That voids your research.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
|
That voids your research.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
"I don't know it all. I barely know a little. But if that little helps someone, then I guess I learned even more!! "Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
As you have admitted your ignorance in your signature, you really barely know much.
[QUOTE=sassyT]I am a science masters student so I know what a theory is. Scientific theories may be made of SOME facts but it does not mean the theory itself is a fact.
A thoery is based on observation, limited knowledge, hypthesis, An assumption based on limited information or [U]knowledge[/U]; a conjecture
QUOTE]
So we have established that you are still just a student.
And by the way I am going to make this last statement and quit for the day because I am getting to emotionally involved in this discussion and I don't normally do that.
What you arguing is the same as someone saying that the crayon they are using to color cookie monster is black. And you would come back with "you are so ignorant, that crayon is NOT black it is all different colors combined to make one color so therefore it is not black it is.... blah blah blah." BUT WHAT DOES THE CRAYOLA BOX SAY IT IS... FREAKIN BLACK!!
So yeah in a souped up way you are right black is a combination of... (insert all scientific data here) but the simple way to explain it is well it's black and if I want to call it dark gray, I can. You know why... because I CAN.
Credendovidis has his own way of thinking. And as I have already PROVEN, he accepts others views too. But that doesn't mean he has to think or believe the same as them.
You on the other hand seem to have this thing about arguing with people that don't see things the same way you do. And as I have PROVEN you are very offensive and demeaning when someone challenges your views.
I don't believe the same way Crededonvidis does. I believe there is a God and that He created life. And Credo and I have already discussed this. And you know what I am on this post because I felt compelled to stand up for him because he respected my views and gave me his opinions and views in a very positive and sometimes funny manner. You on the other hand are not positive or funny in your statements. You actually attack those that don't think like you or challenge your ideas.
So think on this dear sassyT, do you think that accepting that not everyone views the world as you do is possible? And by accepting I mean being okay with it, not just admitting that others don't think like you. And also by accepting I mean not feeling like or claiming that everyone that doesn't think like you is wrong or ignorant or stupid or all the other things you like to say to people that don't think like you. Because it's not very nice and not very becoming. And you can't think that someone will value your opinion later on when every other time you give your opinion it's rude and demeaning to others. You even made it a point to IM Credo to be rude. I mean come on. GET OVER IT! HE Doesn't"T THINK LIKE YOU AND DOESN"T BELIEVE IN A DEITY!! It's really okay. REALLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I couldn't agree more w/ first 3 sentences, but I only have a minor quibble w/ the last: I don't even need that entity to explain things that don't yet have a "proper scientific explanation." I wait long enough, I'm sure it'll happen. <G> I can't not believe in some paranormal phenomena but that doesn't mean I need a supernatural entity to explain it. (Too bad some scientists are too willing to dismiss those things before they're properly investigated.)
I obviously know more about grammar and spelling than little miss science masters student.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
But the difference between you and I is am mature enough to admit that I Don't know everything. Whereas, you still have that little girl mindset of "I know everything".
And again, all that posts proves is that you are extremely immature and avoid pointed coments that prove you are wrong. And that your idea of debating is calling names and demeaning those that challenge your way of thinking. I have a 2 year old that acts more mature than you do. He says please and thank you. And my seven year old has better grammar skills than you do. And yet you want to call me ignorant. HA!
I pity your professor and you.
I didn't call you ignorant you said yourself. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by achampio21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Need I say more.
[QUOTE=achampio21]You really amaze me.. lol you are just in your own world aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Credo has his OWN BELIEFS and I have mine and I am perfectly fine with that. SO I don't know what you are RANTING and rRAVING about..? :confused: lol seriously lighten up. We are trying to have a debate here.
What I am not fine with is Credo acting like his beliefs are somehow factual when they are not. So that is all I want credo to admit. That his beliefs are just that, BELIEFS. End of story. So please don't waste your energy getting mad and taking things personaly. This is just a site where people come and express their beliefs and ideas so don't take offense to what people on this site have to say. I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
For a science masters student, you apparently have a poor understanding of "theory" as it is used in scientific fields.
