CDZ Evolution: Valid Science, or Hoax?

[SUPERMAN1929]

What the hell do you mean by 'more complex parameters'?
You have spouting lots of stuff- but you haven't supported any of your claims and you just sound like you are copying off of an anti-evo website.
Dogs evolved from wolves- Dogs are now a completely different species- they can still cross breed with wolves, but they are still a distinct species. Is that Micro or Macro evolution- or are both terms scientifically irrelevant?

I think you are in over your head, too. Even among evolutionists, the claim is that dogs & wolves had the same common ancestor, not that dogs evolved from wolves.

Not over my head- but I will agree that there is disagreement as to which wolf dogs evolved from.

At least I understand the concept of evolution- which you refuse to.

I don't think it's a lack of understanding the concept, it is a lack of belief in myths.

 

[usfan]

Look at you.....such a cute little fucker. Passive aggressive behavior isn't normally found in those who are great fans of science. What's your excuse?

This is the CDZ. It is supposed to be a clean debate, without personal insults. Why does any questioning of the sacred tenets of evolution elicit such a passionate response? It is just a 'theory' of origins, is it not?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look at you.....such a cute little fucker. Passive aggressive behavior isn't normally found in those who are great fans of science. What's your excuse?

This is the CDZ. It is supposed to be a clean debate, without personal insults. Why does any questioning of the sacred tenets of evolution elicit such a passionate response? It is just a 'theory' of origins, is it not?

Nope. It isn't "just a theory". That's you being wrong from the get-go.

 

[usfan]

We know more now than we did a couple of hundred years ago with dna & the science of genetics. We work with the genetic code, bringing about variations WITHIN that code. That is breeding. But all living things have limits. We cannot 'breed' a fish into a lizard, nor a lizard into a bird. They do not have the genetic information to allow that, nor is there any explanation as to HOW a more complex code can suddenly be infused into a fish, causing it to sprout legs, while concurrently doing this with other fish, so they can reproduce & carry on the new genetic information. It makes a good sci fi story, but it is bad science. So we are still left with a mysterious force that causes this increase in complex genetic information, without knowing how it works. Evolution & adaptation do not explain the increase in complexity.. they can only explain REDUCTIONS in complexity.. fewer light moth strains being available so they can stay on dark trees.. fewer dark rabbits in the snow so the white ones are more dominant. But the genetic information was already there, it was just limited in the adaptation process.

 

[usfan]

Actually, i have a theory why people get so defensive if something like their pet theory of origins is questioned.. it is something indoctrinated from youth, so it becomes almost instinctive..

"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason." ~Charles Darwin

 

[Syriusly]

Look at you.....such a cute little fucker. Passive aggressive behavior isn't normally found in those who are great fans of science. What's your excuse?

This is the CDZ. It is supposed to be a clean debate, without personal insults. Why does any questioning of the sacred tenets of evolution elicit such a passionate response? It is just a 'theory' of origins, is it not?

I agree- this is the clean zone- and you shouldn't be attacked- even if I disagree with your premise.

I am no expert- but I enjoy reading laymen's science literature. I have been to exhibits on evolution both at the Academy of Science in San Francisco and the Smithsonian in DC.

The basic premise of Evolution makes sense- in a way that no competing theory does. No other theory comes close to explaining both the diversity of life and the success of life on Earth.

I think that the biggest issue is getting past the vastness of numbers that evolution requires- numbers of generations, number of years, numbers of thousands of years.

But if you can get past that- be willing to embrace the concept of change over the course of 100,000 years or 500,000 years, I think the concept is easy to understand.

 

[Syriusly]

. Evolution & adaptation do not explain the increase in complexity.. they can only explain REDUCTIONS in complexity..s.

And again- what do you mean by 'increase in complexity'?

That is an annoyingly vague term you keep using as if it has an actual meaning.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Experts.

What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design American Civil Liberties Union

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look at you.....such a cute little fucker. Passive aggressive behavior isn't normally found in those who are great fans of science. What's your excuse?

This is the CDZ. It is supposed to be a clean debate, without personal insults. Why does any questioning of the sacred tenets of evolution elicit such a passionate response? It is just a 'theory' of origins, is it not?

I agree- this is the clean zone- and you shouldn't be attacked- even if I disagree with your premise.

I am no expert- but I enjoy reading laymen's science literature. I have been to exhibits on evolution both at the Academy of Science in San Francisco and the Smithsonian in DC.

The basic premise of Evolution makes sense- in a way that no competing theory does. No other theory comes close to explaining both the diversity of life and the success of life on Earth.

I think that the biggest issue is getting past the vastness of numbers that evolution requires- numbers of generations, number of years, numbers of thousands of years.

But if you can get past that- be willing to embrace the concept of change over the course of 100,000 years or 500,000 years, I think the concept is easy to understand.

I agree. The CDZ should be free of all attacks. Even the kind that are dressed up in nice words.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think the mainstream, scientific or political establishment has ever been wrong in the past? Could they be wrong in the future? Could they be wrong, now? Consider other possibilities. Be skeptical. Question authority.

Of course scientific theories can be wrong.

You have yet to either prove that evolution is wrong- or that there is a better theory for the diversity of life on Earth.

Frankly I would love to hear your alternative scientific theory for how penguins and condors came to be.

 

[usfan]

It's settled science, pal. Do some reading. I rely on the experts. The experts have made this clear to all of us.

No problem. You can trust 'really smart people.' I have been a questioner of authority my whole life. I don't see any reason to change now.

It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry. ~Albert Einstein

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's settled science, pal. Do some reading. I rely on the experts. The experts have made this clear to all of us.

No problem. You can trust 'really smart people.' I have been a questioner of authority my whole life. I don't see any reason to change now.

It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry. ~Albert Einstein

Yeah? A questioner huh? Cool. Do you believe in god?

 

[usfan]

The basic premise of Evolution makes sense- in a way that no competing theory does. No other theory comes close to explaining both the diversity of life and the success of life on Earth.
I think that the biggest issue is getting past the vastness of numbers that evolution requires- numbers of generations, number of years, numbers of thousands of years.
But if you can get past that- be willing to embrace the concept of change over the course of 100,000 years or 500,000 years, I think the concept is easy to understand.

I look for a logical, observable, testable mechanism that allows this advancing of living things. Time is not a mechanism. It is a dodge, to muddy the impotence of the theory.

And again- what do you mean by 'increase in complexity'?
That is an annoyingly vague term you keep using as if it has an actual meaning.

That is the essence of ToE. Living things advance in complexity, adding genomes, & other traits as life 'evolves' from simpler to more complex forms. That is what is asserted. That life started in very simple forms, & slowly evolved into the complexity we see today.

 

[usfan]

Of course scientific theories can be wrong.
You have yet to either prove that evolution is wrong- or that there is a better theory for the diversity of life on Earth.
Frankly I would love to hear your alternative scientific theory for how penguins and condors came to be.

I have listed many problems with the ToE that no one has addressed, but instead divert attention with useless, irrelevant personal information.
Regarding penguins & condors, i don't know. I do not have enough information to make a conclusive theory of 'HOW' they came about. I don't thing they evolved from reptiles, though.

Yeah? A questioner huh? Cool. Do you believe in god?

..not relevant to the discussion, but yes, i am a deist. I am an origins agnostic, if that is what you are fishing for. Do you believe in god? Why do you believe in evolution? Why do you assume everything you were taught about it was fact? Did you ever doubt the teachers in school, or question their agenda?

 

[Syriusly]

All life on earth shares a common ancestor.

So you assert. But that is the point of this thread, is it not? What evidence do you have for this belief?

First of all- this is a given- you will reject any evidence of evolution.

This is a clearly established pattern by anti-evo's- who rely upon their faith that evolution cannot possibly be real- so they deny the evidence of evolution. You have demonstrated it in this thread.

I however look at the DNA evidence- which shows the extreme similarities between species we would predict would be extremely related based upon taxonomy.

It was no surprise when DNA showed that chimps and gorilla's and orangutangs are closely related to humans- the only surprise was how closely related they are- DNA analysis has largely supported every evolution claim- with some surprises.

The basic premise of Evolution makes sense- in a way that no competing theory does. No other theory comes close to explaining both the diversity of life and the success of life on Earth.
I think that the biggest issue is getting past the vastness of numbers that evolution requires- numbers of generations, number of years, numbers of thousands of years.
But if you can get past that- be willing to embrace the concept of change over the course of 100,000 years or 500,000 years, I think the concept is easy to understand.

I look for a logical, observable, testable mechanism that allows this advancing of living things. Time is not a mechanism. It is a dodge, to muddy the impotence of the theory.

And again- what do you mean by 'increase in complexity'?
That is an annoyingly vague term you keep using as if it has an actual meaning.

That is the essence of ToE. Living things advance in complexity, adding genomes, & other traits as life 'evolves' from simpler to more complex forms. That is what is asserted. That life started in very simple forms, & slowly evolved into the complexity we see today.

I have never heard any theory of evolution say that adding complexity is the the essence of evolution- I have only heard that claim from evo-deniers.

I look forward to your logical, observable, testable mechanism for your alternative theory as to the diversity of life.

So far the only logical and observable theory I have seen are Evolution and its cousins.

 

[william the wie]

Well the use of Nebraska Man at the Scopes trial is certainly evidence of evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course scientific theories can be wrong.
You have yet to either prove that evolution is wrong- or that there is a better theory for the diversity of life on Earth.
Frankly I would love to hear your alternative scientific theory for how penguins and condors came to be.

I have listed many problems with the ToE that no one has addressed, but instead divert attention with useless, irrelevant personal information.
Regarding penguins & condors, i don't know. I do not have enough information to make a conclusive theory of

So are you completely incurious as to the origins of the diversity of life?

You just reject the Theory of Evolution- without any curiosity as to how all of the life around you is as it is?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Of course scientific theories can be wrong.
You have yet to either prove that evolution is wrong- or that there is a better theory for the diversity of life on Earth.
Frankly I would love to hear your alternative scientific theory for how penguins and condors came to be.

I have listed many problems with the ToE that no one has addressed, but instead divert attention with useless, irrelevant personal information.
Regarding penguins & condors, i don't know. I do not have enough information to make a conclusive theory of 'HOW' they came about. I don't thing they evolved from reptiles, though.

Yeah? A questioner huh? Cool. Do you believe in god?

..not relevant to the discussion, but yes, i am a deist. I am an origins agnostic, if that is what you are fishing for. Do you believe in god? Why do you believe in evolution? Why do you assume everything you were taught about it was fact? Did you ever doubt the teachers in school, or question their agenda?

I don't "believe in" evolution. It's settled science. It doesn't require faith or belief. It is fact.

You question authority......but believe in god? That does not compute.

Are you also an "intelligent design" proponent? Is that how you explain things?

And no...I don't question the agenda of the teachers I had in school. They were simply trying to make a living by providing instruction to students. No agenda.

There is no god.

 

[usfan]

I don't think it's a lack of understanding the concept, it is a lack of belief in myths.

I'm actually pretty clear on the ToE. I was spoon fed it from childhood, & began to question it in my early 20s. I have been a dabbler with origins since, fascinated with the latest discoveries, & learning many of the complex explanation. I even know enough of the jargon to be dangerous..
I think 'myth' is a pretty accurate description. It is widely believed, not because the science compels that conclusion, but because they have no alternative naturalistic explanation.

 

[usfan]

"I" am not the topic. To focus on personalities, rather than the topic is a dodge, to avoid discussing it, & it only reveals the impotence of the debaters.

So are you completely incurious as to the origins of the diversity of life?
You just reject the Theory of Evolution- without any curiosity as to how all of the life around you is as it is?

I don't "believe in" evolution. It's settled science. It doesn't require faith or belief. It is fact.
You question authority......but believe in god? That does not compute.
Are you also an "intelligent design" proponent? Is that how you explain things?
And no...I don't question the agenda of the teachers I had in school. They were simply trying to make a living by providing instruction to students. No agenda.
There is no god.