Evolution does not work

[IamJoseph]

By a process of elimination, the premise can be established or negated.

 

 

 

Re. Evoution.

 

This does not work if this is an on-going process. Namely, an on-going process is not effected by time, which says we must see evolution occuring at all times. If one species changes to another, then we must be able to witness this every second - a billion years ago, and a billion years plus one second, and now. Of note, ToE depends on time as its proof.

 

 

Secondly, evolution does not work without the 'seed' factor; namely an output of essence from the host parents, which acts as a chip with a directive program [dna; genes]. This was correctly given in Genesis, from where the premise of Darwin's Evolution was lifted. Genesis is the first recording of life form group listings, described by categories of terrain and habitat [water based; air based; land based; etc] - instead of skeletal and dna imprints; and that repro occurs via the seed factor, which is able to pass on the data and a directive program onto the offspring. Amazing science here.

 

 

 

Thrdly, Evolution cannot be a science because it is not a universal phenomenon: it is nt seen elsewhere in the known universe. No life exists on the moon despite all earthly elements found there - including H & O [the componenets of H2O]. This destroys ToE's NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST premises: why are these not seen in harsh conditions and only in ideal conditions here on earth!?

 

 

 

Re. The BIG BANG.

This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe!

 

 

Genesis opens with the preamble the universe is finite - it had a 'BEGINNING'! This makes it encumbent on any scientist to first state their preamble which universe they are talking about - a finite or infinite one? Thereafter, everything they say MUST align with their preamble.

 

If you want a science explanation, that's it. If you want a religious one, go to the Ancient Scriptures of any of the world's old religions.

 

 

 

It is unscientific to reject a statement based on that criteria. Most theologies subscribe to a flat earth [Gospels; Quran]. The Hebrew bible does not. This says a theology can be affirmed by science.

 

Well, then hear the other side of the argument.

 

 

5. How did sex originate?

 

 

A most interesting scientific question. I know no other valid explanation than that given in Genesis, namely that all life was initiated as a dual-gender, namely that the first male and female of all species and life forms were enjoined as one [dual gendered], then they seperated as male and female ['Man and woman created He them'/Genesis]. How else? I find the notion first a male appeared and then found an exact female counterpart ridiculous.

Edited December 10, 2011 by IamJoseph

[immortal]

By a process of elimination, the premise can be established or negated.

 

 

 

Re. Evoution.

 

This does not work if this is an on-going process. Namely, an on-going process is not effected by time, which says we must see evolution occuring at all times. If one species changes to another, then we must be able to witness this every second - a billion years ago, and a billion years plus one second, and now. Of note, ToE depends on time as its proof.

 

Evolution works by accumulation of small favourable changes and these changes have nothing do with speciation which requires reproductive isolation. Biologists have tools and specific definitions to whether or not to divide the populations of organisms into distinct species or keep them under a single species. Populations can be divided into distinct species even if they are morphologically similar to each other i.e I mean to say morphological differentiation and reproductive isolation develops independently in organisms. There are many examples of such cases.

 

Evolution works by sudden bursts followed by a perios od statis and speciation is well observed in ring species of birds, we have molecular clocks to determine when they got diverged, geology provides the conditions that existed during that time, the numbers show us the patterns and the patterns add up consistent with our observations.

 

 

Secondly, evolution does not work without the 'seed' factor; namely an output of essence from the host parents, which acts as a chip with a directive program [dna; genes]. This was correctly given in Genesis, from where the premise of Darwin's Evolution was lifted. Genesis is the first recording of life form group listings, described by categories of terrain and habitat [water based; air based; land based; etc] - instead of skeletal and dna imprints; and that repro occurs via the seed factor, which is able to pass on the data and a directive program onto the offspring. Amazing science here.

 

Define a 'seed' factor. How do you know that your interpretation of Genesis is valid? How do you say that when Genesis talks about the 'seed' factor it is actually talking about the DNA and genes in our cells? What is the method that we can adopt to know or to observe that the 'seed' factor is somehow being injected to cells and helps it to pass on the data? How do you show that your argument has any basis in science?

 

Thrdly, Evolution cannot be a science because it is not a universal phenomenon: it is nt seen elsewhere in the known universe. No life exists on the moon despite all earthly elements found there - including H & O [the componenets of H2O]. This destroys ToE's NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST premises: why are these not seen in harsh conditions and only in ideal conditions here on earth!?

 

It is not a premise which evolution claims to defend. The theory claims to explain the origin of diversity among the organisms not the origin of life itself. It is the subject of abiogenesis to explain it.

 

Re. The BIG BANG.

This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe!

 

 

Genesis opens with the preamble the universe is finite - it had a 'BEGINNING'! This makes it encumbent on any scientist to first state their preamble which universe they are talking about - a finite or infinite one? Thereafter, everything they say MUST align with their preamble.

 

How can you draw such conclusions? It can also be possible that your assumption of a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity can not perform an action is wrong.

 

It is unscientific to reject a statement based on that criteria. Most theologies subscribe to a flat earth [Gospels; Quran]. The Hebrew bible does not. This says a theology can be affirmed by science.

 

Why is that theology has to be approved by science, it has its own claims and its own methodologies (very different from science) to falsify them. Therefore just because you have back up scientific evidence for your theological claims doesn't necessarily mean that other theological claims are false or wrong. It is better to keep your theological claims in Religious forums.

 

A most interesting scientific question. I know no other valid explanation than that given in Genesis, namely that all life was initiated as a dual-gender, namely that the first male and female of all species and life forms were enjoined as one [dual gendered], then they seperated as male and female ['Man and woman created He them'/Genesis]. How else? I find the notion first a male appeared and then found an exact female counterpart ridiculous.

 

Have you read the references that were given to you. Reptiles and Aves had the necessary information in them to develop as either males or females, it is the environmental conditions that was present outside the eggs that determined which sex emerged out from the egg. Later on Evolution by Natural Selection assigned this job to the chromosomes themselves (XX-females and XY-males) which determined the development of sexes.

 

You the one who is claiming that it was intiated by something. What initiated it and how does it help us in the increase of knowledge than what we know of?

[IamJoseph]

Evolution works by accumulation of small favourable changes

 

 

 

Accumulation over time, and that this is an on-going process, not one which ceases, applies here. This says it must be manifest without pause, rendering the vacuum of continueing transitions a negation of this theory.

 

Analogy: If red marbles turn to blue marbles over time as a continuos process, then we must see "red marbles turning blue" at "ALL" times. Regardless of what fosters those changes. Unless it is NOT an on-going process. It is also not a universe premise, as with 2+2 = 4, applying here or on the moon.

 

 

 

Define a 'seed' factor.

 

 

An issue or output of the parent host. Without this seed factor, the environment and any other factors whatsoever become superfluous - to the extent it appears only the seed factor is pivotal, yet this is not even mentioned in ToE. The ancient Genesis wins here.

 

How do you know that your interpretation of Genesis is valid? How do you say that when Genesis talks about the 'seed' factor it is actually talking about the DNA and genes in our cells? What is the method that we can adopt to know or to observe that the 'seed' factor is somehow being injected to cells and helps it to pass on the data? How do you show that your argument has any basis in science?

 

 

 

No other meaning of the text description is possible to put on the table. Of note the scientific description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND ['SPECIES/LIFE FORM GROUPS'] is mentioned; as well, this is said to be the consequence of the seed factor as the cause of reproduction. The description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND' and aligned with this SEED transmission and repro can only refer to the directive data [chip?] as the instigator. One must not be turned off by deceptively simple writings here - one must allow for the terms dna not yet coined and that the text is directed to all generations, a feat in itself. We may have a totally different set of words and uderstanding a few geerations from now, making even Darwinism old hat. Of note, Darwin lifted everything from Genesis, including the first listing of life form groupings and sub-groupings in their correct protcol - an astonishing premise for its time and an alignment of today's sciences.

 

The theory claims to explain the origin of diversity among the organisms not the origin of life itself. It is the subject of abiogenesis to explain it.

 

 

 

It is a common buck passing. ToE, whether it specifically evades origins or not, nonetheless subscribes to its premise applying to origins. Referring me to another faculty of science does not fix the issue. Diversity has no connection with the premise its cause is anything other than the seed transmitting the particular directive of that diversity. A human child displays diversity among all other human children - yet we know this is the result of an internal program in the seed of the host parents which caters to this diversity, without negating that child being the resut of that transmission solely. Genesis wins in its introduction of the first recording the seed factor pertains to repro and species causation.

 

 

How can you draw such conclusions? It can also be possible that your assumption of a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity can not perform an action is wrong.

 

 

 

Correct. That is why there has to be an external, independent, precedent and transcended force applying! I can see no other explanation applying, nor has anyone put one forward. Go ahead and name one - based on an absolutely finite universe - and we soon see why today's neo science runs far from the finite factor, clinging to pre- and parallel universes in utter desperation. MV is a violation of the finite factor! The the environment never existed at one time in a finite realm, nor does it manifest as the cause in any other planet or space body in the known universe to foster life.

 

Why is that theology has to be approved by science, it has its own claims and its own methodologies (very different from science) to falsify them. Therefore just because you have back up scientific evidence for your theological claims doesn't necessarily mean that other theological claims are false or wrong. It is better to keep your theological claims in Religious forums.

 

 

 

But I am not talking religion or theology. Why not read and respond scientifically to what the text says instead? Can you use that premise to thereby negate the universe being finite as wrong - because it is first introduced in Genesis? Nope!

 

Have you read the references that were given to you. Reptiles and Aves had the necessary information in them to develop as either males or females, it is the environmental conditions that was present outside the eggs that determined which sex emerged out from the egg. Later on Evolution by Natural Selection assigned this job to the chromosomes themselves (XX-females and XY-males) which determined the development of sexes.

 

 

 

That is slight of hand casino science. Why does the environment not turn rocks to reptiles? Obviously, the reptile possess a program which allows it to use the forces around it for its own purposes - again making the seed as the fundamental factor here - because the end result is a reptile again, not a rock ['FOLLOWS ITS OWN KIND'!], and notably without impact from the time factor, manifesting itself continuously. The seed renders the environment an after the fact; as in a hot sunny environment fostering a darker skin color over time and exposure; nothing whatsoever to do with what offspring category results.

 

 

 

You the one who is claiming that it was intiated by something. What initiated it and how does it help us in the increase of knowledge than what we know of?

 

 

 

If one subscribes to a finite universe, there is no alternative to a universe maker for a universe's emergence. The total lack of an aternative makes this a non-religious scientific fact, but one disdained by most scentific thought preferences.

Nor is this a case of proving a negative; rather, it is the requirement of proof for a positive. Cause and effect, and a complexity being the result of a higher complexity, is the scientific positive here. It is legitimate not to know the origins of anything if these are resultant from a point before the universe was initiated; obviously, pre-universe constructs apply here, and only the B to Z can be known; the A remains rightly elusive.

Edited December 11, 2011 by IamJoseph

[Arete]

OP: 1) random mutation has been directly observed.

2) Selection based on phenotype has been directly observed

3) Differentiation of populations resulting in reproductive isolation has been directly observed.

4) An extremely large body of repeatable observation has been found to be consistent with the theory that random mutation and environmental selection dives organismal diversification.

 

Ergo - held to the same standards as any other lay observation the theory of evolution is a fact.

 

 

Joseph: a lot of your arguments are logically fallacious.

 

By a process of elimination, the premise can be established or negated.

 

 

 

Re. Evoution.

 

This does not work if this is an on-going process. Namely, an on-going process is not effected by time, which says we must see evolution occuring at all times. If one species changes to another, then we must be able to witness this every second - a billion years ago, and a billion years plus one second, and now. Of note, ToE depends on time as its proof.

 

1) Speciation as defined by postmating isolation has been observed. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209 http://www.genetics....184/2/401.short http://www.annualrev...urnalCode=genet

2) The only "temporal constant" in evolutionary theory is mutation. Which empirical observation of data satisfies. http://mbe.oxfordjou...27/6/1289.short http://mbe.oxfordjou...4/12/2669.short http://sysbio.oxford.../59/2/119.short

3) The logic fails by false attribution - replace "evolution" with any other scientific theory describing a process longer than a human lifespan: e.g. Tectonics. If we can't measure plates constantly moving, by your premise, this theory (and numerous others) is false too.

 

Secondly, evolution does not work without the 'seed' factor; namely an output of essence from the host parents, which acts as a chip with a directive program [dna; genes]. This was correctly given in Genesis, from where the premise of Darwin's Evolution was lifted. Genesis is the first recording of life form group listings, described by categories of terrain and habitat [water based; air based; land based; etc] - instead of skeletal and dna imprints; and that repro occurs via the seed factor, which is able to pass on the data and a directive program onto the offspring. Amazing science here.

 

Strawman: Evolution =/= abiogenesis. Citing the need for bio-genesis does nothing to discredit evolutionary theory nor does it prove the Genesis story.

Got a p value on the statistical significance of the Genesis story? If not, you're making an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

 

Thrdly, Evolution cannot be a science because it is not a universal phenomenon: it is nt seen elsewhere in the known universe. No life exists on the moon despite all earthly elements found there - including H & O [the componenets of H2O]. This destroys ToE's NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST premises: why are these not seen in harsh conditions and only in ideal conditions here on earth!?

 

Another false attribution - because an observation is not repeatable extra-terrestrially does not invalidate the observation. Replace "evolution" with the carbon cycle, or the ozone layer. By this logic, biology itself is not a science because it is not observed elsewhere in the known universe. Neither is tectonics, oceanography, etc and so on.

 

Re. The BIG BANG.

This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe!

 

Genesis opens with the preamble the universe is finite - it had a 'BEGINNING'! This makes it encumbent on any scientist to first state their preamble which universe they are talking about - a finite or infinite one? Thereafter, everything they say MUST align with their preamble.

 

 

Another strawman: Evolution =/= big bang theory. Questioning the validity of the big bang theory does not discredit evolutionary theory nor does it prove the Genesis story.

Got a p value on the statistical significance of the Genesis story? If not, you're making an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

A most interesting scientific question. I know no other valid explanation than that given in Genesis, namely that all life was initiated as a dual-gender, namely that the first male and female of all species and life forms were enjoined as one [dual gendered], then they seperated as male and female ['Man and woman created He them'/Genesis].

 

Do you actually have any observational data to support this hypothesis? Argumentum ignoratum is not a valid logical premise.

 

How else? I find the notion first a male appeared and then found an exact female counterpart ridiculous.

 

Strawman and argumentum ignoratum. Evolutionary theory does not state a "male" appeared and then found an exact female counterpart. There are many naturally occurring models of "genderproof" sexual reproduction. See bacterial sexual reproduction, situational parthenogenesis, temperature dependent sex and the biological definition of hermaphrodite.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Arete

[immortal]

 

Accumulation over time, and that this is an on-going process, not one which ceases, applies here. This says it must be manifest without pause, rendering the vacuum of continueing transitions a negation of this theory.

 

Analogy: If red marbles turn to blue marbles over time as a continuos process, then we must see "red marbles turning blue" at "ALL" times. Regardless of what fosters those changes. Unless it is NOT an on-going process. It is also not a universe premise, as with 2+2 = 4, applying here or on the moon.

 

 

No you have mistaken here, only a small population of red marbles gets diverged from the whole of red marbles and turn to blue marbles and whatever happens after that is independent of those two populations. The red marbles and the blue marbles are on their own in the evolutionary race.

 

Whales and cockroaches have not changed much since millions of years, it is because they are under normalizing selection and most species exist in nature under such a constraint where as two competing species competing for the same resources will co-evolve rapidly.

 

 

An issue or output of the parent host. Without this seed factor, the environment and any other factors whatsoever become superfluous - to the extent it appears only the seed factor is pivotal, yet this is not even mentioned in ToE. The ancient Genesis wins here.

 

That is slight of hand casino science. Why does the environment not turn rocks to reptiles? Obviously, the reptile possess a program which allows it to use the forces around it for its own purposes - again making the seed as the fundamental factor here - because the end result is a reptile again, not a rock ['FOLLOWS ITS OWN KIND'!], and notably without impact from the time factor, manifesting itself continuously. The seed renders the environment an after the fact; as in a hot sunny environment fostering a darker skin color over time and exposure; nothing whatsoever to do with what offspring category results.

 

Are you claiming that the 'seed' is the DNA or is it something else? Does it have properties that DNA doesn't have? What it is made up of? How can I extract it? We can not have a discussion unless you define it clearly.

 

You claim that the seed is the pivotal force accounting for all the changes that we see in diverse organisms with the environment having no role to play. This contradicts science and our observations, so if we have to accept your claim as correct please provide the data of how the seed transforms itself there by accounting for the changes we see in the organisms.

 

 

No other meaning of the text description is possible to put on the table. Of note the scientific description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND ['SPECIES/LIFE FORM GROUPS'] is mentioned; as well, this is said to be the consequence of the seed factor as the cause of reproduction. The description of 'FOLLOWING THEIR KIND' and aligned with this SEED transmission and repro can only refer to the directive data [chip?] as the instigator. One must not be turned off by deceptively simple writings here - one must allow for the terms dna not yet coined and that the text is directed to all generations, a feat in itself. We may have a totally different set of words and uderstanding a few geerations from now, making even Darwinism old hat. Of note, Darwin lifted everything from Genesis, including the first listing of life form groupings and sub-groupings in their correct protcol - an astonishing premise for its time and an alignment of today's sciences.

 

No, an angel appeared to me today morning and told that the 'seed' is a mass luster of light and not DNA or chip and she even showed me the seed inside my body. I even had adopted a method to see it. This is how one would validate a theological claim. It was the angels who revealed the truth of the Gospel to the Apostles and it is only through their revealations one can understand and should interpret their words. As you can see this is not how science operates and my claims are not scientific.

 

Now you keep insisting that you are talking science here, you claim that the 'seed' is literally the DNA in our cells and you assign the functions of the seed to DNA and claim this as scientific. So please kindly show us how and what transcending forces changes the structure of the DNA to develop novel functioning designs and please stop drawing conclusions by defending your claims just by assuming that it is the only possible interpretation available. I have shown you that it can be interpreted as something else. Why should I or the scientific community believe in you? Show us how this works or admit that your claims are not scientific.

 

It is a common buck passing. ToE, whether it specifically evades origins or not, nonetheless subscribes to its premise applying to origins. Referring me to another faculty of science does not fix the issue. Diversity has no connection with the premise its cause is anything other than the seed transmitting the particular directive of that diversity. A human child displays diversity among all other human children - yet we know this is the result of an internal program in the seed of the host parents which caters to this diversity, without negating that child being the resut of that transmission solely. Genesis wins in its introduction of the first recording the seed factor pertains to repro and species causation.

 

This would mean that the seed somehow hides in itself all the necessary information to produce a bacteria, a human, a lemur and all the diverse organisms that we see or it is transformed by something else. Again please show us how this is achieved since it doesn't correlate with our observations.

 

Correct. That is why there has to be an external, independent, precedent and transcended force applying! I can see no other explanation applying, nor has anyone put one forward. Go ahead and name one - based on an absolutely finite universe - and we soon see why today's neo science runs far from the finite factor, clinging to pre- and parallel universes in utter desperation. MV is a violation of the finite factor! The the environment never existed at one time in a finite realm, nor does it manifest as the cause in any other planet or space body in the known universe to foster life.

 

But I am not talking religion or theology. Why not read and respond scientifically to what the text says instead? Can you use that premise to thereby negate the universe being finite as wrong - because it is first introduced in Genesis? Nope!

 

If one subscribes to a finite universe, there is no alternative to a universe maker for a universe's emergence. The total lack of an aternative makes this a non-religious scientific fact, but one disdained by most scentific thought preferences. Nor is this a case of proving a negative; rather, it is the requirement of proof for a positive. Cause and effect, and a complexity being the result of a higher complexity, is the scientific positive here. It is legitimate not to know the origins of anything if these are resultant from a point before the universe was initiated; obviously, pre-universe constructs apply here, and only the B to Z can be known; the A remains rightly elusive.

 

If it is established as a scientific fact according to you then how did the universe creator created the universe, science works by testifying the models or by falsifying it not by logical conclusions, how can we testify your claim, how do you show that it falls with in the boundaries of science.

Edited December 11, 2011 by immortal

[IamJoseph]

OP: 1) random mutation has been directly observed.

2) Selection based on phenotype has been directly observed

3) Differentiation of populations resulting in reproductive isolation has been directly observed.

4) An extremely large body of repeatable observation has been found to be consistent with the theory that random mutation and environmental selection dives organismal diversification.

 

Ergo - held to the same standards as any other lay observation the theory of evolution is a fact.

 

 

Joseph: a lot of your arguments are logically fallacious.

 

 

 

1) Speciation as defined by postmating isolation has been observed. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410209 http://www.genetics....184/2/401.short http://www.annualrev...urnalCode=genet

2) The only "temporal constant" in evolutionary theory is mutation. Which empirical observation of data satisfies. http://mbe.oxfordjou...27/6/1289.short http://mbe.oxfordjou...4/12/2669.short http://sysbio.oxford.../59/2/119.short

3) The logic fails by false attribution - replace "evolution" with any other scientific theory describing a process longer than a human lifespan: e.g. Tectonics. If we can't measure plates constantly moving, by your premise, this theory (and numerous others) is false too.

 

 

 

All that does not atend the premise of an on-going process. Try again. And evolution is not a fact - its even disputed as a theory. It remains a bad copy lift off from Genesis, which even allows speciation: animals and humans are listed as land based animals and said to follow each other's kind. Hard copy text before the term evolution was coined. Deal with it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strawman: Evolution =/= abiogenesis. Citing the need for bio-genesis does nothing to discredit evolutionary theory nor does it prove the Genesis story.

Got a p value on the statistical significance of the Genesis story? If not, you're making an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

 

 

 

The fact ToE cannot pass the continuos process premise is the reason it resorts to eons of time as its proof. Genesis is not guilty of such a debacle. Its like saying go to Jupitor and look for a red rock. But those who have no proof make sure its far away. You also failed to attend that ToE is NOT a universal premise - so how can it be a 'fact'?

 

 

Another false attribution - because an observation is not repeatable extra-terrestrially does not invalidate the observation. Replace "evolution" with the carbon cycle, or the ozone layer. By this logic, biology itself is not a science because it is not observed elsewhere in the known universe. Neither is tectonics, oceanography, etc and so on.

 

 

 

You fail to accept that life reproduces with very manifest, observable and provable form via the seed factor - which evolution totally ignores, while not being able to evidence its claims without it. A lie by omission is a lie. First admit the facts about Genesis, then call theories as fact.

 

 

Another strawman: Evolution =/= big bang theory. Questioning the validity of the big bang theory does not discredit evolutionary theory nor does it prove the Genesis story.

 

 

Genesis does negate both the BBT & ToE; these are both proosed as theories, but they are only greasy kid stuff conjurings: if the universe is expanding this away, it must have come from that-away!. There is no 'ONE' in the universe; all actions require a minimum of two. There is no evolution without the seed factor. I suspect this is why you avoided to state which universe you are talking about: a finite or infinite one? Apples and oranges apply.

 

 

 

Evolutionary theory does not state a "male" appeared and then found an exact female counterpart. There are many naturally occurring models of "genderproof" sexual reproduction. See bacterial sexual reproduction, situational parthenogenesis, temperature dependent sex and the biological definition of hermaphrodite.

 

This aligns with Genesis how the first life form in each specie originated:

 

'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' [dual-gendered in their initiation; then they seperated]

 

'In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.^[1]'

 

Life began as a dual-gendered entity. Read correctly that which you redicule?

 

No you have mistaken here, only a small population of red marbles gets diverged from the whole of red marbles and turn to blue marbles and whatever happens after that is independent of those two populations. The red marbles and the blue marbles are on their own in the evolutionary race.

 

 

 

I don't think so, good debator colleague. The issue was not whether the marbles do not remain, but that they should continue manifesting this change [speciation] at all times; every single second; every single place - based on an on-going process premise. This is of course manifest with the Genesis mode of repro. Yes/no?

 

 

 

 

Whales and cockroaches have not changed much since millions of years, it is because they are under normalizing selection and most species exist in nature under such a constraint where as two competing species competing for the same resources will co-evolve rapidly.

 

 

 

That proves genesis, not ToE. The life forms emerged as they are today, save for non-fundamental changes. In fact a life form canot exist unless it comes in a fully completed form. Analogy: a car is not a car unless it is completed; the same applies to a zebra and a pineapple. We know that vegetation preceded animated life forms [first recorded in Genesis - I didn't hear you state this fact]. Did the pineapple come from a watermelon or vice versa? It that was the case then both were never pineapples or watermelons. The fact is we have no imprints of a speciation outside of a doctored lab - in all recorded history. Never did anyone claim they saw a tiger change to a cat - or that a cat never existed then it did. So you are limited to eons of time which none can touch. My pursuit is truth, wherever it comes from, and the truth is anyone can doctor a bone fossil to show how it fits to another bone fossil, then make outlandish, less than Star Trek, claims. They of course don't tell you that the same can be seen in billions of other examples, even when the bones belong to the same life form. The issue is too important to accept without absolute proof, one that does not rely on eons of time - because the time factor does not impact!

 

 

 

Are you claiming that the 'seed' is the DNA or is it something else? Does it have properties that DNA doesn't have? What it is made up of? How can I extract it? We can not have a discussion unless you define it clearly.

 

You claim that the seed is the pivotal force accounting for all the changes that we see in diverse organisms with the environment having no role to play. This contradicts science and our observations, so if we have to accept your claim as correct please provide the data of how the seed transforms itself there by accounting for the changes we see in the organisms.

 

 

 

The term 'seed' is a translation of a mysteries Hebrew term; not a bad translation either. It refers to an output of the host parents. And since a child is born with only this essence output, it is proof that the child is the result of this essence which contains 'ALL' data and info required for that life form to be complete - with no help required from any other sector, environment included. Yes, the dna [a chip with a directive program] is included in this essence. No, this does not come from external environmental forces. The birth of today's science began here - note the term 'yield', 'bearing', and 'after its kind':

 

'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'

 

 

No, an angel appeared to me today morning and told that the 'seed' is a mass luster of light and not DNA or chip and she even showed me the seed inside my body. I even had adopted a method to see it. This is how one would validate a theological claim. It was the angels who revealed the truth of the Gospel to the Apostles and it is only through their revealations one can understand and should interpret their words. As you can see this is not how science operates and my claims are not scientific.

 

Now you keep insisting that you are talking science here, you claim that the 'seed' is literally the DNA in our cells and you assign the functions of the seed to DNA and claim this as scientific. So please kindly show us how and what transcending forces changes the structure of the DNA to develop novel functioning designs and please stop drawing conclusions by defending your claims just by assuming that it is the only possible interpretation available. I have shown you that it can be interpreted as something else. Why should I or the scientific community believe in you? Show us how this works or admit that your claims are not scientific.

 

 

 

This would mean that the seed somehow hides in itself all the necessary information to produce a bacteria, a human, a lemur and all the diverse organisms that we see or it is transformed by something else. Again please show us how this is achieved since it doesn't correlate with our observations.

 

 

 

You are getting somewhat desperate now. Just like those fundy religionists!

 

 

 

 

 

If it is established as a scientific fact according to you then how did the universe creator created the universe.

 

 

 

Unlike Darwin - I don' know.

 

 

 

The first step to knowing is to first acknwledge what you do not know.And then admit clearly what the ther side says and is vindicated. Like the 'seed' factor.

Edited December 11, 2011 by IamJoseph

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Split from the 3 to 10 reasons you accept evolution thread, since this is OT. It is also speculative, which is why it landed here. A reminder that the rules still apply, and a caution that there are reasons that evolution-creation discussions are short-lived around here: this is a science board, that arguing with someone who misrepresents or is not familiar with the theory is pointless, and also that there are sites out there that have debunked most of the tired creationist arguments.

You are getting somewhat desperate now. Just like those fundy religionists!

That would be an example of a response that is unacceptable: a personal attack that is completely devoid of any scientific merit.

[Moontanman]

All that does not atend the premise of an on-going process. Try again. And evolution is not a fact - its even disputed as a theory. It remains a bad copy lift off from Genesis, which even allows speciation: animals and humans are listed as land based animals and said to follow each other's kind. Hard copy text before the term evolution was coined. Deal with it!

 

 

Evolution is the most well supported theory in all of science, nothing in biology make any sense without evolution, and genisis makes no sense in any context. Deal with it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact ToE cannot pass the continuos process premise is the reason it resorts to eons of time as its proof. Genesis is not guilty of such a debacle. Its like saying go to Jupitor and look for a red rock. But those who have no proof make sure its far away. You also failed to attend that ToE is NOT a universal premise - so how can it be a 'fact'?

 

You don't even know what ToE is and it has nothing to do with evolution, even if we do eventually show that there is a god and it created the universe evolution would still be true, evolution is a fact, deal with it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

You fail to accept that life reproduces with very manifest, observable and provable form via the seed factor - which evolution totally ignores, while not being able to evidence its claims without it. A lie by omission is a lie. First admit the facts about Genesis, then call theories as fact.

 

Genetics support evolution completely, evolution was thought of before anyone knew why animals passed on common traits and the discovery of DNA supports evolution 100%

 

 

Genesis does negate both the BBT & ToE; these are both proosed as theories, but they are only greasy kid stuff conjurings: if the universe is expanding this away, it must have come from that-away!. There is no 'ONE' in the universe; all actions require a minimum of two. There is no evolution without the seed factor. I suspect this is why you avoided to state which universe you are talking about: a finite or infinite one? Apples and oranges apply.

 

 

Again, neither the BBT or ToE have anything to do with biological evolution.

 

 

 

 

This aligns with Genesis how the first life form in each specie originated:

 

'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' [dual-gendered in their initiation; then they seperated]

 

'In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes.^[1]'

 

Life began as a dual-gendered entity. Read correctly that which you redicule?

 

No actually life did not begin as two sexes, the first life forms had no sexes at all and some have several sexes, you are ignorant of basic biology.

 

 

 

 

I don't think so, good debator colleague. The issue was not whether the marbles do not remain, but that they should continue manifesting this change [speciation] at all times; every single second; every single place - based on an on-going process premise. This is of course manifest with the Genesis mode of repro. Yes/no?

 

 

Only things that reproduce and pass down their traits with less than perfection can evolve, marbles cannot evolve and the answer to your question is no.

 

 

 

 

 

That proves genesis, not ToE. The life forms emerged as they are today, save for non-fundamental changes. In fact a life form canot exist unless it comes in a fully completed form. Analogy: a car is not a car unless it is completed; the same applies to a zebra and a pineapple. We know that vegetation preceded animated life forms [first recorded in Genesis - I didn't hear you state this fact]. Did the pineapple come from a watermelon or vice versa? It that was the case then both were never pineapples or watermelons. The fact is we have no imprints of a speciation outside of a doctored lab - in all recorded history. Never did anyone claim they saw a tiger change to a cat - or that a cat never existed then it did. So you are limited to eons of time which none can touch. My pursuit is truth, wherever it comes from, and the truth is anyone can doctor a bone fossil to show how it fits to another bone fossil, then make outlandish, less than Star Trek, claims. They of course don't tell you that the same can be seen in billions of other examples, even when the bones belong to the same life form. The issue is too important to accept without absolute proof, one that does not rely on eons of time - because the time factor does not impact!

 

You are ignorant of even the basics of your own bible stories, you are ignorant of the basics of science and your are totally ignorant of what evolution is and how evolution works. Your pursuit is conformation of something you want to believe, truth has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term 'seed' is a translation of a mysteries Hebrew term; not a bad translation either. It refers to an output of the host parents. And since a child is born with only this essence output, it is proof that the child is the result of this essence which contains 'ALL' data and info required for that life form to be complete - with no help required from any other sector, environment included. Yes, the dna [a chip with a directive program] is included in this essence. No, this does not come from external environmental forces. The birth of today's science began here - note the term 'yield', 'bearing', and 'after its kind':

 

'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'

 

Again you are ignorant of even the basics of biology and your bible....

 

 

 

 

You are getting somewhat desperate now. Just like those fundy religionists!

 

You are being insulting, are you so desperate to believe lies that you would ignore facts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike Darwin - I don' know.

 

That was a total fabrication on your part, Darwin never said he knew how the universe started, no one knows how the universe started or even if it did start.

 

 

 

The first step to knowing is to first acknwledge what you do not know.And then admit clearly what the ther side says and is vindicated. Like the 'seed' factor.

 

Heal thy self, your lack of knowledge on this issue is astounding, it's like you get all your information from religious apologetic's like answers in genesis the most disingenuous bunch of apologists I have seen, liars all of them and if you believe the bible you know who the author of all lies is don't you?

[Arete]

All that does not atend the premise of an on-going process.

 

The premise is false. Selection pressure is not held temporally constant by evolutionary theory.

 

And evolution is not a fact - its even disputed as a theory.

 

Citation from literature needed. You've moved from logical fallacies to plain fallacy here. Fundamental evolutionary theory is not the subject of ongoing scientific debate.

 

The observation that the sun rises in the morning is a lay fact, but a scientific theory explained by planetary orbits and rotation. In the same sense the observation of allopatric speciation is a lay fact and scientific theory explained by random mutation and selection.

 

It remains a bad copy lift off from Genesis, which even allows speciation: animals and humans are listed as land based animals and said to follow each other's kind. Hard copy text before the term evolution was coined.

 

Please provide repeatable observation and significance values supporting your assertion. This statement is a "Russel's teapot" equivalent. The Genesis story is only supported by your own assertion it is true.

 

The rest of your post is repetition of the same strawmen and false premises as the first.

1) The only temporal constant assumed by evolutionary theory is random mutation - selection is NOT a constant. Previously cited observation supports this assumption. Stochastic genetic drift is also an observationally supported phenomenon.

2) Evolution ONLY explains organismal diversification and change- it is not all encompassing like Creation. Evolutionary theory is unaffected by how the universe was created and how the first life forms on earth arose (your "seed" speculation). Disproving the big bang theory, or a novel bio-genesis theory has no bearing on evolution. Your insistence that it does is a misrepresentation.

 

Try again..Deal with it!...admit the facts about Genesis...but they are only greasy kid stuff conjurings...Read correctly that which you redicule?

 

Being trite and rude doesn't help support your position. No one was demanding you "deal with it", calling your proposals "kid stuff conjurings" or questioing your reading and comprehension skills - you're doing yourself a disservice.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Arete

[michel123456]

@ YouareJoseph

You are more catholic than the Pope.

Pope Benedict XVI seems to support the BB Theory, that was introduced by a priest as you should know.

Edited December 11, 2011 by michel123456

[John Cuthber]

I'd like to ask IamJoseph a few simple questions.

Do you accept that the reason that, for example, chihuahuas are different from Great Danes is that they were bred to be different?

 

What do you think stops that sort of thing happening naturally, albeit with different pressures rather than mankind's fashion sense?

 

Evolution isn't just an observed fact, it's inevitable.

What would stop it?

 

Thirdly, if you had a severe infection and someone found that the particular bacteria causing it were resistant to penicillin would you want to be treated with some other drug?

If you want to take the drug that works, rather than to which the bacteria have evolved resistance, then you actually accept the truth of evolution. If you don't then, in at unfortunate circumstance, you would die.

[pantheory]

IamJoseph,

 

Re: The BIG BANG.

This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe!

This is a common mistake of some creationists, thinking that the theory of biological evolution is in some way related to the Big Bang theory which it is not.

How did sex originate?

Re: The evolution of the sexes

 

There are some interesting transitional creatures that suggest how the sexes evolved. Sex was thought to have originated from the inversion of the same gene. Fungi show the beginning of the creation of sexes some of them having such inversions of the same gene and others not, enabling both sexual and asexual reproduction.

 

http://www.scienceda...80109173726.htm

 

Flowering plants are the first creation of sex differences in plants whereby most can reproduce by both sexual a asexual means.

 

http://en.wikipedia....nt_reproduction

 

Many plants have both sexes on the same plant. Others such a avocados each tree is either male of female (without grafting).

 

Some animals have both sexes in the same animal such as snails. Some fish are male when they are younger and become females when they get older. In some other fish females can reproduce both asexually as well as sexually depending upon the conditions.

 

There is even one type of ant where the queen must mate with two different types of males to produce all the ant types necessary for the colony to function. It takes all three of these sexes to produce a functioning colony.

 

http://en.wikipedia....nt_reproduction

 

There are a number of other animals that have more than 2 different sexes. There is a type of lizard where there are five different sexual versions. All look different and have different sizes, colors, and behaviors. There are essentially three different types of males and two different types of females. One type of male is bigger, more aggressive and acquires multiple females in a harem. Another type of male is more aggressive toward obtaining food for both himself and his mate and is generally monogamous but has no preference of female types before finding a partner. A third type of smaller male just hangs around the alpha males trying to catch unwary females off guard that are part of the alpha males harem, and prefers alpha females. Both type of females are receptive to all males, one type is smaller, and the other type of female is more aggressive and can survive independently but cannot successfully produce offspring with an alpha male even though she may be part of his harem. But only one male and one female is needed for successful mating and offspring.

 

//

Edited December 12, 2011 by pantheory

[doG]

Re. Evoution.

 

This does not work if this is an on-going process.

That being the case then you needn't worry about finding a dose of this year's flu vaccine. Last year's, or that of years past, should would just fine for you.

[Tres Juicy]

Why do creationist's attack evolution so fervently?

 

Personally I do not believe in a God or gods, but I dont see why if you do believe that, you couldn't agree that things evolve over time?

 

Maybe the universe was created by higher intelligence (not my belief personally) and was setup as a system that could evolve and change. I have seen computer programs that were designed to evolve over time by by process of selection, if a man can do it surely God can, right?

[Ophiolite]

Why do creationist's attack evolution so fervently?

Fear. Fear of change. Evolution is change. Creationists need certainty. The eternal open-mindedness of science is abhorrent to them for that reason.

 

 

Edited to correct typo that made creationists look like cretinists. Perhaps Freud knew something after all.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Ophiolite

[Appolinaria]

Yeah, I don't understand the creationist/evolutionist debate. Can't they coexist with equal validity

[Tres Juicy]

Also, if I were to argue for evolution from a religious standpoint I could say "God created everything and gave it the ability to change and adapt to suit its environment. He did this to give his creations a fighting chance."

 

That way evolution and religion can all get along and if there seem to be discrepencies or things that don't fit well, I can say "God did it, he's cleverer than you are and maybe he doesn't want you to understand it. After all. he moves in mysterious ways..."

 

(Again, these are not my beliefs, just an example)

 

Would that not work?

[Appolinaria]

Makes sense to me.

 

Before you can do the math, math has to exist.

[Ophiolite]

There are many deeply religious people who have no difficulty reconciling religion and evolution. When I was a Christian I saw evolution as evidence for the magnificence of God. However, the majority of fundamentalists have an unfortunate combination of character and intellect that drives them to need certainty, a propensity to self-delude and a lack of intelligence that prevents a sceptical examination of the facts. I recommend a visit to http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php for many examples of this kind of thinking. (As well as much circumstantial evidence that several there have not read the passage about turning the other cheek.)

[Moontanman]

Yeah, I don't understand the creationist/evolutionist debate. Can't they coexist with equal validity

 

 

No, they are contradictory world views, creationism has only old books written by bronze age savages as evidence, evolution has 150 years of scientific methodology behind it not to mention an overwhelming amount of data, creationism has an old book that fails every test put to it and no empirical evidence what so ever...

[michel123456]

Also, if I were to argue for evolution from a religious standpoint I could say "God created everything and gave it the ability to change and adapt to suit its environment. He did this to give his creations a fighting chance."

 

That way evolution and religion can all get along and if there seem to be discrepencies or things that don't fit well, I can say "God did it, he's cleverer than you are and maybe he doesn't want you to understand it. After all. he moves in mysterious ways..."

 

(Again, these are not my beliefs, just an example)

 

Would that not work?

Yes that works.

Pope John Paul II proposed this solution. I am a little confused about the position of Pope Benedict XVI.

If you are interested lokk here for Wikipedia and this article seems not bad too, I haven't read it thoroughly.

Edited December 12, 2011 by michel123456

[Tres Juicy]

IamJoseph, on 12 December 2011 - 02:24 AM, said:

No sir - it does not. Same spot has no real meaning, other than whatever some agenda based sci-fi artists wants to make of it. The said imprint can be commonplace to all life yet not align with your conclusion; the commonality can be imited to life per se. Call me when you show why no half way chimp-human living transits appear; why did the on-going process cease.

 

There was yet no centre; yet no point. It is scientifically impossible for the universe to be initiated with one singular entity!

 

 

Every stated discovery made by ToE advocates, including alledged fossil findings, have been proven wrong, false and corrupt.

______________________________________________

 

I have several problems with some of the things you've said here... I will address the main ones.

 

 

Firstly:

Call me when you show why no half way chimp-human living transits appear; why did the on-going process cease.

Do you accept that humans selectively bred modern dogs from wolves?

 

If so, do you now see that it would be silly to ask "Why are there no half wolf/labradors?"

 

The process didn't stop, wolves are still evolving to better suit their environment - they're just not evolving into labradors - thats not how it works

 

Common ancestry does not mean that "some chimps turned into people" (evolution never said this - it is a straw man that creationists like to trot out from time to time). Chimps and humans share a common ancestry, thats all, nobody is saying that chimps are what we looked like 30 thousand years ago.

 

Secondly:

Every stated discovery made by ToE advocates, including alledged fossil findings, have been proven wrong, false and corrupt.

 

How do you justify this statement? How can you falsify dinosaur bones found independently of each other in different parts of the world at different times?

 

You've used the word "proven", would you care to share this "proof"?

 

 

Edit: I am quoting you from your other thread, please answer as best you can

Edited December 12, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

IamJoseph has been banned for multiple rules violations. It seems that waiting for him to answer questions was beyond his agenda anyway.