Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Into the Night]

Which of them are professional biologists? None, I would think.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. You are assuming that biologists are a closed set of people on this forum.

 

[Into the Night]

Acting like you can talk down to people only works if you are brighter than they are, you are not! We have no missing links for humans!

...by the simple fact that such a link is missing...by definition.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolutionary genetic studies with fruit flies are well known to the scientifically literate and do not require searching for links.

These are imposing unnatural selection on fruit flies. Big deal.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope.

Mitochondrial Eve was a popularization by the media, and was never used by scientists in that context.

Mitochondrial Eve was not even the first woman.

There were homo sapiens living before her.

All the mitochondrial data really show is that modern humans descended from a small population of homo sapiens in Africa -- and that as the tens of thousands of years went by most, or nearly all of the female genetic lines died out and are not represented in today's population.

When you start with a relatively small group of humans, and then fast forward 150,000 years, the odds are most or nearly all female heritage lines will die out and become genetic dead ends.

That is just genetic population statistics. There is nothing biblical about it.

But your statement is a religious one nevertheless.

 

[Into the Night]

Question: if they are secured in their belief in Biblical Creationism, then why are they worried when that belief is challenged?

Why are YOU worried that the Christian belief is stated?

 

[Into the Night]

Please look up the scientific definition of "evolution," and then we'll have a common basis, a common language, to continue the conversation.

Science doesn't define 'evolution'. The word 'evolution' stems from the Latin 'evolvre', which simply means to 'unroll'.

 

[Into the Night]

Pretty standard in biology. Not controversial at all.

Nope. No standards.

 

[Into the Night]

That was Darwin’s claim though obviously his theory couldn’t address it directly.

He described the first single cells as ‘amorphous blobs of protoplasm’ or something similar. It’s no fault of Darwin’s that ‘blobs of protoplasm’ hardly describes the mind boggling complexity in even ‘simple’ cells.

‘Simple cell’ is like the mother of oxymorons. In fact, it’s only gotten harder to explain their existence strictly as product of ‘some process’[?] acting on lifeless matter—regardless of how much time is involved.

It’s one of the reasons I’m skeptical of the whole business.

Don't blame you. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection builds a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

/shrugs......you are confused and think there IS evidence that supports the theory of evolution.......catch up with science, fool......

There is. It's not science. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, I see now. You actually were not aware that evolution by natural selection has been observed experimentally

Nope. That's unnatural selection.

and in the field.

Where? How? If the Theory of Natural Selection is true, how do you get such variety? Since you have such variety, how can Natural Selection be said to be true?
Which is it? It's one or the other! It's a paradox.

Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly observed in real time under labotatory conditions and in the field.

You just said this. I guess you have to repeat yourself because you forgot what you just said in the previous sentence.

If you are demanding to see the evolution of fins into legs in real time, you put an impossibly high burden of proof on science.

The Theory of Evolution is not science. Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

And you only do that for emotional reasons, because you are an evolution denying young earth creationist

The Theory of Creation is not science. Putting a religion down in favor of your own is the act of a fundamentalist. You are trying to prove a circular argument (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

In a classic evolutionary field study, it was observed that white colored Brtitsh peppered moths evolved by natural selection into a dominantly dark-colored variety because of changing environmental conditions over the course of just a few decades.

Nah. They change color with the seasons, just like some owls, rabbits, and foxes. That's not evolution.

In a classic paleontological field study, a transitional fossil called tiktaalik showed morphological features intermediate between fish and four-legged amphibians.

Or it's yet another fake fossil. There's quite a market for these, you know.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

The Theory of Evolution is not science. Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Evolution is fact , you lame-brained, contrary, attention-seeking half-wit.

 

[moon]

I sincerely hope that I remember where this quote is ...

for I shall use it one EVERY dim altered postl

By the way ... I agree with you about this

Duplicitous hypocrite.

 

[Darth Omar]

If God created the Universe, where was God when he created it? The universe?? Did God create Himself??

God is eternal and eternity exists outside of the space/time continuum. The latter is an attribute of the universe.

One of the reasons the multiverse theory exists is to get around the theological implications that arise out of a universe that had a distinct beginning: a universe with a beginning allows for the prospect of a Beginner that exists separate from the universe.

 

[Micawber]

For all of our brilliant evolutionists, please explain to the class where original matter came from.

You know, the matter from which all things are made. Where did it come from.

Nobody knows. Why attribute a false creation by a magical deity you describe in detail from that state of evidence? That’s your monkey brain talking.

The best we have based on evidence is a Big Bang theory. Creationism isn’t even a theory, it’s a fairy tale.

 

[Grumpy]

There are two theories:

The Theory of Abiogenesis, where life arrived on Earth through a series of random unspecified events, and the Theory of Creation, where life arrived through the action of an intelligence (that intelligence does not have to be a God or gods).
Neither theory is science. Both theories are nonscientific theories, and religions. These two theories are mutually exclusive. If one occurred, the other can't have.

Personally, I find the Theory of Abiogenesis has a rather fatal problem:
Assuming that a cell somehow was naturally synthesized out of non-living material, what did the cell eat? How did it gain energy to divide? The use of something like absorbing sunlight directly is a very complex process requiring complex structures.

So what did said cell eat?
If there were two cells, and one ate the other, then one has to argue that the synthesis not only occurred once by chance, but TWICE, and the end result is simply two cells. On eats the other to gain energy to divide once again into two cells. Now what? One eats the other AGAIN??

Personally, I subscribe to the Theory of Creation. It makes more sense.

I AGREE

Darwins Black Box also discusses this conundrum from a different angle

To me the biggest hole in the evolution theory is that there are NO TRANSITIONAL examples for humans. Each 'ancestor' fits into its own box. Piltdown is a graphic example of the 'unfulfilled need'.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

people like you do believe bullshit.......you believe that human beings evolved from single celled organisms........the same single celled organisms that rabbits and elephants and redwood trees evolved from........that's the nonsense you pretend to.........

As usual, you are wrong. I do not "believe" that nonsense you just spewed. I don't need to "believe" it. Instead, I accept the scientific actuality that all life on this planet is connected, and that it all began with the simple, as it evolved -- over billions of years -- to the very complex. I also accept as reality that life is *still* evolving.

My notifications tell me that you spazzed out over this topic and replied to the same thing numerous times. Sorry, but one response per idiot is all you get.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If you are demanding to see the evolution of fins into legs in real time, you put an impossibly high burden of proof on science.

the fact it's impossible is why the claim that fins turned into legs is untestable.......and if it's untestable, it cannot be a scientific theory........

 

[PostmodernProphet]

As usual, you are wrong. I do not "believe" that nonsense you just spewed. I don't need to "believe" it. Instead, I accept the scientific actuality that all life on this planet is connected, and that it all began with the simple, as it evolved -- over billions of years -- to the very complex. I also accept as reality that life is *still* evolving.

believing that which cannot be proven is faith........I have no objection to your choice of religion.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

My notifications tell me that you spazzed out over this topic and replied to the same thing numerous times. Sorry, but one response per idiot is all you get.

/shrugs.....it's okay.....they were all different, but you would have just found you were wrong on the other points as you were on this one.......I got my point across even if you ignore it.......