Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

[Pete Harcoff]

Looks like bevets is just going to resort to argumentum ad nauseam.

*shrug* Oh well...

 

[LorentzHA]

I will add this: If evolution is a fairy-tale/fanatasy, unlike so many fairy-tales, it is an observable one!

 

[Arikay]

Bevets, can you do anything else but repeat the OP?

Is this like one of those crank calls that a local radio station used to do, where people would call in, the radio station would give them a phrase like "wanna go and pet my rabbit" and they would randomly call a business. If the caller could keep the business on the phone for a certain amount of time but never say anything but the phrase or sections of the phrase "wanna go pet my rabbit" they would win a prize.

So, how many posts do you need to win?




If this isn't some sort of contest, maybe you could answer the question that people have asked, like "what does science claim evolution is?"

 

[notto]

A Parable:
He reaches to his keyboard and hits the post button. "Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale."
You're still skeptical. 'Define Science, Define Evolution?', you ask.
"Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him).
He reaches out and hits the post button again to repeat his opening post,
"Do you believe me now?"

 

[bevets]

I will add this: If evolution is a fairy-tale/fanatasy, unlike so many fairy-tales, it is an observable one!

He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

 

[-Jae-]

Ah, the good old argumentum ad repeating the same old **** over and over........

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Question for bevets: How many books on evolution have you read? Have you actually read anything by Gould or Dawkins or anyone else you so readily quote?

 

[Arikay]

I will make a prediction, if my prediction is right, can I be someones massiah?

My prediction is that Bevets will ignore most of what people say and will again copy and past part of the OP as a response.

 

[Mac6yver]

I am curious bevets, what schooling have you gone through to reach these conclusions? What higher level education do you have, and from what accredited facility?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

My prediction is that Bevets will ignore most of what people say and will again copy and past part of the OP as a response.

In light of your prediction, I will also make a prediction: this thread is pointless and will remain so.

 

[Zadok001]

Everyone else seems to have inexplicably failed to snap down on Dr. Feel Good after he asserted that humans aren't born with six fingers/toes.

Hexadactyly is a real medical condition. It's not the most common thing in the world, but it does indeed occur. There are several types, distinguished by the location, symmetry, and and condition of the extra digit(s).

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/Art.asp?ArticleKey=7756

 

[Mike Flynn]

You should not confuse evolution with science.

The question of origins is a question of History (whatever happened only happened once) not science.

Please explain how the scientific method applys. i.e. observe, predict, experiment, repeat -- how do we repeat ANCIENT (pre human) history? Here's a helpful suggestion repeat the transition from reptile to bird in a lab (that would be fascinating!) After you have repeated this transition, explain why your lab experiment proves that this is EXACTLY how it happened historically.

Yes...this is a point that is made many times here (even though it is not a scientific argument). Your qualification of 'science' needs to be modified.

Evolution is not simply history. Rather, its an attempt to understand the events in history using known physical and chemical laws and principles. We take science as we have formulated it today, and we make the assumption that the science was the same throughout history. In other words we try to answer this question: What happened and how did that happen? History is simply half of the question...evolution is *both halves* (and the 'how' must be answered by adhering to the scientific method). So if we could demonstrate that 'reptile-bird' could have occured under the laws of nature as we understand them (in the lab as you put it), then it would amount to powerful evidence indeed that evolution is correct.

The problem with creationists is that all they seem able to do is ask questions and point to the 'black boxes', etc. What they consistently fail to do is offer any scientific answer to the question: How did it happen? ID, IC and such are simply questions...they don't bring any new science to the table.

If there is a plausible scientific alternative to evolutionary theory on the origin of the species then please share it with us bevets, thats what this forum is all about. For now, evolution stands alone as the only plausible theory we have on the origins of the species.

Many creationists would like to deny scientists their work...just accept that the species popped in out of thin air about 6500 years ago (or at some earlier time according to OEC)....but no scientist could possibly accept this. Think of it like this: they are studying the power of God in His Creation...what's wrong with that?

 

[SirKenin]

Everyone else seems to have inexplicably failed to snap down on Dr. Feel Good after he asserted that humans aren't born with six fingers/toes.

Hexadactyly is a real medical condition. It's not the most common thing in the world, but it does indeed occur. There are several types, distinguished by the location, symmetry, and and condition of the extra digit(s).

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/Art.asp?ArticleKey=7756

Actually, the idea is there, and the logic is there. Remove the six digits if you want. It does not invalidate the argument that there is a mechanism in place to limit speciation, although malfunctions do occur. Please note that the 6th digit, or a tail in another example, is an example of a malfunction of the system, not born from necessity to survive. It never represents an advantage to the species, it does not create a new species, nor is it exactly common. Also, provide evidence that a parent with 6 digits gives birth to offspring with 6 digits. Or a someone born with a "tail" giving birth to someone with a "tail".

 

[Arikay]

Again, can you please start a new thread and show us this system that limits speciation?

 

[obediah001]

I am afraid that thread is one if aI did open thre books & start would be one you would never visit; besides there are tonsd of them out there, if Hovind is too much for u ther try ICR or many of the other links. Jesus is coming soon better be ready!

 

[MartinM]

Ever seen a human with purple eyes? Green hair? Six fingers? There's a good reason for that.

<shrug>

Ever seen speciation in humans? Perhaps a better example?

 

[Bushido216]

how did humans evolve emotion? or sin for that matter?

Well, you can't evolve sin...

But emotions are easy. That's called Evolutionary Psychology. Basically, what emotions are evolutionarily advantageous? An overwhelming feeling of love for one's own offspring, the absolute drive to gain food and sex, etc, etc, etc.

I mean, afterall, what sort of created being would have a genetic necessity to spread our seed? HMM?

 

[Philosoft]

Actually, the idea is there, and the logic is there. Remove the six digits if you want. It does not invalidate the argument that there is a mechanism in place to limit speciation, although malfunctions do occur.

Let's see this "mechanism." This should be interesting.

Please note that the 6th digit, or a tail in another example, is an example of a malfunction of the system, not born from necessity to survive. It never represents an advantage to the species, it does not create a new species, nor is it exactly common.

So why did you even bring it up?

Also, provide evidence that a parent with 6 digits gives birth to offspring with 6 digits. Or a someone born with a "tail" giving birth to someone with a "tail".

Technically, we all have tails - as embryos. An embryonic tail is one of the distinguishing features of Phylum Chordata. Usually, the notochord that comprises the embryonic tail is absorbed in utero (some of which is used to make the intervertebral discs), but occasionally it manifests at birth.

 

[Philosoft]

I am afraid that thread is one if aI did open thre books & start would be one you would never visit; besides there are tonsd of them out there, if Hovind is too much for u ther try ICR or many of the other links.

Right, because none of us have ever encountered the pseudoscience from the ICR. You just keep telling yourself that.

Jesus is coming soon better be ready!

Well, are you going to listen to him when he tells you evolution is true?

 

[Bushido216]

Actually, the idea is there, and the logic is there. Remove the six digits if you want. It does not invalidate the argument that there is a mechanism in place to limit speciation, although malfunctions do occur. Please note that the 6th digit, or a tail in another example, is an example of a malfunction of the system, not born from necessity to survive. It never represents an advantage to the species, it does not create a new species, nor is it exactly common. Also, provide evidence that a parent with 6 digits gives birth to offspring with 6 digits. Or a someone born with a "tail" giving birth to someone with a "tail".

Remember, I'm not as smart as some of the others around here, but I'll attempt to reply as best I can...


You're assuming that mutations are there for the sole purpose of being advantageous to the species. That is not true. A mutation is a mutation, just that. However, there are some mutations which are more advantageous than others, and those ensure the bearer of such a mutation to a better chance of spreading that mutation. Therefore, the mutation spreads throughout the entire population. Remember, an advantageous mutation is a mutation that allows the bearer to beat the pressures put on him by his environment. For instance, prey animals have eyes on the sides of their head, so that they can see farther around, while hunting animals have both their eyes in the front of their head, allowing them depth perception (unless you have Double Vision, like me, my right eye points in a touch). Why do we not see the bad mutations repeating? Because those who are unfortunate enough to bear those bad mutations are much more easily killed off, not allowing them to spread that mutation.


As well, the mutated gene may or may not be a dominant one. In the case of the unfortunate boy with a tail, if he were to reproduce, it may or may not show up in his children. Infact, it probably won't.


Also, a point on speciation. You're assuming that speciation occurs within a single population group. That's incorrect. There are kinda two kinds. For instance, a population in the same area might experience a mutation being spread through the population. Because they all share the same pressures, the same mutations are good and bad. So they will speciate, but since there is no pre-species in which to compare, we cannot test the fact that they are reproductively isolated.


As with the chimps and the humans, a group of chimps moved away from the main body, so they were under different pressures than the main-body chimpanzees. So, they, as a collective, underwent a series of Micro-Evolutions, that culminated in them being reproductively isolated. You're failing to grasp that a long chain of Micro-Evolutions will lead to speciation, or Macro-Evolution, and that Macro-Evolution is simply a nice way of bundling up a series of observed Micro-Evolutions in a definable chain. A simple way of classifying a series of Micro-Evolutions.


I hope I was clear.

The following is part of my edit:

I figured that you might go slack-jawed at the likelihood of a series of random mutations not only being beneficial, but dominant. However, think of it like the system that drives enzyme reactions, kinetic energy. Now, I'm assuming that you accept the theory that the more energy you put into a enzyme / substrate system, the more they'll do, since the more energy the two have, the more likely that the proper enzyme will hit the proper substrate. It's completely random, and yet it works.

It's the same thing with populations. The chances are, indeed, slim, but given large populations and millions of years, wonderful things can happen.