Creation vs. Evolution

[Green_Manelishi]

It does not work that way with with Darwinism, per se, because the samples are not randomly selected.

Giraffes, for example. 'Survival of the fittest' would suggest that a long neck is advantageous in times of drought, because when lower shoots and leaves have all been eaten the animals with longer necks can still reach higher forage that animals with short necks cannot. Ergo, over time longer-necked animals will survive longer, hence breed more frequently over time with other longer-necked animals, hence over time neck length will tend to increase for this animal.

Thus evolution would tend to be driven by environmental parameters and breeding for desirable traits, and not random chance.

Your example although valid is that of adaption within a species. It is not an example, nor can it be logically assumed to lead to, a completely different life form; like dinosaurs evolving into birds, etc. Thus does evolution fail assuming it even surmounted the obstacle of life from lifelessness.

 

[Soggy]

Thus does evolution fail assuming it even surmounted the obstacle of life from lifelessness.

Let's try this one more time....

LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Fortunately for evolutionary theory, your complete lack of understanding does not invalidate it. You are so incredibly off the mark, it is laughable.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess....Please, continue on believing that the world is flat, and that the moon is made of cheese and stop getting in the way of those that actually want to learn something.

 

[lamont]

Your example although valid is that of adaption within a species. It is not an example, nor can it be logically assumed to lead to, a completely different life form; like dinosaurs evolving into birds, etc. Thus does evolution fail assuming it even surmounted the obstacle of life from lifelessness.

It doesn't fail. The genetic distance between any two members of the same species which have modified themselves due to adaptation is inherantly less than the genetic distance between two members of completely differing species. The likelihood of speciation is therefore much less and it is less observed -- the areas where we've seen it best are in viruses like HIV1 (which is a totally different species of virus from SIV and which no longer can infect the host organism of SIV) and that is because the mutation rate of viruses (and HIV in particular) is so incredibly high.

It can be logically assumed to lead to different species. You just refuse to admit the possibility, which is just an assertion, not a logical conclusion. If you would like to make a logical conclusion you need to do the work to understand genetics and to show that any two species of animals with a sufficiently large genetic distance between them could not have been evolved from a common ancestor given the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. I'm aware of no such statistical analysis that has been done, and it is certainly well outside of your talents.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Soggy,

Relax and let your thinsulate rest from the wad you just twisted them into.

I too am laughing.

Life from lifelessness is not part of "evolutionary" theory only because evolutionists have to disassociate it and pretend it's not relevant.

It's completely relavent because if the first, life from lifelessness, does not happen then your great leaps to conclusions cannot happen.

Ignorant? Hardly. I suppose that's intented as an insult that because I am a Christian that I must believe the earth is flat, or that the Bible teaches the earth is flat and that I've only grudgingly accepted that it is not. Your ignorance is illustrated; nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is flat. Anyone who believes that it does needs to re-read it and pay attention, or stop looking for some "evidence" that's what it teaches and take verse out of context.

If evolution was the fact that it's so alleged to be it would not be up for debate. When was the last time anyone debated the reality of gravity?

Getting in the way of those who want to learn something? Give me a break. Allow me to step aside; I do not want to be taken over the cliff by the rush of lemmings.

Let's try this one more time....

LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
LIFE FROM LIFELESSNESS IS NOT PART OF
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Fortunately for evolutionary theory, your complete lack of understanding does not invalidate it. You are so incredibly off the mark, it is laughable.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess....Please, continue on believing that the world is flat, and that the moon is made of cheese and stop getting in the way of those that actually want to learn something.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

It doesn't fail. The genetic distance between any two members of the same species which have modified themselves due to adaptation is inherantly less than the genetic distance between two members of completely differing species. The likelihood of speciation is therefore much less and it is less observed -- the areas where we've seen it best are in viruses like HIV1 (which is a totally different species of virus from SIV and which no longer can infect the host organism of SIV) and that is because the mutation rate of viruses (and HIV in particular) is so incredibly high.

It can be logically assumed to lead to different species. You just refuse to admit the possibility, which is just an assertion, not a logical conclusion. If you would like to make a logical conclusion you need to do the work to understand genetics and to show that any two species of animals with a sufficiently large genetic distance between them could not have been evolved from a common ancestor given the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. I'm aware of no such statistical analysis that has been done, and it is certainly well outside of your talents.

Again with the HIV ...

It's still an HIV, isn't it? Or maybe it's, uh, almost a bird? A dinosaur. A plane? Superman?

Again we must return to the biggest obstacle to your existance: life from lifelessness. Let us all know when you've solved that little problem Dr Frankenstein.

The statistical probability of evolution is nill. But that certainly has not stopped the great Dawkins from claiming that it must have happened. After all, a marble statue could wave its hands under the right conditions so ...

My talents?

You might believe you are descended from Lucy or perhaps closely related to the palm
walkers in Turkey, but I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Thank you very much.

 

[Soggy]

Soggy,
Life from lifelessness is not part of "evolutionary" theory only because evolutionists have to disassociate it and pretend it's not relevant.

It isn't relevant. It's a whole other field of study. You can pretend that it is relevant, but you'd be wrong. If it makes you happy, pretend that God created that first life and then it evolved from there. I doubt that is the case, but it sure is a lot more plausible than your ridiculous assertions.

It's completely relavent because if the first, life from lifelessness, does not happen then your great leaps to conclusions cannot happen.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true.

Ignorant? Hardly. I suppose that's intented as an insult that because I am a Christian that I must believe the earth is flat, or that the Bible teaches the earth is flat and that I've only grudgingly accepted that it is not. Your ignorance is illustrated; nowhere does the Bible claim the earth is flat. Anyone who believes that it does needs to re-read it and pay attention, or stop looking for some "evidence" that's what it teaches and take verse out of context.

It's called sarcasm. No, I do not think that you or any other Christian believes that the Earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese, but your denial of the theory of evolution is just as ridiculous. You have no facts, just stories.

If evolution was the fact that it's so alleged to be it would not be up for debate. When was the last time anyone debated the reality of gravity?

Yeah exactly. No rational person would debate the the reality of gravity and no rational educated people on the topic debate the reality of evolution.

Getting in the way of those who want to learn something? Give me a break. Allow me to step aside; I do not want to be taken over the cliff by the rush of lemmings.

By perpetuating misunderstandings and fallacious information, you are getting in the way of people learning something. People will come and view your posts, which are written from a position of ignorance, and take it as fact.

Note, I am using the word "ignorance" not as an insult, but to indicate a lack of information on the topic combined with a lack of willingness to open your mind to learn about it.

 

[Soggy]

Again with the HIV ...

It's still an HIV, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's still a virus, but it's completely different from SIV. Just as humans, though a little different from apes, are still animals. We are 98% the same as chimps. Is it so strange to you that a 2% deviance in our DNA occurred over the last several million years? Oh wait, we're only 6k years old. Uh huh....

Ignorance is bliss.

Again we must return to the biggest obstacle to your existance: life from lifelessness. Let us all know when you've solved that little problem Dr Frankenstein.

There you go again, showing your ignorance. If you want to learn about abiogenesis, please start a thread on that topic. It is unrelated to evolutionary theory. Your continued hammering to the contrary doesn't make it so, it just makes you look bad.

The statistical probability of evolution is nill.

Please cite your source.

 

[SeanQ]

See this link:http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncas/evolution/#E. EVOLUTION OF HORSES

Synopsis: Even thought we know that the commonly used series of pictures does not show an accurate timeline in the evolution of the horse. We know even better now how horses evolved therefore the inferences from the pictures are not a problem.

Sounds familiar to another book with outdated (by a few thousand years) information in it. I suppose that invalidates it too?

 

[lamont]

Again with the HIV ...

It's still an HIV, isn't it? Or maybe it's, uh, almost a bird? A dinosaur. A plane? Superman?

SIV is not HIV. basic reading comprehension skills would help you here.

Again we must return to the biggest obstacle to your existance: life from lifelessness. Let us all know when you've solved that little problem Dr Frankenstein.

it took about a billion years before it got started, so the probability of it occuring is extremely statistically unlikely, so its not suprising that we don't understand how it occured.

The statistical probability of evolution is nill.

this is an assertion, not a statistical proof. come back when you have one.

My talents?

when was the last time you took a statistics course? when was the last time you did any formal statistical analysis?

 

[Green_Manelishi]

SIV is not HIV. basic reading comprehension skills would help you here.

Basic intelligence would also help you. SIV/HIV: it remains an "IV" and it's not changing into an amoeba, botulism, mumps, chicken pox, small pox, etc. Is it.
You might believe it could given enough time, but that's not science, it's faith;


it took about a billion years before it got started, so the probability of it occuring is extremely statistically unlikely, so its not suprising that we don't understand how it occured.

It took a billion years? You don't understand how it occured? But you know that it did occur.

this is an assertion, not a statistical proof. come back when you have one.

You might enjoy Dawkins book about sightless, clueless, planless watchmakers. He admits the statistical probability is bupkis. He then goes on to "prove" how it could have happened. I especially enjoyed the idiocy about marble statues waving their hands, and how skin might have evolved into eyes

when was the last time you took a statistics course? when was the last time you did any formal statistical analysis?

Funny you should ask. Much as I did not enjoy statistics (or accounting for that matter) I took at least two of each in the past few years and the course work was heavy on analysis of data.

Next question?