Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#441  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 11:42 am

Frank Merton wrote:I take it questioner121's point is that we can't travel in time to see evolution and therefore we can't know it happened. Do I have that right? Is that really the position?


Yes. But that God created the universe is a fact. :rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#442  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 12:01 pm

ADParker wrote:
The evidence for common ancestry is based on observations of species breeding and speciating etc.,
of "traits",
of ring species demonstrating how one gene-pool can 'naturally' split into two,
of genetic comparisons (the same ones that are used to identify suspects/victims and familial relationships like parentage - because it can be used to that level of precision),
of geological and temporal dispersal of living and fossilized organism,
Endogenous retroviruses (where they are placed etc.),
Pseudogenes,
etc. etc...

And all of it fits together so beautifully into the "universal common ancestor " model that it would be just be perverse for someone to understand that evidence and still believe it otherwise
If it isn't true then it looks like something has tried extremely hard to make it look true. :lol:


Here is where you're missing the important point. The evidence for common ancestry is missing observations of one species evolving into another entirely different (for example primate to human or theropod to bird) one via reproduction. To fill in the missing gap via extrapolating the observations is wrong in this case due to the unpredictability of nature. As has been observed with the definition of the term "species" it is plastic in certain areas. The reason being that as new observations are made the interpretation of the evidence used to define species has found to be invalid. Just because there are no ring species around which have the complete successive chains leading from one species to an entirely different one due to extinctions or whatever else does not in anyway justify or support common ancestry to the level of acceptance it has today.

As I said before you need to look more closely at why certain species cannot reproduce with one another rather than going by "incompatibility due to changes over time".
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#443  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 2:00 pm

questioner121 wrote:
ADParker wrote:
The evidence for common ancestry is based on observations of species breeding and speciating etc.,
of "traits",
of ring species demonstrating how one gene-pool can 'naturally' split into two,
of genetic comparisons (the same ones that are used to identify suspects/victims and familial relationships like parentage - because it can be used to that level of precision),
of geological and temporal dispersal of living and fossilized organism,
Endogenous retroviruses (where they are placed etc.),
Pseudogenes,
etc. etc...

And all of it fits together so beautifully into the "universal common ancestor " model that it would be just be perverse for someone to understand that evidence and still believe it otherwise
If it isn't true then it looks like something has tried extremely hard to make it look true. :lol:


Here is where you're missing the important point. The evidence for common ancestry is missing observations of one species evolving into another entirely different (for example primate to human or theropod to bird) one via reproduction.


Umm, is that how you understand the evidence that ADParker is referring to above? Weird.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#444  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 2:01 pm

questioner121 wrote: As I said before you need to look more closely at why certain species cannot reproduce with one another rather than going by "incompatibility due to changes over time".


And what is your understanding for why that is?

To be clear, you need to provide a mechanism that is completely unrelated to genetics. So, hey, good luck with that. :thumbup:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#445  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 2:45 pm

Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote: As I said before you need to look more closely at why certain species cannot reproduce with one another rather than going by "incompatibility due to changes over time".


And what is your understanding for why that is?


I don't know. If you take a look at dogs there are big differences in traits such as size, shape, colour, etc. however it's possible to cross breed them. So in this case the incompatibility in traits such as size, shape, colour, etc. isn't the deciding factor. It's strange that we see a phenomena such as speciation take place and immediately we say this is "natural". Natural in what way? In that we've observe it happen repeatedly? So in order for non believers to accept something supernatural they need to see it just once and then it would be convincing for them. But then obviously they're going to complain that it's not reproducible so it's not testable.

I'll state it again, you need to see one species evolve into another before you can say it's fact and proven and then go on to make claims such as common ancestry and whatever else you want to postulate.

Here's a simple testable evolution experiment which can be performed to properly support evolution and common ancestry. Scientists can now conduct hundreds of evolution experiments with RNA via a computer controlled system. They say they can run countless iterations of evolution fairly easily. Using this system scientist should test how many iterations it will take for RNA to change into something which is not RNA. Don't you think this is a much better way of verifying evolution?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#446  Postby Rumraket » Feb 25, 2014 3:00 pm

questioner121 wrote:
ADParker wrote:
The evidence for common ancestry is based on observations of species breeding and speciating etc.,
of "traits",
of ring species demonstrating how one gene-pool can 'naturally' split into two,
of genetic comparisons (the same ones that are used to identify suspects/victims and familial relationships like parentage - because it can be used to that level of precision),
of geological and temporal dispersal of living and fossilized organism,
Endogenous retroviruses (where they are placed etc.),
Pseudogenes,
etc. etc...

