Liekiller

No i won't. I really don't have time for this. The evidence is all out there, you can easily find it yourself. As i said before we "evolutionists" are arguing for what is considered state-of-the-art science and a proven fact by pretty much everybody except christian fanatics. As such it's YOU who has to prove your point. Ours has been proven a zillion times. I have not seen any of that from you. All you do is come around calling us foolish, however without providing proof that the science we "believe in" is factually wrong or providing an alternative falsifiable theory. Just because you dislike and fear a scientific theory does NOT make it wrong, sorry

Christian fanatics? Really - do yourself a favor do more research. There are many respectable scientists that do not believe in macro-evolution and it has nothing to do with their faith - refer to John Lennox and William Lane Craig to mention a few. I have never denied micro-evolution or any other evolution that can be observed and repeated and I don't know where you got that idea from.

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

AgentOfAllah:
^^^ Hahaha...He calls it personal smearing! He smeared himself with his lies. I merely pointed out his cheap tactics and pedantic maneuvers. Abeg go siddon jarre, you're clearly ignorant!!

Coming from some-one who compared the birth of a child to the evolution of humans from an amoeba? Dude, go and stand in front of a mirror

alexis:
Liekiller
Christian fanatics? Really - do yourself a favor do more research. There are many respectable scientists that do not believe in macro-evolution and it has nothing to do with their faith - refer to John Lennox and William Lane Craig to mention a few. I have never denied micro-evolution or any other evolution that can be observed and repeated and I don't know where you got that idea from.

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

respectable scientists eh? "it has nothing to do with their faith"? SUUUUUUREEEEEEEEEE

"William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. "

"Professor John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician, philosopher of science and Christian apologist who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. [...] He is a leading voice defending the notion of the relationship between science and religion. Lennox is considered to be a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement."

See, we are talking about biology here, not philosophy and theology. Biologists are the only "respectable scientists" in this field. Or will you ask an aeronautic engineer when you want to form an opinion about linguistics?! Please!!
According to scientists, it is science. It uses scientific methods. It doesn't matter if it fits into your own personal definition. Period.
Listen, your only problem here is that you are outrageously biased, and the reason for this is very clear. You feel that evolution threatens your belief. I understand that. What I don't understand though is why you don't get information other than what you find on biased creationist websites. If you are not truly fanatic you should actually find it simple to accept evolution (by that I mean its scientific version and not the creationist lies about it) AND be a Christian. All it really requires is to read genesis as an allegory. Millions of Christians around the world do that. The only thing "believing in evolution" threatens is the incest stories in genesis. No big loss I'd say.

As for your claims that it is not scientific/testable/falsifiable: read here how macroevolution is tested and how it could be falsified (but hasn't been so far): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

Liekiller

respectable scientists eh? "it has nothing to do with their faith"? SUUUUUUREEEEEEEEEE

I will suggest you listen to debates say between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins or between William Craig and Lawrence Krauss. Whenever an issue is debated i.e. evolution, facts and logic are presented. Whenever religion is brought up; then religion is discussed. The topics are clearly defined. It is on the path of atheists and evolutionists that contrast religion and science with false dichotomy. One can be a scientist even if one is a theist.

"William Lane Craig is an American analytical philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. "

"Professor John Carson Lennox is a British mathematician, philosopher of science and Christian apologist who is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. [...] He is a leading voice defending the notion of the relationship between science and religion. Lennox is considered to be a leading figure of the evangelical intelligentsia movement."

You don't have to copy and paste it from Google,

See, we are talking about biology here, not philosophy and theology. Biologists are the only "respectable scientists" in this field. Or will you ask an aeronautic engineer when you want to form an opinion about linguistics?! Please!!According to scientists, it is science. It uses scientific methods. It doesn't matter if it fits into your own personal definition. Period. Listen, your only problem here is that you are outrageously biased, and the reason for this is very clear. You feel that evolution threatens your belief. I understand that. What I don't understand though is why you don't get information other than what you find on biased creationist websites. If you are not truly fanatic you should actually find it simple to accept evolution (by that I mean its scientific version and not the creationist lies about it) AND be a Christian. All it really requires is to read genesis as an allegory. Millions of Christians around the world do that. The only thing "believing in evolution" threatens is the incest stories in genesis. No big loss I'd say.