THEORY: 1. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
2. a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption
Def #1 is scientific; def #2 (your apparent def) is general.
Hypotheses lead to theories - but only after much investigation is done on conjectures.
Definition of ConjectureQuote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election
So how does a theory become a fact when its based on guesswork?
Apparently you neglected the rest of the post. There are no proven facts until there is first conjecture. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons, then forms a hypothesis. Then one investigates - observes, studies, does tests, comparisons... and based on all that work, one comes up with a scientific theory. There are very few actual scientific "facts." There are, however, a multitude of scientific theories with a body of evidence great enough to consider them essentially settled. Of course, there will always be competing theories (both in lay and scientific connotation), but it takes an extraordinary amount of evidence to turn over an accepted scientific theory. EVOLUTION IS ONE OF THESE ACCEPTED THEORIES. Modern medicine is based on it. The only disagreement among scientists re evo, are the mechanisms by which it occurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I am sorry? Moderan medicine based on a unproved theory? Are you sure moderan medicine is not based on product testing, lab experiments and a lot of research??
Ignoring the "unproven" part for the moment (see other posts) but, YES! Modern med, is based on evolutionary theory: Vaccines, the genetic search for the causes of disease and conditions...
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white"
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white. (NOT TRUE)
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.
Not that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white, nor does it prove that all swans are white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. So a theory is not a fact it is nothing more than an educated guess based upon observation and limited knowledge.
evolution follows the same premise so it could very well be completely faulse but since you believe it is a fact, you have FAITH in it.
Modern med may be based on Micro evolution which as an observable scientific fact. But it is NOT based on the hoax "Macro evolution" which claims humans and fruit flies share a common ancestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
I do NOT have religious beliefs. I am fine with your religious belief, and the many unsupported claims you make based on that belief. But the point is that how ever strong you believe these claims are true, that doe not make them true !Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Not true. I posted a question and started a debate with that. All you do is being rude and attack other peoples views that are opposing your views in long drawn-out posts with near-meaningless argumentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
First of all I try NOT to make any claims, and if I do I certainly do not call them factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Secondly : when I post a thesis I always mention that, while you react on that as a bull on a red flag, claiming that I post beliefs.
I note that so far you have never even admitted that all your religious based claims carry at best only subjective support based on your religious instruction book. Instead of on reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
People do not take offense of your views. They take offense against your frequent rudeness, your sidestepping of issues, your twisting of words, and your unsupported allegations and attacks. As an example for the value of Christianity you must be the worst possible reference...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
:rolleyes:
Faith, belief, existence, yes, no, good, bad, God, Science... The list never ends. This is what is. We can act, and react, change and not change, but is there any real differnece? Is it no all the same in the end? The gears are turrning, and it seems that we are trying to figure out why, or simply say some higher power is in charge. I know what does all this mean, what am I talking about? Perhaps I'm just some poor unfortunate lost soul in need of guidance, or maybe I'm a great and powerful being trying to show you something that you know to be true but are too afraid to acknowlege, or maybe I'm just a reguar person just as curious as you are about everything, or maybe I'm all of those things?? Who really knows... I know I don't.
So why listen to a word I've said? Why not? DO not the pros and cons out weigh one another? Does it really matter? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? So why??
Simply because we are, and can? Or because we are all one of the same, working together to understand better our self?? Scarry thoughts, eh? To think that the very person you are dissagreeing with is no "better", "worse", "Write", "Wrong" than you are? Now if I too could practice what I speak I'd be well... I'd simply be...
I'm not saying don't be who you are because it's futile, or means nothing, (remember I don't know.) but rather feel free to open yourself to life, and take the ride as it is. Yes it may hurt, may be soothing, pleasing, enjoyable, terrifying, sad, lonely, and many other things. The choice is always ours, and that is something we can take comfort in.
SO peace and love my friends... Indeed peace and love.
What is actually the essence of your post ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorian
Peace for you too, brother (or sister) !
