and perfectly fit the length of the spine. Would you rather that all your spine was not formed back then? God does everything just right. The complex nerves in your spine needed that extra length in order to grow properly.

THE "FISH GILLS"
The evolutionists call these "gill slits." These are three little folds you had in your neck when you were an embryo. Why were they there? Carefully examining them, we find no gills to extract oxygen out of water, and no gill slits (no openings) of any kind. These are not gill slits! There are no slits and no gills.

Scientists now know that the upper fold eventually develops into the middle ear canals, the middle fold changes into the parathyroids, and the bottom fold becomes the thymus gland.

Once again the evolutionists are wrong. When a person bases his ideas on a false premise, all his conclusions will be incorrect. And evolutionary theory is based on the concept that everything made itself.

I have plenty more. Stay tuned! :smile:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
you really dont understand the question do you?
Yes, I do! :lmao:
its survival of the fittest. changes happen by 'happenstance' and wether or not this change developes within a species has to do with if that change is beneficial.
So, if changes happen purely through happenstance, then those changes would happen regardless of their benefit. Or, we'd have nothing but purely fit species by now, and there would be no changes that continue to grow into new species - the benefits wouldn't be there because the parent species would be sufficient.

Bear that in mind when you get to the giraffe question.
 

tommyjones

New Member
Yes, I do! :lmao:So, if changes happen purely through happenstance, then those changes would happen regardless of their benefit. Or, we'd have nothing but purely fit species by now, and there would be no changes that continue to grow into new species - the benefits wouldn't be there because the parent species would be sufficient.

Bear that in mind when you get to the giraffe question.

you really play the part of the idiot well.

a change in the individual happens by happenstance, if that individuals change is carried on to the species has to do with if the change is beneficial.


so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There are lots of ways that animals evolve that are not captured in fossils ... in metabolism used to deal with changing food sources, in proteins, in immune responses to diseases, in behavior, in the size of soft organs. The only thing left in fossils is bone structure.

Sharks and their relatives are cartilaginous fishes. This means that instead of bone in their skeletons they have cartilage a lighter and more elastic substance that does not usually fossilize like bone.
So, you're saying that we don't know if sharks have really changed significantly over time or not. This would be the foundation of my argument. :lol:
There is no such thing as a 'perfect' organism or species, and evolution never really stops.

However, if a species is well adapted to its environment, and if that environment does not change in any significant way for a long period of time, then the rate at which a species evolves can slow considerably. Random mutations still occur, but none of them provide the individuals that have them with a significant advantage over the rest of the population, and any deleterious effects would be more pronounced

That said, evolution is a response to environment ... once an organism is (a) well suited for its environment, and (b) is not experiencing significant competition for resources, survival, or mating opportunities, then evolution will appear to slow to a crawl ... but it doesn't "stop."
If I understand you correctly, you're saying the changes occur whether they're needed or not, but the ones that aren't needed don't propogate. Is that correct?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
you really play the part of the idiot well.
Are you capable of carrying on a civil discussion? I've seen you in many threads, and you are virtually never civil.
a change in the individual happens by happenstance, if that individuals change is carried on to the species has to do with if the change is beneficial.

so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore.
So, a group of giraffe-parent species all had the same happenstance change of slightly longer necks, and bred (probably close to exclusively) with one another, and this caused a fundamental shift in their DNA, which made the neck-length gene just that much more pronounced, and generations later we have what we have? Is that your point of view? (I want to make sure I understand your argument correctly)
 

tommyjones

New Member
Are you capable of carrying on a civil discussion? I've seen you in many threads, and you are virtually never civil.So, a group of giraffe-parent species all had the same happenstance change of slightly longer necks, and bred (probably close to exclusively) with one another, and this caused a fundamental shift in their DNA, which made the neck-length gene just that much more pronounced, and generations later we have what we have? Is that your point of view? (I want to make sure I understand your argument correctly)

its just like the way they made miniature poodles.

how the eff do you think they did that?


i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
its just like the way they made miniature poodles.

how the eff do you think they did that?


i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?
Two dogs combining (through a designer's manipulations, by the way) into a mutt, and carefully crafted (by a designer) to keep just the properties of the two parents in the new mutt is far, far, far different than spontaneously growing a longer neck, don't you think? :lmao:
 

tommyjones

New Member
Two dogs combining (through a designer's manipulations, by the way) into a mutt, and carefully crafted (by a designer) to keep just the properties of the two parents in the new mutt is far, far, far different than spontaneously growing a longer neck, don't you think? :lmao:

not really.


one genetic change happened over a short period because a person influenced it. the other change happened over a long period because an environmental influence. just because one takes longer doesn't mean they are not related.


btw, the miniature wasn't formed by making a mutt. purebreeds were selectively breed until they had a smaller reproducable version of the purebreed. it might not have met the "standard" for the breed, but it would still be a pure bred.
 

baydoll

New Member
its just like the way they made miniature poodles.

how the eff do you think they did that?


i mean if you can see it (a permanent change) through manipulation in just a few generations, why is it hard to understand that it happened on its own over millions of years?

