First off, saying that complex biochemical things happen often is not a way to explain them, it is simply admitting that there are LOTS of them that need to be explained.
no, it's showing that chemical reactions in nature (not in living things) can also seem very complex. So you can't use complex chemical reactions since they're everywhere even in non-living thigns. They just happen to be reactions where one thing can bond with another and then that bonds with something else and so on.
Quote:
But picture the steps: As the "front toes" grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them;
oh yes they can. Even bats now can. Ever seen vampire bats hunt in tv? they don't land on their pray, they land on the ground around it and they jump and run towards it. There's even a picture somewhere... i think it's a national geographic one, where a vampire bat is doing a "wrist"stand.
another exmaple are those bats from ... new zeland? I'm not sure... some little island somewhere, that actually hunt IN the leaf litter. They look like little shrews just running about. Very cool indeed.
Quote:
There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages.
say there's a tree dwelling shrew/small mammal (like there are many of all over the world) in the jungles of malasya (lol that's the first thing that came to mind). (did I mention they are small? and tree dwelling? in a rainforest? ok) so the little things start developing long fingers for grasping branches. Then they start getting webbing in between their fingers and now when they fall, they can glide a little tiny bit (like those tree frogs of south america that have a little webbing in between their toes... and they can still walk but can't fly) Then of course the webbing starts gettin larger and larger (like in other species of tree frog), but at the same time (... it doesn't have to be at the same time either...) they start moving their arms a little bit which provides a tiny bit more of glide. They start moving their arms more and more, the webbing getting bigger, and ta-da you have flying bats.
Quote:
But you must also look at the question and ask yourself if the fact that we see creatures of somewhat similar structure with similar elements does that mean that the ONLY conclusion is that one developed from the other? I don't think so
it's a very logical conclusion since the fossil record is arranged chronologically (of course there are exceptions but it of course that's expected) from say an organism (they are also arranged geographically) with a breathing hole on the muzzle to ones with the breathing hole in the middle and others with it on top of the head (cetaceans).
Quote:
You may explain them by saying not all creatures are fossilized. We tend to look at the fact that, just as with the bat, it seems strange that you have forms that seem to have no transitional forms and which seem to be problematic in their development
remember the small, arboreal creatures in a rainforest? small- rot very fast, lots of predators, fragile bones, etc.
arboreal-they won't be burried
in a rainforest- rot even quicker because of the heat, humidity, and abundance of life
Quote:
But once you determine the things that do and don't effect them what you cannot do is chart billions of years of possible things that they might be exposed to which you found did effect them. Most of us would not even count to a billion, let alone pretend to chart all of the possible things that could happen to a formerly unkown atom that we just found for testing over billions of years worth of days and hours
that's not how chemical reactions work. You put a nail in some water and it immediately starts to react. You can speed up the raction by making the surface area smaller too. If they don't start reacting soon they will never react. the nail doesn't just spontaneously decide to start rusting after a billion years of being exposed to water. That's just no the way things work. Is anyone a chemist around here??? anybody know a chemist? maybe a chemist could explain it better than I can...
Quote:
And the contamination issue could be that, or it could be looking around until they find what they want. They obviously were much comforted by finding something a bit further away that CONFIRMED THEIR CURRENT VIEW. That is not the scientific method
in science you can expect contamination from rocks that have been laying in the ground for a while (or much much longer). You EXPECT to have some contamination. If you have 17 that agree and only 9 that don't, you take what the 17 say. That's not "looking around" for anything. It IS science. You will always have errors.
Quote:
and eventually we have to move beyond merely verbal differences
... You have wikipedia, me, and the merriam webster. Yet you still choose to change the theory in order to find flaws in it. ok, fine.
Quote:
but QUITE a large one that was never invisioned by those who initiated gradualism.
first: how do you know what "those who initiated gradualism" had in mind?
so? did copernicus expect to find out that the sun is not the center of the universe, that we are part of a huge galaxy, and that the sun is nowhere near the center of the galaxy either? nor is the galaxy at the center of anything.
as for me contradicting myself, you answered it yourself.
Quote:
You earlier said it takes many generations of gradual change. Then you said species changes happen relatively rapidly with few chances for fossilization I am afraid you can't really have it both ways. If you simply mean in the grand scheme of things, fine, but there should still be far more than there are in my opinion.
RELATIVELY. In the grand scheme of things, speciation takes a short time, but in the grand scheme of things a short time is a long time.
key words: "in my opinion". There shouldn't be far more if you look at the big picture.
Quote:
And while I do see that creatures change I don't necessarily see that that proves they change past certain boundaries.
and your reasons to believe that are??? You can't just decide that something doesn't happen and then argue something with that unfounded decision.
Quote:
They were pointing out that all of the carbon should certainly be gone if the whole theory is right
if the whole theory is right, you should have carbon 14 left. Half-lives are the amount of time HALF of an element takes to decay. Since you can never take half of anything and get zero, you will always have some left.
it is a log. It seems rationalization doesn't work... after all, I don't get that half decaying thing... but it's been proven to be right in laboratories so... I can't argue with the facts.
Quote:
The development from that time to the present is a relatively short time. And your concept that all of the changes happen within a small population, very often, and are always passed on are simply unrealistic.
like i said, speciation takes a relatively short time :). I NEVER in my life said that all of the changes happen within a small population, very often, and are ALWAYS passed on. read again. See, that's how creationists work. They take something, twist it, and make an argument that sounds good but doesn't hold up if think about it rationally.
Quote:
As to evolving from chimps the dilemma was derived from that because there is no record of the common ancestor.
there ARE records, however you can't sequence their genome.
Quote:
As I said, that is the closest comparison we have.
yes, but you shouldn't say that ONE organism had to change 3% of it's genome because it's closest relative is 3% different. First of all the % is wrong, and secondly each would have to change only half. not the whole 3%.
Quote:
You seem to approach things from only one angle refusing to acknowldge that other models even exist.
ok what are you talking about? I took the dilemma, found what was wrong with it, and dismissed it because it was based on false premises therefore it doesn't work. What other models are you talking about? The only angle I took is the rational one.
Quote:
Nor could you have possibly debated creationists as many times as you claim and be ignorant of their models of the fossil record, time lines etc. When you play dumb as if to say that they are not even worth considering because you don't agree with them or deem them unscientific you point yourself out to be either trying to intimidate through rhetoric rather than convincing with facts, or as simply a devoted RELIGIOUS devotee to evolutionary theory that can consider no other option, or acknowledge the existence of other theories.
when have i done that? that complexity thing's premise is wrong. those things could have evolved gradually. the "gaps" in the fossil record- they are expected and can be explained very easily. Radioactive dating- first off, it's not just radioactive dating that shows the earth is not young as you say, and your claims can also be explained. The dilemma thing- almost every premise was wrong. no need to believe a word of it. umm... what else?
I'm not claiming to be ignorant to what you said. when did I say that? I'm very much aware of creationists' claims. The fact that nobody had given me the example of blood clotting is nothing since there are millions of complex things they could talk about.. I can't be expected to know them all.
and yes I have been told in every single debate that evolutionists are unscientific and that evolution is a religion and all that, which is of course unfounded.
Yes, there are other models for many things. Some say the earth is flat. Should we even begin to consider that the earth is flat? no, because it has been proven wrong. OH GOSH we are so unscientific! how can we NOT consider something that has been proven wrong? we are unscientific religious zealots for not considering the earth is flat! (it's an analogy...)
OH... you mentioned junk DNA (earlier. I don't know where that came from lol). did you know that 99% of our genome is junk? very intelligent design eh? it's evidence for evolution too, as it is expected that the more you evolve, the more neutral mutations you will accumulate (like the vitamin C gene is now junk because a mutation ocurred).
Quote:
The facts are that there are many scientists, even in my own denomination, and some with no religious affiliation per se who do in fact debate points of evolutionary theory, origin theories in regards to spontaneous generation of life, the big bang, etc.
did I ever say there weren't? yes, scientists they debate points of evolutionary theory but not weather evolution ocurred or not, etc.
About those "scientists" who are creationists, there are also "scientists" who are flat-earth people, that look for ghosts, etc. It's called pseudoscience.
Quote:
But if you wish to then allow both views, or even more views, to be taught, otherwise it continues to look as though evolutionary devotees simply want no challenge to their interpretation of what all honest minds admit is very complex data which none of our models explains perfectly.
ok, let's also teach that the earth is flat, that the world has a nuclear core (actually I wouldn't mind that since it is a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis), about tooth fairies and santa claus.
Creationism is not scientific. It doesn't belong in classrooms.
Quote:
If you make a post asking for ideas and views, then perhaps you should at least look at them
I guess I just reply without looking at them. hmm.. how strange that my replies are relevant to what you are talking about.
Quote:
I get the feeling from the moment you arrived that your true purpose for this thread
my true purpose for starting this thread:
1) to start a good debate about evolution with many people
2) to inform and to get informed (evolution is one of the most misunderstood scientific theories. People think it is what it's not, and they aren't aware of the evidence... and I get informed about both creationist claims and evolution)
3) to have fun
Quote:
Now you are just whining about having to answer multiple issues and saying no one will read it.
no, i'm complaining about you posting all the issues in one post and rambling on and on. Do you really think anyone besides eugene and us are reading this thread? I know if I came along and saw posts this big I wouldn't even consider reading it all. Besides, of the few days i've been here only my threads have been active. I've only "seen" 2 other people. When the other people come, they're going to look at this huge thing and not just "casual observers" will overlook it.
Quote:
Now that someone is challenging your views at length and taking it to an actual discussion of particulars
a discussion is when you say something, I reply, you say some other thing, I reply, etc. Not you coming along and saying everything, me having to reply to every single thing with a huge post, then you having to reply with another huge post, etc.
Quote:
If you can't discuss with some professionalism without inisisting that it go your way then perhaps another forum would be a good spot to discuss.
Exactly the same to you.
Quote:
I questioned your logic that animals could teach us how to interact harmoniously because I think that it is a very limited example
first off, it was SQUIRRELS. and after an article about how they don't care about color. You don't need to take my statement about learning from squirrels and say that we should be jumping off of trees.
Quote:
I am also aware from many debates with agnostics/athiests/evolutionists/Satanists, etc. that SOME segments of those populations delight in setting Christians up by provoking to personal attack then pointing out that it is inconsistent with their faith
I am also aware of the hate and loathing some segments of religious people have against agnostics/athiests/evolutionists/satanists, etc.
Quote:
So yes, part of the reason I posted long responses was because I actually wanted to see if you were interested in intellectually interesting conversations, or if you really just wanted to push your view and amuse yourself.
You know that topic somewhere about long posts being offensive? Well, now I see what they mean. By making such huge posts you immediately tick people off.
Quote:
So I am not in the least upset that fewer will read this post
fewer? i'd say nobody. Now people will just keep on believing that evolution says a present-time bacterium just appeared out of some dust.
Quote:
If on the other hand this is all for kicks and so you can be a pain in the back side as your initial greeting seems, then I think this post has run its course for my part.
I'm not having fun. I didn't want to be a pain in "the back side", I wanted to have good debates with people like I have had many times before. (sure, sometimes it got a little rough... and it came from both sides, but nothing like this...)
Quote:
Incidentally, if want to explore some other areas that would be rather interesting in a slightly different realm I would be interested to see how you explain the seeming reality of free choice from a purely physical mechanism. That gets into philosophy, but is not divorced from science as it deals with the nature of the brain etc.
great I'd like that too, but only if you promise to not make such long posts.
Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 6 Location: University of Waterloo, Ontario
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:01 am Post subject:
OOOOOOH this is amazing! What I see before me is a baffled creationist, constantly posing questions that AlphaWolf seems to have no problem to answer! Good job AW, you're on my A list today!
Does this person seriously not understand that choice can be a chemical reaction? I'm getting impatient, sorry... I wish I had all the time in the world to waste!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