;)
You keep saying that... but I've read your posts... I don't believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Also, please see this link:
CA612: Evolution requiring faith
For a simple explanation as to why belief in evolution takes no faith at all.
Does not life itself take faith, or belief?
In fact is it not faith that you believe you are actually reading this, how can you prove beyond a doubt that you are not actually dreaming this post or in fact perhaps I am dreaming you are reading my post?
How without faith in our ability to sense and judge, do we actually live out lifes. In fact can really anything be 100 percent proved to everyone ?
I may tell you the sky is blue, but if you are color blind or just blind can you believe me, or even understand what I am referring to.
Is not merely life a faith or belief in one thing or another
Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Medicine is based on science - the facts and the results - as well as the art - individuals and individual differences.
Modern pharmaceuticals, new imaging techniques, surgical advances are based on facts and outcomes. INTELLIGENT engineering and computer programing has pushed the boundaries.
For example, take avandia, a diabetic medication. We know it's mechanism of action, we know that it lowers blood sugars and A1Cs. We know that sugar control as close to normal reduces diabetic complications and improves mortality. But avandia has the opposite effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and that is why it is now in question.
Because A is related to B, and B is related to C, does not necessarily mean A is related to C. It is called surrogate markers. It is not accurate. Evolution is full of assumptions. NO human knows the origins of life or how DNA became the blueprint. Evolution is retrospective. In medicine those studies can only posit hypothesis it cannot prove causation. The gold standard is the randomized double blind study with huge poputlations to control for confounding factors at the onset. This can never be accomplished with evolution.
I think you mistake evolution for research and development. Evolution in the strict sense of "beneficial " mutations conferring a selective reproductive benefit only has an effect on microbial resistance. But a flu remains a flu, hiv remains hiv, staph remains staph. Characteristics and traits such as drug resistance may develop, but essentially they remain the same. It is science using INTELLIGENCE to overcome control, cure, maintain disease that is of use. Genetics is helpful, yes, but I guarantee you that knowledge of evolution is not essential or even necessary to get into medical school, pass board exam, or get liscensure, because evolution does not matter.
As to the art portion, a whole lot of that is sociology and psychology. People are MORE than their genetic makeup. Stress, spirituality, social support, doctor patient relationship, all matter as much as mental ability.
As to mutations as the prime mover in evolution?
Families Research:CFR
"Lifetime breast cancer risks among carriers of MUTATIONS of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been estimated at 40-80%."
What types of diseases can be predicted with gene tests?
This is INTELLIGENT use of science to research, screen for, and potentially cure some diseases. They find a cancer related gene and try to DESIGN specific treatments.
Oh please, lay of the metaphysical pseudo-science crap. Beyond that, religious faith is a different sort of faith than common belief. I believe my husband is downstairs feeding the dog right now, yes, that's a belief. You could say I have faith in my husband that he will feed the dog every night. But is that the same sort of faith you have in god? Would I lay my life down for it? Bet my life savings? Argue to the end of time that my husband is feeding the dog every night? No. And I certainly hope, given your position in the community, that your faith in god is quite different as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
CA202: Evolution proof
"All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. "
This is a better argument for design than mutations, selection and time.
"The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. "
How do they explain the Cambrian "biological big bang?"
"Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth."
The Heritage of the Recapitulation Theory note the date on the references.
"Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. "
So function is not important to survival, evolutionary similarity is?
Of course they cannot explain how hands wings, flippers became in the first place.
"The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry"
Which is it? Is "junk" dna important or not. Is 1 % sucha huge difference?
Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In
See how confusing it is to believe in the evolutionists hype.Quote:
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference WASN'T THE WHOLE STORY. They predicted that there must be PROFOUND DIFFERENCE OUTSIDE OF GENES—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism SHOULD BE RETIRED.
“For many, many years, the 1% difference SERVED US WELL [ ignorance?] because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “NOW IT'S TOTALLY CLEAR THAT IT'S MORE A HINDRANCE FOR UNDERSTANDING THAN A HELP."
That macro evo is a "hoax" is no more than you ill-informed opinion. The more folks disagree w/you, the less reasonable you seem. One of the things I find most frustrating is when people exhibit carefully cultivated, intentional ignorance. There is so much accurate info out there, but people refuse to sift through the chaff to find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
While I basically accept your clarifications... not exactly. Genetic microbial research has found that viruses and bacteria 'trade' genetic material. They can even take as their own, some of the host's genetic material. In trading, they evolve. There is growing research into the hypothesis that this trading helped lead to speciation early on, and is still occurring. So evolutionary changes on a microbial level due to this might be one of the mech that macro evo uses. There is even bacterial DNA mixed in w/ our own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The Cambrian explosion is one thing that Stephen Gould pointed to for support of his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.
Where did you get the idea that functionality is not important to survival? Each mentioned is adapted to environment - crucial to survival. That they are based on the same plan just supports common descent.
Science and medicine do not yet know if the "junk" DNA is really junk. There is growing evidence that it is not. And 1% CAN be a BIG dif. That's all that separates us from chimps.
Evolutionary science does not need hype.
You can BELIEVE what you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Yes Macro evolutions is a Hoax. Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.
Every fossil that has been found so far in the world is in support of creation because all the different kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata with zero proof of ancestors. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"ancestors.
If all these transitionals exist then why did Richard Goldschmidt have to come up with his hopeful monster theory and the paleontologist Stephen Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium in order to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record?
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal is a huge problem for evolutionism. So thus far all fossils found are very much in support of Creation.
So please don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.
I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.
Maybe you should take your own advice. And you seem to always take offense. My proof of that is: the IM message you sent credo.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
And I must say you do keep sidestepping all the questions directed to you.
So do you make good grades as a science masters student or do you tell your professor what an ignorant dumbass he is too and that you are right and he is wrong?
I also find it very hard to believe that you are a science masters student, let alone a high school graduate. Your grammar skills suck. And you obviously don't know what the basic idea of a "debate" is.
Now wait a minute. If you want 100% proof of everyone else's claims, then I want 100% proof of your claims that Jesus ever existed. And that God is real, and when I die I am going to Heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
And I am going to give you this FACT SassyT. When you were created inside your mother's womb you were nothing more than an embryo with a tail yourself. Are you still an embryo with a tail? HUH NO! YOU EVOLVED INTO A BABY! THEN EVOLVED INTO... whatever you are now. So even if God is or isn't real evolution is still a fact. Flowers evolve from seeds to plants all the time so do trees, basically all living things that start as one thing and evolve into something else.
So if you take a look in the mirror you will have your 100% proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You wouldn't believe in evolution under any circumstances. You have proven yourself to be singularly close-minded. I gave you suggestions on where to find proof of transitionals but, no surprise, you haven't bothered. It is creationism that has absolutely no proof.
As for punctuated equilibrium, it does not negate evolution. As I have tried to explain to your closed little mind, that's dealing with the mechanisms - how it happened, not whether.
And see the following so that maybe, just maybe, you'll stop using quotes out of context:
Review: "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism" by Niles Eldridge. *. The title of this book is fairly self-explanatory.. . [*from the book site, not my statement]
---------------
However, the editors of The Revised Quote Book neglect to tell their readers that in the same book by Grasse from which they have quoted, Grasse also stated in the most unequivocal terms: "Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e. the history of the living world... [Also,] Embryogenesis provides valuable data [concerning evolutionary relationships]... Chemistry, through its analytical data, directs biologists and provides guidance in their search for affinities between groups of animals or plants, and... plays an important part in the approach to genuine evolution." (Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 3,4,5,7)
---------------
One Hundred Years without Darwin are Enough
The following essay was published in Evolution: Oxford Readers (1997).
By G. G. Simpson
Suppose that the most fundamental and general principle of a science had been known for over a century and had long since become a main basis for understanding and research by scientists in that field. You would surely assume that the principle would be taken as a matter of course by everyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the science. It would obviously be taught everywhere as basic to the science at any level of education. If you think that about biology, however, you are wrong.
