Challenging Evolution

[Arikay]

I see you don't like your definition of kinds anymore. I thought you wouldn't.
None of that changes the fact that your definition of "kinds" allows apes and Man to be related. Oops.
Each step does not go beyond the kinds boundary, get enough steps and you will end up with something that looks completly different

Oh, and I like the Irony there.
I also noticed you skipped my vampire analogy, good choice.

Nope.

Apes and Man ARE in fact vastly different.

“Early Land mammals” are only Evolutionary dogma.

Decent/Accent up and down your precious tree has not be demonstrated.



Therefore your argument is meaningless dogma.



Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

False. It is NOT necessary for the theory.

Where does your trunk begin then?

 

[1Trinity3]

Arikay wrote:

I see you don't like your definition of kinds anymore. I thought you wouldn't.

No… perhaps you are not reading from the response I made to your post? If you are trying to put words into my mouth to make your point.. then you are only demonstrating the weakness of your argument.


Trinity

 

[The Bellman]

Where does your trunk begin then?

See above where this question has already been answered.

 

[1Trinity3]

None of that changes the fact that your definition of "kinds" allows apes and Man to be related.

Since when have you demonstrated that humans give birth to chimps and chimps to humans? If that what you are arguing? According to my definition that is not predicted.

Care to try again?

Oh, and I like the Irony there.

I also noticed you skipped my vampire analogy, good choice.

No... I just don't like wasting time responding to non-sensible arguments.



Trinity

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Apes and Man ARE in fact vastly different.

Please differentiate them for us.

“Early Land mammals” are only Evolutionary dogma.

Even if Genesis were fact, there would be "early land mammals" (they would appear before plain-old-everyday-today land mammals...

Decent/Accent up and down your precious tree has not be demonstrated.

Show us evidence that disproves homo erectus as a possible ancestor.

Therefore your argument is meaningless dogma.

Look up "dogma" in the dictionary, then learn something about science.



Trinity[/QUOTE]

 

[pureone]

Really... care to cite.

Only if it conforms to the scientific method. The rest is conjecture and falls outside of science.

Trinity

http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/14.html
HAs the references. You can check NCBI at the NIH. here are a couple of examples:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 March 30; 96 (7): 3479–3485

Colloquium


Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal–chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues
Joseph V. Smith,*† Frederick P. Arnold, Jr.,‡ Ian Parsons,§ and Martin R. Lee§

Self-assembly of proteins and their nucleic acids
Graham Fletcher,1 Sean Mason,1 Jon Terrett,1 and Mikhail Soloviev1


1Oxford GlycoSciences (UK) Ltd, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 3YS, United Kingdom



Would you like more?

Do you have some papers that show God created any other way?

 

[pureone]

how about: Self-Assembly of Nucleocapsid-Like Particles from Recombinant Hepatitis C Virus Core Protein
Meghan Kunkel,1 Marta Lorinczi,1 René Rijnbrand,2 Stanley M. Lemon,2 and Stanley J. Watowich1*


1Department of Human Biological Chemistry & Genetics and the Sealy Center for Structural Biology1 and 2Department of Microbiology and Immunology,2 University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas 77555 bout :


Also check out Sid fox and protocells. Just punch that into google.

 

[1Trinity3]

I wrote:
Apes and Man ARE in fact vastly different.
Ish wrote:
Please differentiate them for us.

Well, one picks insects off the other and eats them, and the other combs his hair… most mornings

Even if Genesis were fact, there would be "early land mammals" (they would appear before plain-old-everyday-today land mammals...

True statement. But they didn’t grow flippers and hop in the ocean.

I wrote: Decent/Accent up and down your precious tree has not be demonstrated.
Ish replied: Show us evidence that disproves homo erectus as a possible ancestor.

Nice try… the requirement for proof falls upon yourself. You’re the one who endorses the theory.

I wrote: Therefore your argument is meaningless dogma.
Ish replied: Look up "dogma" in the dictionary, then learn something about science.

What? Dictionary.com:

Dogma = An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

And Oh… lets continue to be dogmatic and assume that your belief in science that I need to learn more about.



Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

Pureone wrote:
how about: Self-Assembly of Nucleocapsid-Like Particles from Recombinant Hepatitis C Virus Core Protein
Meghan Kunkel,1 Marta Lorinczi,1 René Rijnbrand,2 Stanley M. Lemon,2 and Stanley J. Watowich1*

Finally some science... sorta. You start with a protein… add it to a virus or cell, and alter the behavior of the host.

Not even close to the necessary mechanisms for the construction of life.

Also check out Sid fox and protocells. Just punch that into google.

Ah yes… Dr. Fox’s dead spheres. About the only thing a protocell and a living cell have in common is that they are both spheres.



This is a hurdle TOE has to cross in order for it to keep from dying a prolonged death.



Trinity

 

[Arikay]

Why do I get the feeling we are being trolled.

