"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[ivebeenshown]

I get why people want to believe, it sounds logical and seems to tie things up nicely, only don't go looking for physical evidence like intermediate forms because they aren't there.

There are plenty of documented intermediate forms -- Split Rock seems to be on top of the game already.

Sometimes I wonder if it would take a skeleton of every single generation in the chain -- some hundreds of millions of skeletons -- to convince some people...

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

There are plenty of documented intermediate forms -- Split Rock seems to be on top of the game already.

Sometimes I wonder if it would take a skeleton of every single generation in the chain -- some hundreds of millions of skeletons -- to convince some people...

Nah. There are some who won't accept that which conflicts with their beliefs. Classic cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mling]

There are plenty of documented intermediate forms -- Split Rock seems to be on top of the game already.

Sometimes I wonder if it would take a skeleton of every single generation in the chain -- some hundreds of millions of skeletons -- to convince some people...

Yeah, that wouldn't do it.

 

[Wayte]

No, but you are a troll. So you can argue with yourself now.

^"Taking my ball and going home"

 

[dad]

I suppose that "He" = dad. Yes?

The bible....clue in....

 

[mzungu]

Would anyone need faith to accept that 2+2=4 ? No? Well that is the main difference between religion and science. Science is a tool and as such it can be refined and better models made for progress is a prerequisite for science to continue to exist. Religion on the other hand is a purely faith based concept that does not need any evidences.

What creationists fail to understand is that unlike them we [people who accept the methodology of science] will be more than happy to discard any scientific theory if a better theory supersedes the previous.

We will be very happy to even discard Evolution for this is how science works. ToE is the most peer reviewed and scrutinised theory of all time and it has passed with flying colours!

Also we cannot improve or dismiss a theory if we do not have an existing prevailing theory. For example: You cannot build a steel skyscraper if you have not mastered steel making and civil engineering.

As for how does a single celled organism end up being a multi celled organism? Remember when you were a single celled organism? We all started out as single celled organisms [sperm] that fused with another single celled organism [ovum] and voila a multi celled organism.

 

[dad]

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were explicit 24-hour days, or that the '1,000 years' in Revelation is to be interpreted as a literal millenium of approximately 365,000 24-hour days.

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were not explicit 24-hour days, or that the '1,000 years' in Revelation is not to be interpreted as a literal millenium of approximately 365,000 24-hour days. but a biblical year is 360 days. At the end of the thousand years, Satan is loosed for a bit, and there are real people alive. Try to wave that away!

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Welcome.

There is a subforum under the Theology>Origin called Theistic Evolutionism. You may find a lot friends there.

I don't think this idea make sense.

I do not think a Forum is a place where people gather according to one's idea and clap hands to each other forgetting the world outside. I do not fee under subfolders of a chapter, I am a free man so I may think whatever I want, when I want, I may keep my ideas and change them at will.

I am in a Forum to hear different opinions and compare. Only then i see the other's point of view and progress.

I don't think this idea make sense.

I think this idea makes sense and it is the only plausible one. What does make sense to you?

 

[Blayz]

The bible says nowhere that the 'days' in Genesis were not explicit 24-hour days, or that the '1,000 years' in Revelation is not to be interpreted as a literal millenium of approximately 365,000 24-hour days. but a biblical year is 360 days. At the end of the thousand years, Satan is loosed for a bit, and there are real people alive. Try to wave that away!

That would be the same bible that says nothing about a split or a different state past/future.

Wave away indeed. Apparently dad is allowed to read stuff into scripture, but noone else is.

 

[Naraoia]

I heard this thousands of times. But, the fact is: single-cell life went to multi-cell life, then went to more and more sophisticated lives.

Some single-cell life did. No one said it didn't. I said there is no reason to expect everything to go that way.

Is there? Can you cite one?

(And remember those Chlorella guys that "went to multi-cell" right there in a lab? This kind of thing hasn't even stopped happening, it just doesn't happen very often.)

No one will believe it is not a trend of something.

No one said it isn't a trend. But trends are, well, trends. Statistical trends. Not everyone has to follow them. I can't remember going bankrupt when recession hit a few years ago...

You can not pin point the force. Don't say it is not there.

I don't usually argue by lolcat, but...

... I just had to.

There are plenty of documented intermediate forms -- Split Rock seems to be on top of the game already.

Sometimes I wonder if it would take a skeleton of every single generation in the chain -- some hundreds of millions of skeletons -- to convince some people...

Or if that sort of data would be twisted because there's too much noise in it. Cf Greatcloud's global cooling thread(s)...

 

[juvenissun]

I do not think a Forum is a place where people gather according to one's idea and clap hands to each other forgetting the world outside. I do not fee under subfolders of a chapter, I am a free man so I may think whatever I want, when I want, I may keep my ideas and change them at will.

I am in a Forum to hear different opinions and compare. Only then i see the other's point of view and progress.



I think this idea makes sense and it is the only plausible one. What does make sense to you?

TE (Theistic Evolution) does not make sense because human is not evolved from animal.

(Are you an animal? Surprisingly, many many people will answer: YES !)

 

[juvenissun]

Some single-cell life did. No one said it didn't. I said there is no reason to expect everything to go that way.

Is there? Can you cite one?

(And remember those Chlorella guys that "went to multi-cell" right there in a lab? This kind of thing hasn't even stopped happening, it just doesn't happen very often.)

No one said it isn't a trend. But trends are, well, trends. Statistical trends. Not everyone has to follow them. I can't remember going bankrupt when recession hit a few years ago...

Could you cite me a reference which describe the change of a single-cell life to a multiple-cell life in a lab setting? I like to see it.

The nature seldom makes any clear-cut thing. The trend you described is what a trend should look like. However, evolution process should not make any preferred statistics through a long time. You have a major contradiction right there.

 

[juvenissun]

Still don't understand the very basics of science, do you Mr. "Flood Geologist?" We don't prove in science. Proof is for alcohol and math... and "Flood Geologists," I suppose

Fine, evolution is not proven. I am with you on that.
Hope your comrades will agree with you.

 

[Lillen]

I know this much, it is the doctors healing a patient not the drugs!! That means If they would bother!

And i know that you can hypnotise with the eyes when focusing the vision through the white! Thats demonic art, nothing worth knowing about! The reason why it's not worth knowing about, is because it can only be used to do harm!

And also, most i picked up from science class, wasn't worth knowing about, so i decided to forget about it... Hence my ignorance!1

 

[juvenissun]

Imagine a cliff with lots of ledges in lots of configurations: large, small, flat, tilted, cracked. Then imagine lots of rocks falling from the top, down the side of the mountain--they, too, are in every possible configuration: large, small, flat, round.

What will happen over time?

Small rocks will fall in cracks, flat rocks may land on ledges and stay there. Round rocks will probably bounce and roll to the bottom. After a while, you'll get very clear patterns and distinctions--stacks of flat rocks on certain ledges, while other ledges are distinctly rock-free. In some cracks you'll find small rocks, while in others, only sand; and in any given crack, you'll never find a rock larger than a certain amount in any direction (the amount being the widest spot in the opening of the crack). Round rocks will form unstable piles at the bottom.

There are patterns, trends and seeming progressions. It may even look like the rocks are being deliberately organized. After all, no matter how long you stare at a bunch of rocks, they never just up and stack themselves. And how would the rocks know, anyway, whether they are round, and thus belong at the bottom; or small, and thus belong in a crack; or flat, and thus belong on a ledge?

The point is, when everything happens, in every possible configuration, the stuff that is stable will stick around and the stuff that is unstable will disappear.

...

I am not going to comment on the rock example except saying that there is ONE "force" in control of that. (This is something I know. So I will skip it. Now I want to talk about something I don't know well)

Dinosaurs lived in a relatively "stable" environment for 250 million years. Yet we do not see any new animal evolved from dinosaurs. No matter how did they change, they are still dinosaurs. Is 250 million years long enough to evolve many new life forms? Why did many other animals evolved during the same period of time, but not dinosaurs? [actually, this is a messy question. But, see how does it go.]

 

[Split Rock]

TE (Theistic Evolution) does not make sense because human is not evolved from animal.

(Are you an animal? Surprisingly, many many people will answer: YES !)

Yes, you are an animal, Juvie. By the scientific definition of the term. And yes, your ancestors evolved from earlier apes... whether you like it or not.

Fine, evolution is not proven. I am with you on that.
Hope your comrades will agree with you.

They do. They understand science better than a "Flood Geologist Professor" like yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

I know this much, it is the doctors healing a patient not the drugs!! That means If they would bother!

And i know that you can hypnotise with the eyes when focusing the vision through the white!

Excellent. That is why I always carefully evaluate proscriptions given by my doctor. In general, I only take what they described to me 50% of the time. (Got a lot of useless (poisonous !) medicines in my fridge.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, you are an animal, Juvie. By the scientific definition of the term. And yes, your ancestors evolved from earlier apes... whether you like it or not.


They do. They understand science better than a "Flood Geologist Professor" like yourself.

YOU !! are an animal. I am a human.

 

[mzungu]

Fine, evolution is not proven. I am with you on that.
Hope your comrades will agree with you.

Evolution is a fact! Neither you nor anyone who believes otherwise can change that. The Theory of Evolution has withstood extreme scrutiny and has passed unscathed. How can you even dare to dismiss a Theory when you know nothing about it? That is actually bearing false witness and in many religions it is considered a sin.

 

[Split Rock]

Could you cite me a reference which describe the change of a single-cell life to a multiple-cell life in a lab setting? I like to see it.

Here you go: Laboratory yeast artificially evolve into multicellular organisms

Could The nature seldom makes any clear-cut thing. The trend you described is what a trend should look like. However, evolution process should not make any preferred statistics through a long time. You have a major contradiction right there.

Multicellularity evolved many times and was lost in some lines of blue-green algae. Multicellular evolution not linear - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences