What is evolution?

[ikester7579]

I did not think we were talking about being a doctor. Besides you gave your expert opion on this subject. Are you a surgeon?

 

[sulphur]

NO

 

[sulphur]

But I did give examples of where you were misguided

 

[ikester7579]

Hmmm, you say this cause you cannot answer my questions. Pawn it off on me not being a doctor, then me being misguided. Hmmm. What's next? I may be a newbie at this site. But I've seen most tricks on trying to change the subject or make the person look stupid. Trying to make someone look more uneducated than you is a childish game. I feel like I'm back in elementry school. But it does feel good to feel like a child again lol.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by ikester7579
Which evolved first, man or woman?

Anisogamy evolved from isogamy. In other words,

gamete+gamete = zygote ==> sperm+ovum=zygote

Which organ of the body evolve first and how did it survive by itself until the other organs evolved?

Which body? There is no "the body." Bodies evolved before organs, you only have to look at a sponge to tell that. If you want to name organs, hearts evolved before lungs.

Only a sudden creation of man and woman can explain this.

Nope. In fact there is a lot that special creation doesn't explain.

Try taking one of your organs out and see how long you live with out it.

Any organ? Then I vote we start with an appendix, gall bladder, or spleen. Plenty of organims can survive without organs, just ask the bacteria in your intestines.

The body has to many vital organs that rely on one another to survive. For if it were so easy then I might believe in evolution. But creating or evolving life is not easy, for if it were science would have already been able to create it from nothing.

The origin of life (abiogensis) nor the diversification of life (evolution) involve prior steps that can be considered "nothingness."

Why is not evolution still going on? All of the ingredients are still here. I guess some questions can't be answered.

Naw some questions can't be answered because they are phrased such that no answer can be a correct one. For example, "ikester, have you stopped beating your wife?" Now if you have never beaten your wife, or not even married, then there is no way to answer that question since it doesn't apply to you. Likewise, "why is not evolution still going on" is also not answerable since it doesn't apply to evolution.

"Why?" you ask. That's because evolution hasn't stopped. It is still going on. It is evidence from animal husbandy, to hospitals, to the London subway system.

Your entire post relies on the misconception that everything that makes us human had to evolve at once. That is not true and never ever has been part of evolutionary theory. Evolution takes steps--you might know them as "generations"--and adaptation is great at taking that which came earlier (preadaptation) and changing it slightly (mutation) and geting something better (selection).

 

[ikester7579]

Quote: Which body? There is no "the body." Bodies evolved before organs, you only have to look at a sponge to tell that. If you want to name organs, hearts evolved before lungs.
Hmmm. Really? So whats the sponge got to do with it? So I guess we came from sponges?

Quote: Nope. In fact there is a lot that special creation doesn't explain.
Like what?

Quote: Any organ? Then I vote we start with an appendix, gall bladder, or spleen. Plenty of organims can survive without organs, just ask the bacteria in your intestines.
Here's what I said: The body has to many vital organs that rely on one another to survive.... Vital organs!

Quote: The origin of life (abiogensis) nor the diversification of life (evolution) involve prior steps that can be considered "nothingness."

Hmmm. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I have yet to see something made from complete nothingness.

Quote: Naw some questions can't be answered because they are phrased such that no answer can be a correct one.

It's a direct question. There is no phrasing involved. In fact I get asked these types of questions on creation all the time. Now your getting it from the other side and don't like it do you?

Quote: For example, "ikester, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Now I know you put that in there not as an example, but just to try and **** me off! There are a lot of things I could say back to you on this but I'm not going to lower my self to the level you have degraded yourself to for even saying that.

Quote: "Why?" you ask. That's because evolution hasn't stopped. It is still going on. It is evidence from animal husbandy, to hospitals, to the London subway system.

What? This could use a little more explaination.

Quote: Your entire post relies on the misconception that everything that makes us human had to evolve at once. That is not true and never ever has been part of evolutionary theory. Evolution takes steps--you might know them as "generations"--and adaptation is great at taking that which came earlier (preadaptation) and changing it slightly (mutation) and geting something better (selection).

Do you know what theory means? And did you know that Darwin was not the first person to think of Evolution theory? That's right. It was not totaly his idea. It was thought up bt the Babalonians. And it was abandoned as an idea because they got laughed at. He found this theory while studying these people and added his own theories to the subject. So Darwin is not the father of the Evolution theory, he stole the idea and revised it and claimed it as his own.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by ikester7579
Now I know you put that in there not as an example, but just to try and **** me off! There are a lot of things I could say back to you on this but I'm not going to lower my self to the level you have degraded yourself to for even saying that.