And all of it fits together so beautifully into the "universal common ancestor " model that it would be just be perverse for someone to understand that evidence and still believe it otherwise
If it isn't true then it looks like something has tried extremely hard to make it look true. :lol:


Here is where you're missing the important point. The evidence for common ancestry is missing observations of one species evolving into another entirely different (for example primate to human or theropod to bird) one via reproduction.

No it doesn't.

We haven't directly observed a star be born from an interstellar molecular cloud, form a protoplanetary disc, and then die in a giant (super)nova explosion.

We haven't directly observed the formation of a continent, or a mountain range, or the spreading of the plates resulting in the formation of the Atlantic Ocean.

We haven't directly observed the coming and going of ice-ages.

Nevertheless, we can be pretty sure that not only did all these events take place, but we also have a pretty good idea how they happened and how some of them are still ongoing processes happening today, even though they are happening more slowly than is perceptible on human lifetimes.

We don't HAVE to directly observe these transitions from beginning to end, neither in astronomy, geology or biology, to have overwhelming and rationally convincing evidence that they can and do happen. In evolution, that evidence is in the form of DNA, comparative anatomy, embryology and the fossil record. In astronomy and geology they have their individual lines of evidence too that rationally leads to the conclusion that these slow processes happen.

questioner121 wrote:To fill in the missing gap via extrapolating the observations is wrong in this case due to the unpredictability of nature.

Meaningless gibberish.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#447  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 3:26 pm

Rumraket wrote:

We haven't directly observed a star be born from an interstellar molecular cloud, form a protoplanetary disc, and then die in a giant (super)nova explosion.

We haven't directly observed the formation of a continent, or a mountain range, or the spreading of the plates resulting in the formation of the Atlantic Ocean.

We haven't directly observed the coming and going of ice-ages.


Exactly.

Rumraket wrote:
Nevertheless, we can be pretty sure that not only did all these events take place, but we also have a pretty good idea how they happened and how some of them are still ongoing processes happening today, even though they are happening more slowly than is perceptible on human lifetimes.


That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#448  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 3:28 pm

questioner121 wrote: . It's strange that we see a phenomena such as speciation take place and immediately we say this is "natural".


That isn't speciation.
Selective breeding for different traits in dogs and the process that governs it is well understood.

Next!
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#449  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 3:29 pm

questioner121 wrote:
That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.


Are you intentionally trying to demonstrate your ignorance or what?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#450  Postby Newmark » Feb 25, 2014 3:30 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

We haven't directly observed a star be born from an interstellar molecular cloud, form a protoplanetary disc, and then die in a giant (super)nova explosion.

We haven't directly observed the formation of a continent, or a mountain range, or the spreading of the plates resulting in the formation of the Atlantic Ocean.

We haven't directly observed the coming and going of ice-ages.


Exactly.

Rumraket wrote:
Nevertheless, we can be pretty sure that not only did all these events take place, but we also have a pretty good idea how they happened and how some of them are still ongoing processes happening today, even though they are happening more slowly than is perceptible on human lifetimes.


That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.


Why doesn't anyone set up a lab experiment to see is RNA will be "created" from scratch? Would you accept the results if they show that RNA is never "created" from scratch?
User avatar
Newmark
 
Posts: 365
Age: 42
Male

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#451  Postby Skate » Feb 25, 2014 3:38 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.


Are you intentionally trying to demonstrate your ignorance or what?


:this:

It really is quite astounding.

Newmark wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:

We haven't directly observed a star be born from an interstellar molecular cloud, form a protoplanetary disc, and then die in a giant (super)nova explosion.

We haven't directly observed the formation of a continent, or a mountain range, or the spreading of the plates resulting in the formation of the Atlantic Ocean.

We haven't directly observed the coming and going of ice-ages.


Exactly.

Rumraket wrote:
Nevertheless, we can be pretty sure that not only did all these events take place, but we also have a pretty good idea how they happened and how some of them are still ongoing processes happening today, even though they are happening more slowly than is perceptible on human lifetimes.


That's what you believe and assume.


Evolution aside for the moment, how, then, do you suppose continents, mountain ranges, etc. were formed? Do you, erm, "believe" in sea floor spreading?
User avatar
Skate
 
Posts: 222

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#452  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 3:55 pm

Newmark wrote:
Why doesn't anyone set up a lab experiment to see is RNA will be "created" from scratch? Would you accept the results if they show that RNA is never "created" from scratch?