The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarcely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one.

Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator. So, somehow, it has to happen. I AM INTERESTED IN HOW IT HAPPENED. That is all I am asking

If I was biased, I will not admit to micro-evolution; I will not admit to evolution that has been observed.

As for your claims that it is not scientific/testable/falsifiable: read here how macroevolution is tested and how it could be falsified (but hasn't been so far)

You ignored my response on this

alexis:
The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution.

I think this is the main question here. YOU ARE RIGHT. And guess what, evolutionary biology never attempted to, does not and never will answer that question, because that's not a question within its scope. Evolutionary biology does not address the "WHY" question. So all your efforts in distorting biology are futile. There is no reason for it. As far as I'm concerned anyone can claim that something "created" the initial step of life if they must. So far we don't have scientific proof how it happened, and maybe we never will.
Apart from that... I'm not even going to reply to any "intelligent design" propositions. It's not science. If you wish to claim it is then go right ahead and bring out the testable evidence. The claim "but it's obvious" is NOT testable evidence.

Liekiller:


I think this is the main question here. YOU ARE RIGHT. And guess what, evolutionary biology never attempted to, does not and never will answer that question, because that's not a question within its scope. Evolutionary biology does not address the "WHY" question. So all your efforts in distorting biology are futile. There is no reason for it. As far as I'm concerned anyone can claim that something "created" the initial step of life if they must. So far we don't have scientific proof how it happened, and maybe we never will.
Apart from that... I'm not even going to reply to any "intelligent design" propositions. It's not science. If you wish to claim it is then go right ahead and bring out the testable evidence. The claim "but it's obvious" is NOT testable evidence.

You are not addressing the entire question I raised; we have both agreed that science can't address the origin of life. This was what I said:

Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends

Simple to complex forms need a mutating replicator; a way to copy itself. If life started as A SINGLE ORGANISM; how did it replicate; how did it change; how did it "evolve" from one cell to a different cell. I am asking HOW questions, not WHY questions.

You seem to be doing what every evolutionist does; ignore the core scientific query and brush it aside as irrelevant.

alexis:


You are not addressing the entire question I raised; we have both agreed that science can't address the origin of life. This was what I said:

Nor does it explain the existence of the mutating replicator on which it depends

Simple to complex forms need a mutating replicator; a way to copy itself. If life started as A SINGLE ORGANISM; how did it replicate; how did it change; how did it "evolve" from one cell to a different cell. I am asking HOW questions, not WHY questions.

You seem to be doing what every evolutionist does; ignore the core scientific query and brush it aside as irrelevant.

Sorry, I took that as part of the other question. But then again do I have any obligation to adress each of your questions when you bring forth nothing? Well anyway, we are certainly all interested in that, but there is no definite answer. Here is a review what science has so far: http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/unravel.htm
I also find this whole article useful to demonstrate the type of science that is involved in evolutionary biology nowadays.

Liekiller

Sorry, I took that as part of the other question. But then again do I have any obligation to adress each of your questions when you bring forth nothing? Well anyway, we are certainly all interested in that, but there is no definite answer.

What do you mean when I bring forth nothing?

Here is a review what science has so far: http://www.dhushara.com/book/unraveltree/unravel.htm. I also find this whole article useful to demonstrate the type of science that is involved in evolutionary biology nowadays.

I will take a look at it, thanks

alexis:
Liekiller



What do you mean when I bring forth nothing?



I will take a look at it, thanks

I mean that you continue to challenge us to "prove" evolution, but when you are asked to provide evidence for your ideas you ignore it and come around with insults, if anything. Anyway, have a good read

Liekiller:


I mean that you continue to challenge us to "prove" evolution, but when you are asked to provide evidence for your ideas you ignore it and come around with insults, if anything. Anyway, have a good read

What evidence do you want me to provide? I am not the one making claim of macro-evolution. Evolution states that we evolved from simple organisms to complex ones; the burden of proof is on the evolutionary process to confirm that. I am using the same standard that scientist use to confirm if macro-evolution is true - an observable, repeatable experimental process. This same process applies to micro-evolution and we can easily observe and repeat it but we can't do the same of macro-evolution

Darwin didn't provide any proof that simple organism spawned into complex entities. He made that conclusion after observing birds and beaks.

It's similar to you asking me to prove God when I made the claim He exist and I tell you to provide evidence that you don't believe in him.

alexis:


What evidence do you want me to provide? I am not the one making claim of macro-evolution. Evolution states that we evolved from simple organisms to complex ones; the burden of proof is on the evolutionary process to confirm that. I am using the same standard that scientist use to confirm if macro-evolution is true - an observable, repeatable experimental process. This same process applies to micro-evolution and we can easily observe and repeat it but we can't do the same of macro-evolution

Darwin didn't provide any proof that simple organism spawned into complex entities. He made that conclusion after observing birds and beaks.

It's similar to you asking me to prove God when I made the claim He exist and I tell you to provide evidence that you don't believe in him.

you really need to get over Darwin. He was the one who suggested the general idea of evolution. Ever since his idea has been refined, added to and modified. Did you even read that link? But he was right. Nothing has been able to falsify it so far, instead all new disciplines involved have confirmed it over and over again.
No, you are not making claim of evolution. You are making claim of intelligent design which is backed up by ZERO evidence and science. And I have a feeling you know that. There is good reason for you to avoid that discussion.

Liekiller:


you really need to get over Darwin. He was the one who suggested the general idea of evolution. Ever since his idea has been refined, added to and modified. Did you even read that link? But he was right. Nothing has been able to falsify it so far, instead all new disciplines involved have confirmed it over and over again.
No, you are not making claim of evolution. You are making claim of intelligent design which is backed up by ZERO evidence and science. And I have a feeling you know that. There is good reason for you to avoid that discussion.

You are here again going around in circles. If you want to discuss intelligent design, I will happy to indulge you. I will respond with the statement I made earlier:

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

alexis:


You are here again going around in circles. If you want to discuss intelligent design, I will happy to indulge you. I will respond with the statement I made earlier:

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

Liekiller:


You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

Remember, I asked about an example, could you mention one and elaborate?

@alexis, i know you're a fan of intelligent design, thats yo ur problem, intelligent design is flawed right from start, its not scientific.

alexis:

It is in micro evolution where the real scientific evidence for evolution exists - and I have always supported that. As far as progressive, macro evolution is concerned it really doesn't even qualify as a science. Can a concept that requires eons of time be experimentally tested or observed? No. What would it take to disprove it? It is so plastic that it "explains" virtually all possible outcomes. All highly plastic concepts are "supported" by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientific concepts must be falsifiable. Macro evolution is not, therefore it is not science. It is simply storytelling.

Alexis, we started on a wrong footing. I occasionally get frustrated when I feel someone is intentionally trying not to understand my point. Let's push the reset button and start again:

In evolutionary biology, it doesn't make sense to separate Micro and Macro evolution. One leads to the other, and I have used the little free time I found to formulate a proof using mathematical formalisms (this is why I like mathematics. It fits into any science). I have named the proof after you, but I hope you have a little bit of mathematics background. If not, don't worry, I will provide a visually appealing example of the mathematical statements for good measure. See the proof below (I have attached it as an image because Nairaland cannot accept compound formula):



So to say micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is to make a mathematically illogical statement, which shifts the burden of proof on you. Hence, you must show that the LIM(t→ ΔT) (m) =/=M according to equation 5. For example, if you were accumulating brown grains of sand in a De rica can, one after the other, eventually you'll have a heap of brown sand. A heap of brown sand looks nothing like a grain of brown sand, yet you know one results in another. Supposing you continue to accumulate into another De rica container, and high winds come and mixed your brown sand with white sand, by the time your next De rica can is filled, you'll have a mixture of white and brown heap of sand, which will look nothing like the brown heap of sand or the initial brown grain. Now consider the following example:

Assuming your name is Alexis Methuselah the Second, and you have been gifted with two superpowers, namely the power of longevity which will make you live for more than 10,000 years, as well as the power to make someone sleep for a long time before waking them up. Now, because you will live for so long, you wished to kill boredom, so you develop a hobby, breeding red-Birdy. Now, while you're busy with your breeding, your naughty son saw your red- Birdy and started startling it, so you sent you naughty son to sleep until your breeding experiment is done. Your breeding experiment, represented by the matrix below, is carried out with especial interest in three different features as follows:

Try A: Mate only the off-springs of red Birdy with the largest bone structures.
Try B: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures and darkest colours.
Try c: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures, darkest colours and Biggest beaks.

Find the result below:

Red-Birdy Matrix

10,000 years later, you're happy with the outcome of your breeding experiment. You now have three new species of red Birdy: Big-red-Birdy (BRB), Big Black-red-Birdy (BBRB) and Big-Beaked-Black-red-Birdy (BBBRB). So you decide to wake little Alexis up and show him your beautiful birds. Little Alexis will say "Oh daddy, when did you buy these three different kinds of birds". But you know better, so you'll say "Son, I didn't buy them. They are off-springs of a common ancestor 'S' the red-Birdy". Your son says, "No, I don't believe that such a small red-Birdy can produce a BBBRB that looks nothing like it, unless you prove it to me at this instant". You will have no way of proving this to your son in a lab because if you take two little red-Birdies, they will never be able to produce one BBBRB. You'll need exactly the same amount of time and similar conditions to reproduce BBBRB to your son. Alternatively, you show your son that there are DNA signatures of little red-Birdy in BBBRB, and your son is thenafter, satisfied.

Likewise, when you ask for proof of a fish or single cell becoming human, that is not a reasonable request, not only because of the length of time involved in evolution, but also the fact that many of the conditions have since changed, which cannot be replicated. For example, there once was an ice-age, which for sure, caused living organisms to evolve so as to survive the harsh climate. Such evolutionary events cannot be replicated today, without the ice-age conditions. As such, to prove evolution, we depend on DNA signatures that all living organisms share, as well as fossil records. DNA signatures and fossil records are scientifically observable and repeatable. So the question one has to ask is: Why do all living things share these signatures? The answer to that question is that the differences in the DNA of all living things were micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. Everyday, we observe the micro-evolutionary events take place in the lab and in nature, and we have no reason to assume it just stops there. Since you're the one assuming it stops there, the burden of proof is on you to show that such an assumption is valid.

I hope you understand evolution better now.

very nice post, AgentofAllah. But you know what the issue with this will be again... birds are still the same "kind". One of us needs to take the time to dig into the fossil record for the fish-amphibian or the reptile-bird transition, and I hope it will be you LOL.
Just like the differentiation between micro and macro evolution doesn't make sense the "complexity" issue doesn't make sense either. I am yet waiting for the creationist explanation of what makes a trilobite less "complex" than an ape from a biological point of view.

Liekiller:
very nice post, AgentofAllah.

Thanks

But you know what the issue with this will be again... birds are still the same "kind".

The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that there is no clearly defined line called "Same kind". For example, an eagle is not any less a kind of a parrot than my hypothetical BRB is a kind of BBBRB. I have demonstrated this both mathematically and visually. What we have are models, and the closer we get to the common ancestor, the the less useful these models are.

One of us needs to take the time to dig into the fossil record for the fish-amphibian or the reptile-bird transition, and I hope it will be you LOL.

I understand your point, but this loaded task will be asking for too much, I think. The fossil records abound, and whoever disputes this can search by themselves...just a click away.

Just like the differentiation between micro and macro evolution doesn't make sense the "complexity" issue doesn't make sense either. I am yet waiting for the creationist explanation of what makes a trilobite less "complex" than an ape from a biological point of view.

Exactly!

AgentOfAllah:

The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that there is no clearly defined line called "Same kind". For example, an eagle is not any less a kind of a parrot than my hypothetical BRB is a kind of BBBRB. I have demonstrated this both mathematically and visually. What we have are models, and the closer we get to the common ancestor, the the less useful these models are.

You understand that, I understand that, but the followers of ID usually don't. They seem to think two birds mating should instantly produce a rat to "prove evolution" LOL. The problem generally seems to be that they would expect evolution to work in a way THEY define beforehand so they could believe it, whereas in reality it describes how observed diversity came about but does not predict what any given plant or animal is "supposed to" evolve into.

I understand your point, but this loaded task will be asking for too much, I think. The fossil records abound, and whoever disputes this can search by themselves...just a click away.

Definitely. I don't see why we are expected to waste our time writing stuff that is already readily accessible.

Liekiller:

You understand that, I understand that, but the followers of ID usually don't. They seem to think two birds mating should instantly produce a rat to "prove evolution" LOL. The problem generally seems to be that they would expect evolution to work in a way THEY define beforehand so they could believe it, whereas in reality it describes how observed diversity came about but does not predict what any given plant or animal is "supposed to" evolve into.

You exactly hit the nail on the head with the emboldened.

Liekiller:


You got a link above informing you about how it is testable. You are the one going around in circles.

All I did was ask you for one example. You gave me a link showing no traceable and gradual evidence. I have asked you to give me a specific example

Peterken05:
@alexis, i know you're a fan of intelligent design, thats yo ur problem, intelligent design is flawed right from start, its not scientific.

It depends on what science you are talking about my friend. In summary, science is knowledge of a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws. You have the physical and natural sciences like physics and biology which use "natural" scientific methods to explain and understand how things work i.e. to get knowledge

Then you have theology, which is a science that studies a particular object - God. Howbeit not a natural science but still a science as it deals with the knowledge of the meta-physical and of God, His laws, His principles, His person and how He relates to us.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft (I suggest you look up this word) was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is "a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation." This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study.

So, if you are trying to prove intelligent design or God in a lab; it's similar to be asking you to scientifically prove that you ate dinner with your family at Christmas 5 years ago. I hope you get my point

AgentOfAllah

Alexis, we started on a wrong footing. I occasionally get frustrated when I feel someone is intentionally trying not to understand my point. Let's push the reset button and start again:

No problem mate, I might have come across on the wrong foot as well.

In evolutionary biology, it doesn't make sense to separate Micro and Macro evolution. One leads to the other, and I have used the little free time I found to formulate a proof using mathematical formalisms (this is why I like mathematics. It fits into any science). I have named the proof after you, but I hope you have a little bit of mathematics background. If not, don't worry, I will provide a visually appealing example of the mathematical statements for good measure. See the proof below (I have attached it as an image because Nairaland cannot accept compound formula):

Unfortunately, I can't view the images, can you send their direct link so I can refer to them

So to say micro-evolution does not lead to macro-evolution is to make a mathematically illogical statement, which shifts the burden of proof on you. Hence, you must show that the LIM(t→ ΔT) (m) =/=M according to equation 5.

I am not sure the equation 5 you are referring to but if it was listed in the images above, I couldn't view them so I can't respond until I see it. My stance is this = Evolution has carried the weight of micro-evolution but it's certainly not creative. There is nothing illogical about that statement.

For example, if you were accumulating brown grains of sand in a De rica can, one after the other, eventually you'll have a heap of brown sand. A heap of brown sand looks nothing like a grain of brown sand, yet you know one results in another. Supposing you continue to accumulate into another De rica container, and high winds come and mixed your brown sand with white sand, by the time your next De rica can is filled, you'll have a mixture of white and brown heap of sand, which will look nothing like the brown heap of sand or the initial brown grain

.

The above example is a good logic. The mixture of white heap of sands with existing brown heap of sands by wind producing a mixture of both white and brown mixtures of sand. Mathematically, this is a sound logic

Now consider the following example:

Assuming your name is Alexis Methuselah the Second, and you have been gifted with two superpowers, namely the power of longevity which will make you live for more than 10,000 years, as well as the power to make someone sleep for a long time before waking them up. Now, because you will live for so long, you wished to kill boredom, so you develop a hobby, breeding red-Birdy. Now, while you're busy with your breeding, your naughty son saw your red- Birdy and started startling it, so you sent you naughty son to sleep until your breeding experiment is done. Your breeding experiment, represented by the matrix below, is carried out with especial interest in three different features as follows:

Try A: Mate only the off-springs of red Birdy with the largest bone structures.
Try B: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures and darkest colours.
Try c: Mate only the off-springs of Red Birdy with the largest bone structures, darkest colours and Biggest beaks.

Find the result below:

Red-Birdy Matrix

I am unable to see the image, can you provide a working link to the image so I can view it

10,000 years later, you're happy with the outcome of your breeding experiment. You now have three new species of red Birdy: Big-red-Birdy (BRB), Big Black-red-Birdy (BBRB) and Big-Beaked-Black-red-Birdy (BBBRB). So you decide to wake little Alexis up and show him your beautiful birds. Little Alexis will say "Oh daddy, when did you buy these three different kinds of birds". But you know better, so you'll say "Son, I didn't buy them. They are off-springs of a common ancestor 'S' the red-Birdy". Your son says, "No, I don't believe that such a small red-Birdy can produce a BBBRB that looks nothing like it, unless you prove it to me at this instant". You will have no way of proving this to your son in a lab because if you take two little red-Birdies, they will never be able to produce one BBBRB. You'll need exactly the same amount of time and similar conditions to reproduce BBBRB to your son. Alternatively, you show your son that there are DNA signatures of little red-Birdy in BBBRB, and your son is thenafter, satisfied.

I think you misunderstood me. The above described the micro-evolution of birds. My contention is that you didn't use the birds to give rise to a different animal that is not a bird. After the 10,000 years, the animals are still birds howbeit small or large. There is a common misconception that scientists/individuals who reject evolutionary theory must believe that species are fixed and unchangeable. However, that is incorrect. Non-evolutionary scientists accept that species can change, but they believe that biological change has natural limits. Instead of the single evolutionary "tree of life", according to which all living things have arisen from a single common ancestor, non-evolutionary scientists characterize the relationships between different living things as an orchard of trees.

Each tree in the orchard represents a distinctly different group of organisms – what we might call a Basic Type – and each originated separately. In this non-evolutionary view, they cannot be traced back to a universal common ancestor. Nevertheless, each Basic Type is a broad group probably encompassing many species. While each Basic Type originated separately, a great deal of variation has occurred within the created group. For instance, all dogs – including wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs – probably belong to the same Basic Type. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels).

Likewise, when you ask for proof of a fish or single cell becoming human, that is not a reasonable request, not only because of the length of time involved in evolution, but also the fact that many of the conditions have since changed, which cannot be replicated.

Either I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood me; If I didn't make myself clear, my apologies. My question was - if you claim that complex forms i.e. humans came from single forms i.e. amoeba, there should be gradual transformation proof that we can observe i.e. fossils. Also, we should have many many examples of these fossils showing these transformations and transitions. I wasn't expecting you to show me how an amoeba changed into a man. I was expecting you to provide proof showing the gradual change leading up to complex forms.

For example, there once was an ice-age, which for sure, caused living organisms to evolve so as to survive the harsh climate. Such evolutionary events cannot be replicated today, without the ice-age conditions. As such, to prove evolution, we depend on DNA signatures that all living organisms share, as well as fossil records. DNA signatures and fossil records are scientifically observable and repeatable. So the question one has to ask is: Why do all living things share these signatures? The answer to that question is that the differences in the DNA of all living things were micro-evolutionary events (mutations) which were acquired over time, which then became macro-evolutionary. Everyday, we observe the micro-evolutionary events take place in the lab and in nature, and we have no reason to assume it just stops there. Since you're the one assuming it stops there, the burden of proof is on you to show that such an assumption is valid.

I am not assuming it stops there, I am asking for proof. You talked about DNA signature and how it proves we are all similar and share the same ancestry. That is a logical conclusion but it provides no proof as to why we are different. It's similar to saying, Queen Elizabeth is a human being and you are a human being so you have a right to the throne of England. Your claim as a human being has nothing to do with your claim to the throne of England or how you are related to the Queen.

I will present some facts from the fossil records regarding macro-evolution and I hope you can do them justice:

1. If indeed all creatures share the same ancestry, we should see gradual evolutionary transformation trends. Can you provide a fossil record showing gradual transformation change from one biological specie to a different biological specie. The example of the bird example you gave doesn't fall into this category as the result of my super-powers still produced another bird.
2. We should be able to see many examples of transitional forms documenting this evolutionary process. Since we all came from the same source, there should be many many examples of fossils showing these gradual transitions i.e. for example, what was the original form of the jellyfish
3. The fossil records doesn't look anything like gradual transformation. Instead, we see sudden appearance of new life forms, new biological groups, showing up explosively in the fossil records
4. We see the absence or the near absence of transitional intermediates
5. Instead of seeing gradual changes over time, we see stasis
6. Perfect examples of sudden appearance of fossil records without traceable and gradual trends is something known as the "Cambrian Explosion" which dates back to 540 million years ago when the fossil records show a variety of explosion of complex multi-cellular animal life.
7. For the first time in earths history, we see 50% to 80% of animal phyla that have ever existed and they show up in a window of time that is arguably within 2-3 million year window
8. Virtually, out of nowhere appear these incredible diversification of complex animal forms and life
9. Now, when you look at the fossil records, you see nothing that looks like complex animal life from simple forms. It's life showing up out of virtually nowhere.

A renowned evolutionary biologist named Simon Conway Morris who studied the Cambrian Explosion said this:

"William Buckland knew about it, Charles Darwin characteristically agonized over it, and we still do not fully understand it. It, of course, is the seemingly abrupt appearance of animals in the Cambrian explosion"

The Cambrian explosive simply makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. This is what Charles Darwin wrote about the Cambrian explosion and this comes from the book The Origin of Species

"There is another and allied difficulty which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kindgom suddenly appear in the lowest know fossiliferous rocks. To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian systems, I can give no satisfactory answer"

In other words, the Cambrian explosion was well known. Darwin hoped that future studies will uncover this mystery but here we are 150 years later; the fossil records look the same as it looked then. To be clear, we know of many more fossils than Darwin knew in his day but the nature of the Cambrian explosion is still the same today as it was in Darwin's time. Why is that?

Here is what Richard Dawkins said in his book the blind watch maker about the Cambrian Explosion:

"The Cambrian strata of rocks vintage about 600 million years are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though there were just planted there without any evolutionary history"

This goes to show that the Cambrian explosion challenges the evolutionary i.e. macro-evolution paradigm. This challenge is not posed by me, it is posed by the fossil records, a fossil record that supposedly justifies biological evolution

I hope you understand evolution better now

I understood evolution; all I asked for was proof of macro-evolution

Isi mgbaka

this thread should be on front page. Oga seun, can you help us do something?

babyosisi:
Isi mgbaka

what is that?

Peterken05:
@alexis,

i dont know what you're saying about depression or arrogance.

I dont know about nature scientist and cosmologist debunking evolution theory either. Why would a cosmologist debunked evolution?

I still cant grasp what you're trying to say.

I think u do, u just refusing to acknowledge, Alexis was clear and concise.

Peterken05

@alexis,

i dont know what you're saying about depression or arrogance.
I dont know about nature scientist and cosmologist debunking evolution theory either. Why would a cosmologist debunked evolution?
I still cant grasp what you're trying to say.

Can you quote me on what I said about depression or arrogance. Also, I not quite clear on your statement regarding nature scientist and evolution. This was the statement you made:

@alexis, i know you're a fan of intelligent design, thats yo ur problem, intelligent design is flawed right from start, its not scientific.

And I responded:

It depends on what science you are talking about my friend. In summary, science is knowledge of a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws. You have the physical and natural sciences like physics and biology which use "natural" scientific methods to explain and understand how things work i.e. to get knowledge

Then you have theology, which is a science that studies a particular object - God. Howbeit not a natural science but still a science as it deals with the knowledge of the meta-physical and of God, His laws, His principles, His person and how He relates to us.

The tradition of Wissenschaft provides a bridge to our modern understanding of science. Wissenschaft (I suggest you look up this word) was the ideology of learning in German universities during the 1800s. Within this system, a science is "a legitimate area of study oriented to a particular object, and possessing appropriate methods of investigation." This is similar to the concept of “science” in the Medieval era, yet has endured into the 21st century. According to this definition, theology is a science with an object of study (God and His actions on earth) and a means for study.

So, if you are trying to prove intelligent design or God in a lab; it's similar to be asking you to scientifically prove that you ate dinner with your family at Christmas 5 years ago. I hope you get my point

Please respond accordingly

Codedone:



I think u do, u just refusing to acknowledge, Alexis was clear and concise.

not alexis, it was alexis007 and what does depression has to do with evolution?

alexis

theology was reffered as queen of science in the middle ages.
theology was seen as a science in the Middle Ages.
Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it
encounters special and general revelation.
I dont think i would call it science, since it is based on revelations (mostly special).
And moreso, the holybook is not a reliable tool itself when it come to knowing more about god but many theologians failed to accept this.

A single person reflecting on
the meaning of a religious text might be said to be "doing"
theology in some manner.

So i'm still skeptical.

On wissenschaft,

Wissenschaft is the German language term for any study or
science that involves systematic research. Wissenschaft
incorporates science, learning, knowledge, scholarship and
implies that knowledge is a dynamic process discoverable for
oneself, rather than something that is handed down. It did not
necessarily imply empirical research.

Wissenschaft was the official ideology of German Universities
during the 19th century. It emphasised the unity of teaching
and individual research or discovery for the student. It
suggests that education is a process of growing and
becoming.

Wissenschaft was misinterpreted by 19th century Americans
visiting German universities to mean "pure science," untainted
by social purposes and opposed to the liberal arts.

This is from wikipedia.
Wissenschaft is not 'pure science'. It is just an ideology that helped germans in that time to grow and educate themselves.

In the case of intelligent design, you cant call it science because one of the most important characteristics of scientific hypotheses
and theories is the predictive power they provide. ID does not
offer any new explanation or observation about these complex
structures that the Theory of Evolution does not already provide.
The observation that some structures in organisms are too
complex to have originated from gradual change will not help
scientists to develop a better antibiotic, for example. In fact, the
idea that “some things are too complex” is anti-scientific, since it
seems to suggest that we shouldn’t try to understand the origins
of the complex structures. ID discourages us from looking and
asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later
found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not
have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and
recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated
into evolutionary theory.

If you wanna talk about ID
answer this 1st question
Who designed the designer?

Peterken05

theology was reffered as queen of science in the middle ages.
theology was seen as a science in the Middle Ages.
Thomas Aquinas considered theology a science because it
encounters special and general revelation.
I dont think i would call it science, since it is based on revelations (mostly special).
And moreso, the holybook is not a reliable tool itself when it come to knowing more about god but many theologians failed to accept this.

I have referred to the definition of the sciences. Theology is not a physical or natural science so the criteria for the natural sciences isn't the same as theology but that is another matter - that point has been made and pretty clear

A single person reflecting on
the meaning of a religious text might be said to be "doing"
theology in some manner. So i'm still skeptical.

Of course you are

Wissenschaft was misinterpreted by 19th century Americans
visiting German universities to mean "pure science," untainted
by social purposes and opposed to the liberal arts.

I specifically told you that theology in the Wissenschaft context is the study on an object; in this case God. I can study human beings, I can study demonology; I can study energy in the same way I can study God. I never claimed that it was a natural or physical science

ID discourages us from looking and
asking questions. True science, however, moves on. If it is later
found to be the case that some structures in organisms do not
have more primitive counterparts, science will observe and
recognize this fact, and the new knowledge will be incorporated
into evolutionary theory.

It shows your level of understanding on the subject. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. Evolution doesn't explain how life started; it has no idea. It's claims falls under it's own weight.

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an un-directed process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called "specified complexity" or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

Contrary to what many people suppose, the debate over intelligent design is much broader than the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution. That’s because much of the scientific evidence for intelligent design comes from areas that Darwin’s theory doesn’t even address. In fact, the evidence for intelligent design comes from three main areas: Physics and Cosmology, the Origin of Life, and the Development of Biological Complexity.

If you want evidence of intelligent design - I will be happy to indulge you

If you wanna talk about ID answer this 1st question Who designed the designer?

The common school-boy atheist argument. Sounds like Richard Darwkins all over again . The concept of God has never been that of a created entity. Ancients and even us know that "created" gods are called idols so if that is what you are referring to then you have your question mixed up.

God is the un-caused first cause, not created, outside time and space and eternal. So, God can't be created because creation started with Him. If you want proof, I can provide one.

Now, I have a question for you? Was our universe created or is it eternal?

this is your problem

'God is the un-caused first cause, not created, outside time and
space and eternal. So, God can't be created because creation
started with Him. If you want proof, I can provide one.'

are we still talking science here?

Asking you to show proof is synonymous to asking you to preach.

Would reply your mention later, alexis.