You appently don't even understand your own definition of kinds. You said, "Kind = An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar."

Example,
very basic, but it works well enough,

Animal 1 = AAAAAA
Animal 1 reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.
Animal 2 = AAAAAB
According to the definition above Animal 1 and Animal 2 are the same kind.
Animal 2 reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.
Animal 3 = AAAABB
According to the definition above Animal 2 and Animal 3 are the same kind.
Animal 3 = AAABBB
Animal 4 = AAABBC
Animal 5 = AABBBC
Animal 6 = AABCBC
Animal 7 = BABCBC
Animal 8 = BABCBD
Animal 9 = CABCBD

Thus, Animal 9 or CABCBD evolved from Animal 1 or AAAAAA and now is almost completly different, and no animal ever reproduced another animal that wasn't of the same kind.
A gross simplifacation but it works well enough.

I predict that this will either be ignored and waved away or we will see a change in the definition of kinds. Right now I am betting on the first as that seems to be his common action.


The fact that you waved away my vampire analogy suggests its valid. But have fun building strawmen and beating them to death, when you get tired and feel like you have won, evolution will still be here. However, if you want to actually learn instead of make a fool out of yourself, we are here to teach.

Since when have you demonstrated that humans give birth to chimps and chimps to humans? If that what you are arguing? According to my definition that is not predicted.

Care to try again?





No... I just don't like wasting time responding to non-sensible arguments.



Trinity

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Well, one picks insects off the other and eats them, and the other combs his hair… most mornings

Man is an ape. Different apes behave differently.

True statement. But they didn’t grow flippers and hop in the ocean.

One group spent a bit of time in water. Then flippers were selected, as a result of survival advantage. Change + Time = Speciation.

Nice try… the requirement for proof falls upon yourself. You’re the one who endorses the theory.

Try a google search on "homo erectus".

What? Dictionary.com:

Dogma = An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

You forgot to learn something about science.

And Oh… lets continue to be dogmatic and assume that your belief is science that I need to learn more about.

You're so obviously omniscient; about what could you possibly need to learn more?



Trinity[/QUOTE]

 

[1Trinity3]

Arikaywrote:

Why do I get the feeling we are being trolled.



You appently don't even understand your own definition of kinds. You said, "Kind = An animal that reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar."

Thank you for not changing my definition this time. Would you care to subject your own definition of species to any tests?

Example,

very basic, but it works well enough,



Animal 1 = AAAAAA

Animal 1 reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.

Animal 2 = AAAAAB

According to the definition above Animal 1 and Animal 2 are the same kind.

Animal 2 reproduces another animal whose traits are vastly similar.

Animal 3 = AAAABB

According to the definition above Animal 2 and Animal 3 are the same kind.

Animal 3 = AAABBB

Animal 4 = AAABBC

Animal 5 = AABBBC

Animal 6 = AABCBC

Animal 7 = BABCBC

Animal 8 = BABCBD

Animal 9 = CABCBD



Thus, Animal 9 or CABCBD evolved from Animal 1 or AAAAAA and now is almost completly different, and no animal ever reproduced another animal that wasn't of the same kind.

A gross simplifacation but it works well enough.

It is easy enough to follow and does demonstrate on how it COULD happen. As most theories... looks good on paper until results are expected. But who is constructing stawmen now? Or is this your version of science?

I predict that this will either be ignored and waved away or we will see a change in the definition of kinds. Right now I am betting on the first as that seems to be his common action.

It seems I am trying to have a discussion with four people at once. Trying to decide which dribble to address requires me to omit the ones whose basis is in fact baseless... like your pathetic vampire analogy.

The fact that you waved away my vampire analogy suggests its valid. But have fun building strawmen and beating them to death, when you get tired and feel like you have won, evolution will still be here. However, if you want to actually learn instead of make a fool out of yourself, we are here to teach.

Teach or preach? The only thing you have expressed this evening is the same old dogma spewed from our esteemed universities for the past 100 years.

If you have something of substance to add... please do.

Trinity

 

[Arikay]

Um, I didn't change your definition the first time either.

I don't need to show that it did happen in this conversation, only that your definition of "kinds" is not a problem to the theory of evolution, and that it allows early primates and early mammals in general to be ancestors of Man as long as small steps are taken at each generation. If you would like to adjust your definition of kinds, you can do so now.


Again, you say the vampire analogy is false, yet provide no explanation why it is false. Maybe put your money where you mouth is and explain to me why it is false.


Ok, substance,
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. The theory of evolution makes the assumption that "life" already exists. Someone had a good analogy (I can't remember who) that you don't need to know how to build a car to learn how to drive one. You assume that cars already exist and are built when you go to learn.
Same goes with evolution, it assumes that that "life" already exists. How it got here is of no concern. A Magical omnipotent tie dyed unicorn could have sneezed on earth and spread the first bits of life, and the theory of evolution wouldn't care.

Now, modern abiogenesis, which is a different topic than evolution (if you want to discuss it, I would recommend starting a new thread) is different from spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous generation:

"These early concepts of spontaneous generation (referred to here as "Aristotelian abiogenesis" for clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur."
​

Modern Abiogenesis:

"he modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals. This is a significantly different thing from the concept of Aristotelian abiogenesis, which postulated the formation of complex organisms. Different hypotheses for modern abiogenetic processes are currently under debate; see, for example, RNA world hypothesis, proteinoid, Miller experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation​

All of this may have already been said, but I thought I would do so again to add substance to my post.

Thank you for not changing my definition this time. Would you care to subject your own definition of species to any tests?







It is easy enough to follow and does demonstrate on how it COULD happen. As most theories... looks good on paper until results are expected. But who is constructing stawmen now? Or is this your version of science?





It seems I am trying to have a discussion with four people at once. Trying to decide which dribble to address requires me to omit the ones whose basis is in fact baseless... like your pathetic vampire analogy.







Teach or preach? The only thing you have expressed this evening is the same old dogma spewed from our esteemed universities for the past 100 years.

If you have something of substance to add... please do.

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

Ishmael Borg:

Man is an ape. Different apes behave differently.

You can think of yourself as an ape if you want too. However, other apes have been know to pick up their own waste and throw it at you. So I guess that would be a different type of behavior… maybe there is some validity to your argument after all.

One group spent a bit of time in water. Then flippers were selected, as a result of survival advantage. Change + Time = Speciation.

Sir Borg, I believe you are incapable of presenting your posiiton without copying it from a textbook. Please cite the transitional forms that demonstrate how evolution "selected" a leg and transformed it into a "flipper". Then dicuss the processes that were utilized to make this huge lead. Thanks ahead of time.

Try a google search on "homo erectus".

Read the books Icons of Evolution and Bones of Contention and I’ll do your search… deal?

You forgot to learn something about science.

What exactly is it about science that I need to learn again?

You're so obviously omniscient; about what could you possibly need to learn more?

No sir... Only God is omniscient. Any allusion otherwise is arguing from a point of ignorance.

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

Um, I didn't change your definition the first time either.

I don't need to show that it did happen in this conversation, only that your definition of "kinds" is not a problem to the theory of evolution, and that it allows early primates and early mammals in general to be ancestors of Man as long as small steps are taken at each generation. If you would like to adjust your definition of kinds, you can do so now.

Seems like we are arguing in circles here. If you can demonstrate how Gulls that are not inter-fertile with gulls of another species but are of the same .... lets say genus then pehaps I won't be able to say they are the same Kind. But, if you can't, then maybe you ought to re-evaluate your argument here.

Again, you say the vampire analogy is false, yet provide no explanation why it is false. Maybe put your money where you mouth is and explain to me why it is false.

In all honesty I simply ignored it as some type of Evo babble. Repeat it and I'll take a look. -k-?



Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. The theory of evolution makes the assumption that "life" already exists.

The reason why it isn’t part of the theory is because it would falsify the theory. Therefore it is always excluded from any definition.

Now, modern abiogenesis, which is a different topic than evolution (if you want to discuss it, I would recommend starting a new thread) is different from spontaneous generation.

OK… lets just stick with abiogenesis. Where would you like to begin?

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

If I said,
"Why do you worship a god that claims to be a vampire?
christianity is obviously false because vampires don't exist."

Would you believe I had a good grasp of christianity or would you think I didn't have a clue what I was talking about?

Ok, found your babble here.
Lets see... I worship a Vampire Oaky doaky.
And you had "a good crasp of Christianity":o
So that gives you a clue?.?.?.?
I think you are going to need to explain this one to me as I am lost

Trinity

 

[Arikay]

Thats a nice assumption, its false. Abiogenesis is Not part of the theory of evolution.


Vampires:
Congrats for proving my point. You probably think i'm crazy and don't know anything about christianity, right?

Well you claiming that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation and that it is part of the theory of evolution suggests that you don't understand abiogenesis or the theory of evolution.
First you need to learn an accurate definition of what you are argueing against, or else you will just get funny stares and laughed at when you refuse to listen to the accurate definition. Just like I would probably get laughed at if I went into GA ranting about christians worshiping vampires.

Do you understand now?

The reason why it isn’t part of the theory is because it would falsify the theory. Therefore it is always excluded from any definition.





OK… lets just stick with abiogenesis. Where would you like to begin?

Trinity

 

[1Trinity3]

Vampires:
Congrats for proving my point. You probably think i'm crazy and don't know anything about christianity, right?

No.. I don't know you at all other than you seem to have no problems casting insults at others utilizing the same amount of knowledge of them.
I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I know that I am a creature, created in the image of God. I know that I despertly need the Grace and Mercy of God.
What I don't know is what you are talking about while hurling insults at God.