Yes I would.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#453  Postby Scar » Feb 25, 2014 3:58 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Newmark wrote:
Why doesn't anyone set up a lab experiment to see is RNA will be "created" from scratch? Would you accept the results if they show that RNA is never "created" from scratch?


Yes I would.


And proceed to move the goalpost.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 35
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#454  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 4:01 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote: As I said before you need to look more closely at why certain species cannot reproduce with one another rather than going by "incompatibility due to changes over time".


And what is your understanding for why that is?


I don't know. If you take a look at dogs there are big differences in traits such as size, shape, colour, etc. however it's possible to cross breed them. So in this case the incompatibility in traits such as size, shape, colour, etc. isn't the deciding factor.


There are also pretty obvious similarities between them. You really don't know why it might be possible to cross-breed a Schnauzer with a Cocker Spaniel, but not with a rubber plant?

It's strange that we see a phenomena such as speciation take place and immediately we say this is "natural".


Not if you understand the meaning of the term "natural".

Natural in what way? In that we've observe it happen repeatedly?


In that it happens thru known, understood physical processes, with no need for magical intervention by leprechauns, fairies, God, or any other mythological beings.

So in order for non believers to accept something supernatural they need to see it just once and then it would be convincing for them. But then obviously they're going to complain that it's not reproducible so it's not testable.


That's all theoretical, since there has been no single confirmable observation of any "supernatural" event occuring in all of human history. That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

I'll state it again, you need to see one species evolve into another before you can say it's fact and proven and then go on to make claims such as common ancestry and whatever else you want to postulate.


Well, you're wrong on two points here.

No, that is not necessary. There is abundant evidence along multiple lines and disciplines that confirm common descent as a fact.

And, in any case, evolution of new species has been observed, so by your own criteria commond descent is a fact.

Here's a simple testable evolution experiment which can be performed to properly support evolution and common ancestry. Scientists can now conduct hundreds of evolution experiments with RNA via a computer controlled system. They say they can run countless iterations of evolution fairly easily. Using this system scientist should test how many iterations it will take for RNA to change into something which is not RNA. Don't you think this is a much better way of verifying evolution?


No, it has little, if anything, to do with confirming evolution. The deletion or replacement of a single atom is enough to change RNA into not-RNA.
Last edited by Shrunk on Feb 25, 2014 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#455  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 4:04 pm

Shrunk wrote:
No, it has little, if anything, to do with confirming evolution. The deletion or replacement of a single atom is enough to change RNA into not-RNA.


Indeed. And what questioner also fails to grasp is that evolution does not depend on RNA becoming something other than RNA.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#456  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 4:05 pm

questioner121 wrote: That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.


Since RNA is ubiquitous in all forms of life, what does this have to do with anything?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#457  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 4:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Since RNA is ubiquitous in all forms of life, what does this have to do with anything?


It doesn't. Questioner is just randomly assembling words into sentences because he doesn't understand jack about evolution.

*edit*

And I know you know that.
What's more, I know that you know that I know you know.
But Questioner doesn't.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#458  Postby questioner121 » Feb 25, 2014 4:18 pm

Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote: That's what you believe and assume. Forget the above, how about carry out an experiment in the lab with RNA to show that they can become something other than RNA. Easy experiment now that we have the technology. Question is, would you accept the results if it was proven that RNA never evolved into anything other than RNA.


Since RNA is ubiquitous in all forms of life, what does this have to do with anything?


To prove evolution. As you can observe we don't have many living organisms which reproduce in the time span expected for one species to evolve into another which is very different. Here you can test your theory.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#459  Postby Sendraks » Feb 25, 2014 4:19 pm

questioner121 wrote:
To prove evolution. As you can observe we don't have many living organisms which reproduce in the time span expected for one species to evolve into another which is very different. Here you can test your theory.


You've already been told that evolution is an observed phenomenon.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#460  Postby Shrunk » Feb 25, 2014 4:28 pm

Sendraks wrote:Questioner is just randomly assembling words into sentences because he doesn't understand jack about evolution.


Yeah, I see what you mean. Here's a perfect example:


questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Since RNA is ubiquitous in all forms of life, what does this have to do with anything?


To prove evolution. As you can observe we don't have many living organisms which reproduce in the time span expected for one species to evolve into another which is very different. Here you can test your theory.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest