{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/10/2015 1:08:36 PM
8
[quote] The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature. [/quote]
First of all this sounds like the age old "the eyeball is too complicated to have been produced by accident" fallacy. Secondly, this particular paragraph merely highlights natural human ignorance and limitations: it has never been produced in a lab because the process takes too long and accelerating evolution is the stuff of science fiction. It can't be observed by nature because as a species we have only been scientifically observant for the past few hundred years. Not enough time has passed for us to be able to see any of these things occur. To claim that this somehow invalidates evolution is also a fallacy, as it assumes human experience is the full measure of the universe, which is arrogant and foolish. Microevolution is acceptable to you because it takes place on human timescales, but macro isn't because it is beyond your comprehension of time; it takes place on geological time scales.
We can track DNA and see how it has shaped over time by looking at DNA similarities (such as us having 98% in common with chimps), we can see in the fossil record a theme of progress over the eons in skeletal structure. There are gaps in what we know, but there is evidence there; science doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Understanding the universe is not limited the empirical senses. Chief among the animal kingdom we have the brains to extrapolate based on data, even limited data, sound conclusions. Limiting our perception to merely the 5 senses is to limit our capacity to be no more than base animals. Your God, should he be real, gave us the ability to think critically; merely saying "we haven't actually seen it with our senses" is to ignore that great gift.
[quote] This Darwinism mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information [/quote]
Google mutations, a driving force in evolution over time.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/10/2015 3:26:02 PM[quote]First of all this sounds like the age old "the eyeball is too complicated to have been produced by accident" fallacy.[/quote]...which the eyeball is.[quote]Secondly, this particular paragraph merely highlights natural human ignorance and limitations: it has never been produced in a lab because the process takes too long and accelerating evolution is the stuff of science fiction.[/quote]Hmm...I guess that's why we decided to use organisms that have short lifespans compared to ours such as insects.[quote][It] can't be observed by nature because as a species we have only been scientifically observant for the past few hundred years.[/quote]Did you not read the experimental section in the OP?[quote]Not enough time has passed for us to be able to see any of these things occur.[/quote]Obviously false statement is apparently and obviously false.[quote]To claim that this somehow invalidates evolution is also a fallacy...[/quote]who said that most Christians disprove of evolution. It isn't that we disprove of it; it's only that we accept the plausible evidence.[quote]...as it assumes human experience is the full measure of the universe, which is arrogant and foolish.[/quote]Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly on that statement.[quote]Microevolution is acceptable to you because it takes place on human timescales, but macro isn't because it is beyond your comprehension of time; it takes place on geological time scales.[/quote]The subjects that were tested were insects. Not only did the organisms have obviously short lifespans, but they also adapted to their environment splendidly, but when the environmental factors were removed after generations of "evolution," they reverted. That's the issue.[quote]We can track DNA and see how it has shaped over time by looking at DNA [b]similarities[/b] (such as us having 98% in common with chimps)...[/quote]I don't have to explain why this statement is just wrong.[quote]...we can see in the fossil record a theme of progress over the eons in skeletal structure.[/quote]...which contains not even at least 100 transitional forms for even one species in the span of four and half billion years.[quote]...there are gaps in what we know, but there is evidence there; science doesn't pretend to have all the answers.[/quote]As expected.[quote]Understanding the universe is not limited [to] the empirical senses. Chief among the animal kingdom we have the brains to extrapolate based on data, even limited data, sound conclusions.[/quote]The last one is what Christians are to, well at least I do, depend on.[quote]Limiting our perception to merely the five senses is to limit our capacity to be no more than base animals. Your God, should He be real, gave us the ability to think critically; merely saying "we haven't actually seen it with our senses" is to ignore that great gift.[/quote]Beautifully stated sir. Beautifully stated.
-
Edited by ROBERTO jh: 6/10/2015 4:45:56 PM[quote] ...which the eyeball is. [/quote] It is not. The eyeball is the result of an age old mutation in ancient aquatic life forms, specifically a bacteria, that gave the organism a protein molecule that could absorb and process light. At the time the only thing it could make out were very rudimentary shadows at best, but they had a distinct advantage for their ability to process the difference between light and dark and could swim to darker places during the day time to avoid being caught in the intense UV light of the sun. Thus the Bacterium with primitives eyes were naturally selected as the ones without were killed off. This developed over time to first allow bacterium that harvest sunlight to make food an advantage in their ability to find food. Eventually the eye shaped itself to be able to discern light from shadows, thus allowing shapes to form for the first time, such as in the case of the dimple eyed flatworm; this mutation was naturally selected for due to its ability to discern prey from predator. This continued for millions to billions of years until we have the eye we have now; natural selection slowly but surely sculpted the eye; it works because natural selection is the ultimate act of fine tuning in the universe, and when you fine tune for billions of years, things begin to look radically different. It basically goes "this bacterium had protein molecules packed more closely together than this other one, and as such he has 'higher resolution' than this other one, therefore making him better suited for discerning, absorbing and processing light. He will therefore be statistically more likely to get more nutrition and survive and pass on his genes than this other guy." This continues for billions of years. [quote] Hmm...I guess that's why we decided to use organisms that have short lifespans compared to ours such as insects. [/quote] In a micro scale, evolution is more readily apparent as changes happen more quickly, due to generations having vastly shorter life spans. Take bacterium for example. They're constantly splitting into new "children" via asexual reproduction, and all it takes is a single benevolent copying error, as was the case of the first protein molecule that could absorb sunlight, for the first steps of evolution to begin. Most mutations are unhelpful, even harmful , but through billions of years this process reaches an inevitability that a mutation will be beneficial. It only has to happen once. [quote] Did you not read the experimental section in the OP? [/quote] With regards to small scale adaptations being experimentally verifiable? Yes I did, and I already explained how those small scale adaptations lead to large scale changes. [quote] Obviously false statement is apparently and obviously false. [/quote] Explain how. Bearing in mind I am referring to "macroevolution" as you call it. [quote] who said that most Christians disprove of evolution. [/quote] Not me. [quote] The subjects that were tested were insects. Not only did the organisms have obviously short lifespans, but they also adapted to their environment splendidly, but when the environmental factors were removed after generations of "evolution," they reverted. That's the issue. [/quote] Do you mind citing a source on this? But again, human timescales. Geologic time spans for millions to billions of years, and as such there is not usually enough time for any particular trait to revert back due to the removal of a certain environmental factor. The very act of doing so sullies the experiment. The existence of vestigial organs is a counter to your point. Humans for example have a tailbone from when we had tails--in fact the growing fetus has a tail, and even now we have the appendix, even though it's completely useless (and in fact a hindrance due to appendicitis). When something has been there in evolutionary terms for millions of years, it being useless down't make it just revert back to the way it was before. There was a time when human ancestors had tails, but now we do not, yet that bone is still there, more or less identical to the tailbones in apes. [quote] I don't have to explain why this statement is just wrong. [/quote] Clearly you do or I would not have said it. How does the similar relationship between chimps and humans not suggest a common ancestor? [quote] ..which contains not even at least 100 transitional forms for even one species in the span of four and half billion years. [/quote] As I go on to say, there are gaps. If you want your god to fill in the gaps, than god is an "ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." Simply because we do not have the Encyclopedia Terrastria on our hand now does not suggest that evolution is wrong; lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. As a Christian of some intelligence, that is an argument I would bet money that you've used in defense of God. If you know William Lane Craig, than you will have definitely at least have heard it. All things being equal, the gaps in the fossil record do not suggest anything either way for or against evolution, they merely represent the boundaries of our current scientific ignorance yet to be pushed at. [quote] The last one is what Christians are to, well at least I do, depend on. [/quote] And yet you are the one who claims that, because "Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, [b]because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b]" (emphasis yours) You are literally saying "since we can not test it empirically, it is just a fantasy," which is a self evident hypocrisy since at the same time you cite the Bible as evidence of God, a God that we have no means to verify empirically; the Bible is, as it turns out, "just a story."