Actually, this is an example of breeding selectively. It's the same genetic process responsible for the hybridization of cattle or roses. From the chihauhau to the Great Dane they are all still DOGS. Left to themselves for several generations you'll end up with mongrels. Never once has some offspring turned up with a curious 'meow' or a pig snout or some other totally new and benefitical feature not found in the dog genetic pool.
 

tommyjones

New Member
Actually, this is an example of breeding selectively. It's the same genetic process responsible for the hybridization of cattle or roses. From the chihauhau to the Great Dane they are all still DOGS. Left to themselves for several generations you'll end up with mongrels. Never once has some offspring turned up with a curious 'meow' or a pig snout or some other totally new and benefitical feature not found in the dog genetic pool.

maybe not in your life time bwhahahahaha



yeah, in evolution its called 'natural selection'
 

baydoll

New Member
Getting back to the question I asked that turnin or whatshisnameis guy and his answer to me (in quotes):

where the abundance of transitional species are,
Museums. Biology textbooks. Still in the ground. Lost to time.

Please post these 'transitional species' that are in Museums and Biology textbooks...name them.

Still in the ground? If evolution was true, these 'links' should be plentiful. Paleontologtists have been digging for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS all over this planet and have found nothing.

If evolution were true, WHY don't we see all manners of living transitional kinds? Why do we still have monkeys?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
not really.


one genetic change happened over a short period because a person influenced it. the other change happened over a long period because an environmental influence. just because one takes longer doesn't mean they are not related.


btw, the miniature wasn't formed by making a mutt. purebreeds were selectively breed until they had a smaller reproducable version of the purebreed. it might not have met the "standard" for the breed, but it would still be a pure bred.
The difference is the "selectively" bred.

What would have been the environmental cause of the longer neck, and then the cause of the selective breeding within the parent species?

And, if we can do that, why haven't we taken a sponge and exposed it to many different environmental effects to come up with both plants and animals (land type each) from this ocean based life that is the supposed mother of us all, to prove evolution correct once and for all?
 

tommyjones

New Member
The difference is the "selectively" bred.

What would have been the environmental cause of the longer neck, and then the cause of the selective breeding within the parent species?

And, if we can do that, why haven't we taken a sponge and exposed it to many different environmental effects to come up with both plants and animals (land type each) from this ocean based life that is the supposed mother of us all, to prove evolution correct once and for all?

the obvious answer is that food became harder to reach through environmental constraints meaning that tall or longer necked animals more easily fed and therefore were more likely to reproduce. shorter animals couldn't reach the food and reproduced less.

Natural secetion......
 

tommyjones

New Member
Getting back to the question I asked that turnin or whatshisnameis guy and his answer to me (in quotes):

where the abundance of transitional species are,


Please post these 'transitional species' that are in Museums and Biology textbooks...name them.

Still in the ground? If evolution was true, these 'links' should be plentiful. Paleontologtists have been digging for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS all over this planet and have found nothing.

If evolution were true, WHY don't we see all manners of living transitional kinds? Why do we still have monkeys?



i will say it one more time for you.....

we have a common ancestor, we did not evolve directly today's monkeys. We both brached off in the same tree.
 

baydoll

New Member
so the giraffe grew the long neck because some individuals had slightly longer necks, this helped that individual reproduce (probably by being better fed) and this individuals change was passed on to its offspring. a few hundred or thousand generations later and they don't look like the same animal anymore

One of Darwin's ideas were that during a long drought, some imaginary 'pre-giraffe' were taller than others so they were able to reach the scarce leaves upon which it fed. These 'survivors' supposedly "left offsprings inheriting the same bodily pecularities, while individuals less favored in the same respects would have been the most likely to perish" (Darwin's Origin of Species). Darwin concluded, "by this process long continued, an ordinary hoofed guadruped might be converted into a giraffe".

Well how the heck did the baby giraffes manage to survive during this incredible long drought?

And where are the fossil evidence supporting this?

There are none. Giraffes have always been giraffes. Long necks and all.
 
Top