You missed the point of Rufus's analogy. The problem with the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", is it carries the built-in assumption that you were beating your wife. Obviously, you can see why this is a flawed assumption, especially if you are not even married!

Likewise, the question, "Why is not evolution still going on?", carries the assumption that evolution has stopped. But, evolution has not stopped. In fact, as Rufus pointed out, it continues to be observed to this very day.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Since Rufus seems to have left the thread...

Originally posted by ikester7579
Hmmm. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I have yet to see something made from complete nothingness.

You misread what Rufus wrote. He is stating that evolution and abiogenesis requires something to exist before hand. No one suggests nothing came from nothing in terms of biology.

Do you know what theory means?

I think most people on this forum have a pretty good idea what a scientific theory is.

And did you know that Darwin was not the first person to think of Evolution theory? That's right. It was not totaly his idea. It was thought up bt the Babalonians. And it was abandoned as an idea because they got laughed at. He found this theory while studying these people and added his own theories to the subject. So Darwin is not the father of the Evolution theory, he stole the idea and revised it and claimed it as his own.

So, the Babylonians came up with the idea and abondoned it because they were laughed at? Er, you got a source for that?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ikester7579 Which evolved first, man or woman? Which has a more complicated body and would require more mutations and take longer to evolve?

This ignores cumulative change. To understand the evolution of sex you need to go back to single celled organisms.  There are sexually reproducing single-celled organisms still around today. For instance, 1.  C Zimmer, The slime alternative.  Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept)  Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled amoeba, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low.  Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material.  Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses.  Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system.

So, which of those amoebas are the "male" and which the "female"?  Neither and both.  Yet they sexually reproduce.  Specialized genitalia evolve later in multicellular organisms but even then, the most primitive multicellular organisms simply put out their gametes to be fertilized in the water, without specialized organs.

Which organ of the body evolve first and how did it survive by itself until the other organs evolved?

It appears that the gut evolved first.  There are multicelled sponges around today that have a simple tube going through the body.  This funnels seawater through and sticky cells lining the tube catch nutrients.  Once you have this, then you can easily see how stepwise addition will eventually get you to the digestive system of humans.

Only a sudden creation of man and woman can explain this. Don't believe me? Try taking one of your organs out and see how long you live with out it. The body has to many vital organs that rely on one another to survive.

But that is an example of the result of stepwise additions and specialization.  You can build up to that.  Picture a city. It couldn't survive without a fire department, police department, garbage disposal, hospitals.  Take any of these away and the city collapses.  Yet cities grow from just one household to small hamlet of 3-4 households to villages to towns to cities.  The hamlet doesn't need a full-time fire dept. or police department or even garbagemen.  Are you saying a city has to be created all at once? Of course not!

For if it were so easy then I might believe in evolution. But creating or evolving life is not easy, for if it were science would have already been able to create it from nothing. Why is not evolution still going on?

You can get life from non-living chemicals by simple chemical reactions.  Go back to page 5 or 6 and look for the thread Protocells: life from non-life.

And evolution is still going on.  We have observed new species evolving both in the lab and in the wild.  Populations of humans living in the Andes and Himalayas are evolving new adaptations for living at high altitude.

I guess some questions can't be answered.

Some questions can't. But yours are not among them.  What has happened is that creationists have kept you in ignorance that we have the answers.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ikester7579
And sense the brain is the most complicated organ in the body and would take the longest to mutate into being, this would mean the first humans had no brain. It had not mutated into being yet.

Why would you think that? Remember, humans descended from an ape-like ancestor.  Primates already have brains.  And primates descended from more primitive mammals such as rodents.  Mice and rats have brains.  Mammals in turn descended from reptile-like amphibians. Both reptiles and amphibians have brains.  Then back to fish and then back to more primitive vertebrates.

I think you are projecting the failings of creationism onto evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by lucaspa
But that is an example of the result of stepwise additions and specialization.  You can build up to that.  Picture a city. It couldn't survive without a fire department, police department, garbage disposal, hospitals.  Take any of these away and the city collapses.  Yet cities grow from just one household to small hamlet of 3-4 households to villages to towns to cities.  The hamlet doesn't need a full-time fire dept. or police department or even garbagemen.  Are you saying a city has to be created all at once? Of course not!

I like this analogy. Mind if I steal it?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by ikester7579
Do you know what theory means? And did you know that Darwin was not the first person to think of Evolution theory? That's right. It was not totaly his idea. It was thought up bt the Babalonians. And it was abandoned as an idea because they got laughed at. He found this theory while studying these people and added his own theories to the subject. So Darwin is not the father of the Evolution theory, he stole the idea and revised it and claimed it as his own.

Yes.  "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."  http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

Correct.  In the Historical Sketch at the front of the 3rd and later editions of Origin, Darwin lists people who thought that one species could transform to another over time.  See http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

As far as I know, the Babylonians had no theory of evolution.  Some of the Greeks had a primitive form, but mostly they adhered to the typology of Plato, which is creationist (and forms one of the bases of creationism).

A personal assault on Darwin doesn't matter.  Even if he were the plagiarist you claim (and the evidence is that he is not), what effect does that have on the accuracy of the theory?  The Golden Rule was around in Jewish rabbis for at least 2 centuries before Jesus said it.  Does that make the Rule wrong?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by ikester7579
Hmmm. Really? So whats the sponge got to do with it? So I guess we came from sponges?

Well, they're a great example of a multicellular animal that exists virtually organ free.

Like what?

Special creation doesn't explain the diversity we see in nature for one thing. It doesn't explain the nested hierarchy of life. It doesn't explain the fuzzyness of species barriers. It doesn't explain the jury-rigged design that we see everywhere. It doesn't explain adaptation. It doesn't explain the make up of the fossil record. Need I go on?

Here's what I said: The body has to many vital organs that rely on one another to survive.... Vital organs!

Nope, here is what you said: "Try taking one of your organs out and see how long you live with out it." The word "vital" is eerily absent in that statement.

Hmmm. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. I have yet to see something made from complete nothingness.

Good then you should have no problem with evolution and abiogenesis which require something to come from something. However, I suspect that special creation is out fo you know, since it does require our world to be "poofed" out of nothingness.

It's a direct question.

Sure it's a direct question that assumes facts not in evidence. Evolution hasn't stopped so there is no reason to ask "why" it has stopped.

There is no phrasing involved. In fact I get asked these types of questions on creation all the time.

Such as . . . .

Now I know you put that in there not as an example, but just to try and **** me off! There are a lot of things I could say back to you on this but I'm not going to lower my self to the level you have degraded yourself to for even saying that.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question so that you might better understand it's similarity to yours. "Ikester, why did you stop beating your wife?" Now the faults you find with that question similarily exist with yours.

What? This could use a little more explaination.

Well then, a good college biology biology curriculum will fix you right up. Don't forget to take classes on genetics and population biology.

Do you know what theory means?

Yes. In fact, I also know the distinction between a scientific theory and a common theory. From your leading question, I suspect that you don't.

And did you know that Darwin was not the first person to think of Evolution theory? That's right. It was not totaly his idea. It was thought up bt the Babalonians.

"If I have seen further than those before me, it was because
I was standing on the shoulders of giants." -Issac Newton.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I like this analogy. Mind if I steal it?

Be my guest.

 

[Morat]

And did you know that Darwin was not the first person to think of Evolution theory? That's right. It was not totaly his idea. It was thought up bt the Babalonians.

The Babalonians were hard to shut up...*sigh*. Nay, surely 'twas Wallace you refer to.

Darwin wasn't credited with evolution, but with natural selection. Natural selection, of course, being the important part.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Morat
The Babalonians were hard to shut up...*sigh*. Nay, surely 'twas Wallace you refer to.

Darwin wasn't credited with evolution, but with natural selection. Natural selection, of course, being the important part.

Nice pun!

Darwin also accumulated enough data to convince people that evolution happened.  That is, that species really were descended with modification from other species. The chapters on geographical distribution and embryogenesis were about that.

Of course, you are correct that a big portion of Darwin's fame comes from his discovery of the mechanism to get design in biological organisms and thus the mechanism to get the transformation of one species to another.

The fact that at least 2 other people found natural selection independently shows that it is not due solely to Darwin's imagination.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
"If I have seen further than those before me, it was because
I was standing on the shoulders of giants." -Issac Newton.

This is actually a funny one.  I have seen arguments that it was really a very sarcastic put down. Ironically, the line was written under exactly the circumstances brought up here: Newton was accused of intellectual piracy.

"Newton's quotation, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

(From "An Underground Education" by Richard Zacks, p.37)

"Pundits use this quote as the ultimate expression of humility in genius, but what they miss (and almost everyone else does too) is that Newton wrote that line to a very, very, short man, a hunchbacked fellow scientist with whom he was having a bitter feud.

"Newton (1642-1727) was furious that Robert Hooke (1635-1703) was staking claim to many key discoveries in optics and calculus. (Hooke did in fact build the first reflecting telescope). [...]

"Newton wrote a long letter to Hooke on February 5, 1675, defending himself from charges of intellectual piracy, praising Hooke for trifles, and then Newton built to the famous `standing on the shoulders of giants' line.  (Newton, by the way, adapted it from a line about pygmies in a then-famous book called Anatomy of Melancholy.)

"You might translate Newton's sentiments: `While I admit to building on the work of my scientific predecessors, I certainly didn't learn anything from a dwarf like you.'"

 

[ikester7579]

Well there's one main difference between Evolution and creation. Evolution has people guessing at what happened by what they find.
Creation has a book with wittnesses. No guess work here. and there are also finds all around the world to support these wittnesses. But sense the evolution sciencetist will not reconize these finds, how are we ever gonna know the truth? Here's what I think, and I don't think it's to farfetched by both sides to consider. Let all the findings be reconized and let the chips fall where they may. Like the findings of the Red Sea Crossing. Where when divers went under water to see what they could find. They found Golden Chariot Wheels, Horses Hoofs, Swords and Sheilds and people's skelatal remains. Mount Sinia. Where the mountain is burnt from the top down because it says in the Bible that God came in a pillar of fire to give Moses the ten commandments. Mind you this mountain is in the middle of a desert so there's no vegation to burn the mountain at all. The rock Moses smote that water flowed from in the desert. This rock ended up being a boulder about 20 feet high split down the middle. When pictures were taken from the air it showed that so much water flowed from that rock it formed a river in the middle of the desert.

These are just a few examples of major findings that support creation. Findings that most people will never hear about. Why? Because Someone has sold us a bill of goods and they do not want to admit they might be wrong. These findings have found there way into some court rooms where Evolution has been challenged. And the result has been creation being taught as an alternative. This evidence has also included the Dinosaur and Human Foot prints found in Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose Texas which messes up the Evolution time line of when Dinosaurs and human existed. The foot prints were in the same dried up water bed. Which means man and Dinosaurs coexisted. All of this is not allowed to go public. I can list a bunch more stuff but I think you get the general idea. Why do you think this is? I mean it's physical evidence. It just does not support Evolution, that's all.

 

[lithium.]

No guess work here. and there are also finds all around the world to support these wittnesses.

Really so someone was there at creation, and is able to backup your claim?

But sense the evolution sciencetist will not reconize these finds, how are we ever gonna know the truth?

Let's see because science doesn't do GOD DID IT. Scientists can't say well it's in a book so it's true even if they are christians. They have to use what is in nature to find the truth.

Let all the findings be reconized and let the chips fall where they may.

What findings?

Like the findings of the Red Sea Crossing. Where when divers went under water to see what they could find. They found Golden Chariot Wheels, Horses Hoofs, Swords and Sheilds and people's skelatal remains.

Back up your claim.

These are just a few examples of major findings that support creation.

You haven't shown any evidence supporting creation. You have only given your opinion.

Why? Because Someone has sold us a bill of goods and they do not want to admit they might be wrong.

Ahh... I see there is a conspiracy against creation. LOL that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. If you want people to hear about it get credible evidence supporting your claim.

These findings have found there way into some court rooms where Evolution has been challenged.

Back up your claim again.

And the result has been creation being taught as an alternative.

Really so you think it's ok to teach something non science in a science class room.

This evidence has also included the Dinosaur and Human Foot prints found in Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose Texas which messes up the Evolution time line of when Dinosaurs and human existed.

Did you get this from AIG, because I have read this before somewhere? LOL

The foot prints were in the same dried up water bed. Which means man and Dinosaurs coexisted.

Backup your claim again.

All of this is not allowed to go public.

Again another conspiracy.

I can list a bunch more stuff but I think you get the general idea.

Sure go ahead and list your stuff. But next time show evidence to backup your claims.

Why do you think this is?

It's because there is no evidence supporting creation.

I mean it's physical evidence.

Then show it.

It just does not support Evolution, that's all.

There is no evidence that says evolution is false.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by ikester7579
This evidence has also included the Dinosaur and Human Foot prints found in Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose Texas which messes up the Evolution time line of when Dinosaurs and human existed. The foot prints were in the same dried up water bed. Which means man and Dinosaurs coexisted.

*sigh*

The Paluxy dinosaur/man tracks have been refuted so many times, even AIG lists it in their arguments we think creationists should not use.

For further reading, talk.origins has a whopping amount of info on this controversy and a few others at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html