Evolution is such a principle in biology. Although almost everyone has heard of it, most Americans have only the scantest and most distorted idea of its real nature and significance. I know of no poll, but I suspect that a majority doubt, disbelieve, or violently oppose its clear truth without a hearing and on no basis more rational than prejudice, dogma, or superstition. Many school and not a few college teachers either share that irrationality or evade teaching the truth of evolution from other motives. That is a main reason why…only a minority of us have fully entered the world into which Darwin led us.
This irrational prejudice is a problem, and a very serious one, for our educational system and for the whole dream of developing the enlightened citizenry on which the ideal of democracy depends. It is not enough, then, simply to state, as I have, that everyone should enter the world into which Darwin led us. Some more personal and practical thought must be given to why everyone should enter it, why they have not, and what can be done about it. There are deep and tangled roots that cannot be followed in one short chapter, but I shall here attempt a superficial examination, at least, centered on the educational system where much of the impediment and the greater part of the hope are inherent.
[only 1st 3 paragraphs... ]
[QUOTE]You do have religious beliefs. You just admitted in another forum that you had secular humanistic beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
[QUOTE]well try harder because you have made too many unsupported claims all over this site and have tried (but failed dismally) to pass them off as facts.Quote:
First of all I try NOT to make any claims, and if I do I certainly do not call them factual.
Unless your assertions are based on hard FACTS, your claims are nothing but beliefs. Just because you make a "thesis" , hypothesis or theory about your beliefs does not make it in anyway a FACT. Look up the definitions of those word, they are far from facts. If you make an assertion that is not FACTUAL, then it is a belief/ opinion. I don't know why you are finding it so hard to come to terms with that.Quote:
Secondly : when I post a thesis I always mention that, while you react on that as a bull on a red flag, claiming that I post beliefs.
I have openly admitted to the fact that my beliefs are beliefs, something you are not willing to do for your own beliefs because you are under the delusion that your beliefs are reality despite your inability to provide 100% evidence to qualify them as FACTS.Quote:
I note that so far you have never even admitted that all your religious based claims carry at best only subjective support based on your religious instruction book. Instead of on reality.
I will acknowledge that there is not 100% evidence for God to qualify his existence as fact, but there is however an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. In My opinion and form my own personal experience I know God exists.
There is a lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang. The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't. Difference in opinion.So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion.
You are just describing yourself here. After all, I am not the one who claims to be an atheist and yet spend half my life on a RELIGIOUS forum day in and day out harassing religious people about their beliefs while trying to promote your own. :rolleyes:Quote:
People do not take offense of your views. They take offense against your frequent rudeness, your sidestepping of issues, your twisting of words, and your unsupported allegations and attacks. As an example for the value of Christianity you must be the worst possible reference...
Golly, thanks. Now I BELIEVE you are a waste of my time and I BELIEVE you've just earned the next coveted spot on my "ignore" list!Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Nope, changed my mind - those are both FACTS!
There is so much evidence for evolution. On what basis do you argue there is no evidence? There are hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which support or are consistent with evolution, none of which contradict the idea of evolution of life on Earth from a common ancestor. If you are going to make assertions about "lack of evidence," tell us what specific evidence you have decided to reject. Do you reject the evidence that we humans and yeasts share similar genes, not to mention all mammals (which also share certain traits like fur and mammary glands because they INHERITED them from the same ancestor)?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Do you reject the 3.8 billion year old fossil record, which shows a page by page history of Life on Earth beginning with simple bacteria, progressing to photosynthetic bacteria, multicellular creatures like sponges and jellyfish, and then eventually early marine arthropods (similar to shrimp and lobsters), fish, amphibians, reptiles,and mammals, not to mention the well documented history of the evolution of plants. What exactly do you think the fossil record is if not a history of evolution?
Do you reject all the evidence that shows that plants and animals that are related develop from fertilized eggs to embryos to adults in similar fashion, while unrelated organisms develop more differently from one another? Do you reject he biogeographical evidence that shows that plants and animals that have lived close to one another for long periods are more likely to be closely related (by other measures) than those that have been long divided by distance or impassible barriers such as rivers or oceans? Do you reject the decades of work that shows that small populations of plants and animals can evolve in just a few years when selection pressure is high--for example Peter and Rosemary Grant's work on Galapagos finches, showing that average beak size changes in just a few years when access to large or small seeds in limited by short term changes in local climate?
What are your credentials Sassy that you, by yourself, reject the lifetime work and thoughts of thousands of educated and intelligent men and women?
This is nonsense. Evolutionary biologists ALWAYS want more fossils to reveal the details of the evolution of some snail or butterfly. But NO biologist would ever say there is a lack of fossil evidence to support evolution. (And you should look up "theory" as it's used in science. It is the same as a physicist's LAW--to use your caps.) The fossil record, laid down era by era, is unimpeachable physical evidence for evolution.Quote:
Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
This is nearly funny. If you want to see fossil evidence with your own eyes, go to a museum of paleontology. You can buy ancient fossils at any gem show. If you can't get anywhere to see and handle fossils in real life, read a book about fossils or read online. Fossils exist and are laid down in layers like the pages of a book, the oldest layers are deepest underground--like at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, while the youngest layers are on top (unless the layers have been folded by geologic forces). The deep old layers contains living things that are all simple, one-celled organisms. But as you "turn the pages" and go forward in time, more complex life appears, along with the simple bacteria that have continued to live and evolve for billions of years. Over time, species multiply--becoming more numerous, and they become different from one another over time--creating the DIVERSITY of life we know today. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is Darwin and Wallace's theory that explains how it works--a theory supported by every conceivable kind of evidence.Quote:
So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it.
You can read about the evidence for evolution everywhere. Here, here, and here, for example:
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science, Evolution, and Creationism
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
I do NOT recommend TalkOrigins as a good source, as the material is very uneven in quality and reliability. It's contributed by volunteers and does not appear to be carefully edited. Some of it is good and some is very bad indeed.
After you have read and looked at some fossils, Sassy, take a walk in nature and actually think about what you are looking at. Why are there so many kinds of ants and why do they all have a similar basic form? The evidence is all around you.
Asking
What is the name of your school?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Just Asking
I'll say!Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
On the other hand, I think it's difficult for many people to sift the wheat from the chaff because they have never been taught to tell the difference. This is a societal failing, and difficult to remedy in adults.
I'm going to guess Oral Roberts.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
[Every fossil that has been found is fully formed and with no trace of a transitional ancestor therefore all fossils that have been found so far are in support of Creation. Now the reason why didn't bother asking what transitional fossils you had to show me is because I already know what 3 fossils you are going to try and use for proof. Unfortunately All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.Quote:
QUOTE=WVHiflyer]You wouldn't believe in evolution under any circumstances. You have proven yourself to be singularly close-minded. I gave you suggestions on where to find proof of transitionals but, no surprise, you haven't bothered. It is creationism that has absolutely no proof.
I can easily find bones in my back yard a create a story around it an claim it is a transitional of a fish to an elephant but that does not mean anyone should take me seriously. For example the so called famous "transitional fossil" Archaeopteryx which has the same skeletal structure as birds we see today.
Each of the “reptilian characteristics” in Archaeopteryx is either found to exist in true birds, or is absent in many reptiles. For example, one of the characteristics of Archaeopteryx that make it reptilian are hooks on its wings. Today, both the young Hoatzin bird and the young Ostrich have a hook on their wings similar to that of Archaeopteryx. Furthermore feathers develop from a different part of the bird's embryo than scales do from a reptile's embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary manner—without violating the rules of biology. That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.
The problem with "transitional fossils" is that they do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species.
The only way one can jump to the conclution that Archeopteryx is a transition between a reptile and a bird, is if you ASSUME evolution is true. It does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaptation. Those fossils are non existent.
So just because I don't agree with your beliefs I have "closed little mind"? Nice...Quote:
As for punctuated equilibrium, it does not negate evolution. As I have tried to explain to your closed little mind, that's dealing with the mechanisms - how it happened, not whether.
Awwww :(Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Wait a minute you have said that before, I thought I was already on your ignore list. :confused:
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 PM. |