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/15/2015 6:06:24 PM[quote]The eyeball is the result of an age old mutation in ancient aquatic life forms, specifically a bacteria, that gave the organism a protein molecule that could absorb and process light.[/quote]The interesting part about this theory is that it's hypothesized, meaning that it can neither be verified nor observed using the scientific method. In a laboratory, the variant in species can be observed, and it's genetics can be altered, but it has never been observed to develop a new function. While the story appears to have plausibility, it still isn't yet able to be proven because of it's in-capability to be observed. Anyone who has spent some time reading or debating creationists is almost certain to hear the argument that “evolution is just a theory." Though this statement is technically correct – evolution is indeed a theory – people who do not understand the implications of that word as it is used in science often think it is saying something different from what it actually means. The important thing to keep in mind is that the everyday definition of the word “theory” is different from its scientific definition, since it is intended to be used under a different connotation. In common usage, theory often means something like “guess” or “hunch." However, in scientific circles, this is not the case. To scientists, a theory is an explanation of some feature of the world that meets three requirements: it is supported by evidence, is testable and falsifiable, and can be used to make predictions. Your "story" doesn't meet any of the requirements, among it even less of a theory than evolution already is. Atheists often claim that the "scientific" theory of evolution passes with flying colors, when in reality it only observes the changes in variants, which is explained in the OP.[quote]This continues for billions of years.[/quote]How do you explain the cosmic dust study?[quote]In a micro scale, evolution is more readily apparent as changes happen more quickly, due to generations having vastly shorter life spans. Take bacterium for example. They're constantly splitting into new "children" via asexual reproduction, and all it takes is a single benevolent copying error, as was the case of the first protein molecule that could absorb sunlight for the first steps of evolution to begin. Most mutations are unhelpful, even harmful, but through billions of years this process reaches an inevitability that a mutation will be beneficial. It only has to happen once.[/quote]...and it must continually be present not only in the generations but also in the environment that the organism is in. Unfortunately, these studies have proven that these adaptive processes must be under constant biological restraints that often force the new genetics to be copied incorrectly and then hopefully the genetics is benevolent in very case and in every generation.[quote][quote]The subjects that were tested were insects. Not only did the organisms have obviously short lifespans, but they also adapted to their environment splendidly, but when the environmental factors were removed after generations of "evolution," they reverted. That's the issue.[/quote]Do you mind citing a source on this?[/quote]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2554870/[quote]The existence of vestigial organs is a counter to your point.[/quote]Not all the vestigial organs are useless; it has been proven so. What animal are you assuming has no coccyx? Are you going to assume that if you find an animal without one, it had no tail in it's species supposed generations? The coccyx is used as a support to which muscles bind to in order for humans to remain in an upright position. It also attaches to the muscles that help get rid of waste. Why do you think no doctor has recommended as a "vestigial" organ than can be removed?[quote]How does the similar relationship between chimps and humans not suggest a common ancestor?[/quote]There are huge gaps in transitional forms, and the creatures are apparently dumber than the latter.[quote][quote]...which contains not even at least 100 transitional forms for even one species in the span of four and half billion years.[/quote]As I go on to say, there are gaps. If you want your God to fill in the gaps, than God is an "ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance."[/quote]I don't expect him to. That job is for the atheistic community.[quote]Simply because we do not have the Encyclopedia Terrastria on our hand now does not suggest that evolution is wrong.[/quote]As I'm often told.[quote]...lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.[/quote]Really?[quote]As a Christian of some intelligence, that is an argument I would bet money that you've used in defense of God.[/quote]Yes, but it is still favored in archeology, non-biblical history, and in some political sciences.[quote]...you are the one who claims that because "Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, [b]because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b]" You are literally saying "since we can not test it empirically, it is just a fantasy..."[/quote]Yes, since you are an advocate for the fact that everything that we are today are naturally developed; thus, it requires such empiricist-like methods to verify it's logic.[quote]...which is a self evident hypocrisy since at the same time you cite the Bible as evidence of God, a God that we have no means to verify empirically; the Bible is, as it turns out, "just a story."[/quote]God is not natural; thus, any attempt of physically studying him will always be null and void since He intended for us to only use His Word. If we can't prove to you that He exists through any empirical means, we will then use logic.
-
-
[quote]rekt[/quote]
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/15/2015 6:06:45 PM[quote]#Rekt...[/quote]
-
>Says TL;DR >Constantly makes posts that are TL;DR >Three days later, still didn't respond >Rekt and a Hypocrite
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 6/15/2015 6:08:31 PMI have replied. I guess all I needed was a reminder. Thanks for the update, and please have patience with me. I'm on vacation.
