Question for the biblical religious

[luvfightgame]

There doesn't need to have been any mechanism in place before any specific mechanism for anything evolved. Even single-celled organisms spent billions of years evolving.

There are plenty of transitional species, an entire flock of bird/dinosaur examples. If you spend a little time studying the basic outlines of evolutionary theory -- you could spend an entire academic career studying evolution and still not cover everything -- you'll see this.

You're starting to get a basic grasp of the outlines of evolutionary theory but you're still making ridiculous arguments -- scientists never taught that the earth was flat for instance, in fact there was a rather long argument between scientists and the church over basic things like the shape of the earth and whether the earth orbited the sun or vice versa. And I'm not confusing anything, you just don't understand evolutionary theory.

You're taking at face value a bunch of discredited arguments from creationists, a bunch of religious extrmists who insist in the face of all evidence that evolution is nonsense. These people are only found in America and only because they believe as a matter of faith that god formed the earth 3000 years ago so they need to discredit any science that proves their beliefs to be rubbish. The entire rest of the world has accepted evolutionary theory, like they have gravitational theory, electro-magnetic theory, etc.


If mechanisms weren't in place, then they had to be evolving at the same time and still be finished before the next one could evolve. It still requires an amazing amount of coincidence and very good planning.

With transitional species there should be millions of examples of the failed adaptations of naturally selected for extinction species. There are scant examples of birds looking like dinosaurs, but they are birds. They have wings and presumably can fly. We are missing the failed adaptations in every species of which there should be millions.

Scientists did think the earth was flat and just like the entire rest of the world that accepts evolution at face value they found out later they were wrong.

The problem with evolution being science is it hasn't been tested, observed, measured, it's stringing together theories and observing things now and estimating or guessing what happened long before. Gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory are extremely different. The theory on those is how they work, not what happens. Evolutionary theory has already decided how it works and is now trying to force fit what happened.

Interesting that you mentioned quantum physics in another post. Quantum physics has proven mathematically that there are at least 10 dimensions. We are only capable of interacting in 3 but are aware of the 4th. Did time evolve also? How about other dimensions. Not just the matter, energy, and space, but time, and whatever else exists. Evolution is a theory, but it's a very loose and unproven and untestable theory. It still remains more of a philosophy than science.

[luvfightgame]

Did anyone else catch this part of the site Lyle posted. It sums up my argument that evolution isn't scientific but is philosophy.

Karl Popper suggested that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science.

[Kirkland Laing]

Did anyone else catch this part of the site Lyle posted. It sums up my argument that evolution isn't scientific but is philosophy.

Karl Popper suggested that a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science.

NCSE Resource

[Kirkland Laing]

If mechanisms weren't in place, then they had to be evolving at the same time and still be finished before the next one could evolve. It still requires an amazing amount of coincidence and very good planning.

With transitional species there should be millions of examples of the failed adaptations of naturally selected for extinction species. There are scant examples of birds looking like dinosaurs, but they are birds. They have wings and presumably can fly. We are missing the failed adaptations in every species of which there should be millions.

Scientists did think the earth was flat and just like the entire rest of the world that accepts evolution at face value they found out later they were wrong.

The problem with evolution being science is it hasn't been tested, observed, measured, it's stringing together theories and observing things now and estimating or guessing what happened long before. Gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory are extremely different. The theory on those is how they work, not what happens. Evolutionary theory has already decided how it works and is now trying to force fit what happened.

Interesting that you mentioned quantum physics in another post. Quantum physics has proven mathematically that there are at least 10 dimensions. We are only capable of interacting in 3 but are aware of the 4th. Did time evolve also? How about other dimensions. Not just the matter, energy, and space, but time, and whatever else exists. Evolution is a theory, but it's a very loose and unproven and untestable theory. It still remains more of a philosophy than science.

Biomechanical and biochemical actions on the ancient earth to create original life had billions of years to happen. No planning necessary.


There are plenty of examples of transitional species. Here are just a few. You could go and do a bit of research yourself and find plenty more :

talk.origins newsgroup


It depends what you mean by "scientists". There were also plenty of "scientists" that thought they could change lead into gold. But if we're talking about actual academic disciplines that developed their own methods of peer-reviewing of their discoveries based on observation, calculation etc. rather than a bunch of quacks making claims without evidence then no, no scientists have ever claimed the world was flat.


Evolution has been observed and measured endlessly. From Darwin discovering different shell shapes on Galapagos turtles (go read the hows and whys of just this single thing) there's more observation and testing of evolution than you could read in ten lifetimes. I've already posted examples of all this for you yet you continue to make the same arguments.

Once we've dealt with evolution we can start on quantum mechanics.

[luvfightgame]

If mechanisms weren't in place, then they had to be evolving at the same time and still be finished before the next one could evolve. It still requires an amazing amount of coincidence and very good planning.

With transitional species there should be millions of examples of the failed adaptations of naturally selected for extinction species. There are scant examples of birds looking like dinosaurs, but they are birds. They have wings and presumably can fly. We are missing the failed adaptations in every species of which there should be millions.

Scientists did think the earth was flat and just like the entire rest of the world that accepts evolution at face value they found out later they were wrong.

The problem with evolution being science is it hasn't been tested, observed, measured, it's stringing together theories and observing things now and estimating or guessing what happened long before. Gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory are extremely different. The theory on those is how they work, not what happens. Evolutionary theory has already decided how it works and is now trying to force fit what happened.

Interesting that you mentioned quantum physics in another post. Quantum physics has proven mathematically that there are at least 10 dimensions. We are only capable of interacting in 3 but are aware of the 4th. Did time evolve also? How about other dimensions. Not just the matter, energy, and space, but time, and whatever else exists. Evolution is a theory, but it's a very loose and unproven and untestable theory. It still remains more of a philosophy than science.

Biomechanical and biochemical actions on the ancient earth to create original life had billions of years to happen. No planning necessary.


There are plenty of examples of transitional species. Here are just a few. You could go and do a bit of research yourself and find plenty more :

talk.origins newsgroup


It depends what you mean by "scientists". There were also plenty of "scientists" that thought they could change lead into gold. But if we're talking about actual academic disciplines that developed their own methods of peer-reviewing of their discoveries based on observation, calculation etc. rather than a bunch of quacks making claims without evidence then no, no scientists have ever claimed the world was flat.


Evolution has been observed and measured endlessly. From Darwin discovering different shell shapes on Galapagos turtles (go read the hows and whys of just this single thing) there's more observation and testing of evolution than you could read in ten lifetimes. I've already posted examples of all this for you yet you continue to make the same arguments.

Once we've dealt with evolution we can start on quantum mechanics.

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

[Kirkland Laing]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

[Andre]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Belive me when im 'not' saying your wrong. Evolution is a massive part of creation.I can see where people using a brain that is in two linked but seperate parts can see from one side or the other.
I belive that the fundamentalist religious can only see out of one side too.

Try this out for measure; what do you think or feel about this, is this just a massive coincedence as well? Take 9 min.

http://www.youtube.com/v/D39eGrx3a_A

[luvfightgame]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

[pacfan]

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

First off, luvfightgame, I'm not trying to contradict you, or any of you here. But I'll be borrowing your point to prove my point.

As I've said, I have no problem with evolution. I think God can work through either creation or evolution. That's not impossible for me because I don't interpret the Bible literally. I think if there was an evolution, I think it was a guided evolution, guided somewhere from above, not the haphazard trial and error method as espoused by scientists, or else, I think it would have been an ugly evolution, not the perfectly symmetrical type we see in reality. That's the only way how some questions like how both sexes evolved simultaneously and why we were given eyebrows, which beautifully protect our eyes from our own sweat but which has nothing to do with our 'ability to multiply', which is the sole goal of the pure evolution theorists.

You know, folks, you may not believe this but there is this channel through which all these powers flow, call it whatever you wish, universal energy, universal mind or God Himself. This is the channel through which lifeforms on earth are guided, this is also the channel where all religious pray thru, and this is the channel through which we receive our knowledge... ...and this is also the channel where I get my ideas. Nuts, heh? Ask Andre.

[Andre]

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

First off, luvfightgame, I'm not trying to contradict you, or any of you here. But I'll be borrowing your point to prove my point.

As I've said, I have no problem with evolution. I think God can work through either creation or evolution. That's not impossible for me because I don't interpret the Bible literally. I think if there was an evolution, I think it was a guided evolution, guided somewhere from above, not the haphazard trial and error method as espoused by scientists, or else, I think it would have been an ugly evolution, not the perfectly symmetrical type we see in reality. That's the only way how some questions like how both sexes evolved simultaneously and why we were given eyebrows, which beautifully protect our eyes from our own sweat but which has nothing to do with our 'ability to multiply', which is the sole goal of the pure evolution theorists.

You know, folks, you may not believe this but there is this channel through which all these powers flow, call it whatever you wish, universal energy, universal mind or God Himself. This is the channel through which lifeforms on earth are guided, this is also the channel where all religious pray thru, and this is the channel through which we receive our knowledge... ...and this is also the channel where I get my ideas. Nuts, heh? Ask Andre.

I can only add one thing to that: Physical orientated thoughts are the only thing that gets in the way or blocks the energy or the information that comes down that pranic tube you are talking about; also blocks whats recorded in your dna.

The more you only think one way the less you can except from all the ways.

Its like asking God who are you? show yourself to me now,why am I here?why do you allow all this? Why me? why this pain? whats right ?whats wrong?all the while you are only really trying to justify your own view point or where you chose to stand ,still telling your own storyline.

You cant hear when your still talking/you cant meditate while still thinking.
How can you expect to hear Universal answers when your still busy with your own story?
"Silence is golden" for many reasons.

There is truth in : "better somethings end than in their begining."

Ask with an empty cup ,not a full one or even a half full one.

Grasshopper

Space/matter

Its the space within ,the window openings and the door openings that make a building useful.

Therefore profit comes from what is there,usefulness from what is not there.

See both sides except both sides.

[Kirkland Laing]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

I'm pleased we both agree that microevolution is a fact.

As for sexual reproduction, it developed while asexual reproduction was still going on in the same species, didn't just happen overnight. Eventually the evolved version of the species (through the benefits of natural selection allowed by sexual reproduction) took over, while some species like dandelions (and Lyle's ancestors) remained asexual.

And sexual evolution continues today. In a few thousand years' time man will evolve a penis that can suck itself.

[El Kabong]

So out of nothing came everything we know of, and that is completely explained by science


Yeah and now who has the FAITH issue?