Sure, This Can Only Be Explained By Evolution

[WillowTree]

Look closely at the Pelican. Dosen't he remind you of a taradacytal?

 

[JBeukema]

Anyone read The Blind Watchmaker?

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

Anyone read The Blind Watchmaker?

Nope. Sorry. Perhaps this thread is on the wrong board. But, huming birds, and little kids and flowers make for great pic's. God is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps.

 

[Ralph]

It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].

It's just science.

First PHYSICAL SCIENCE must prove that "mutations" can add unto an existing strain of DNA and not cause negative mutations (deformities within an existing species), which TAKES away from the existing DNA instead of ADDING any viable superior addition. Horizontal evolution ( or side ways evolution...WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES) is a product of existing DNA strains that are dormant and called upon when the species needs to adapt to its natural surroundings. Such as is observed by a moth that changes colors to adapt to its surroundings, or the male breasts found on the species of man....useless but there because the DNA strain contained shared traits of the female...WITHIN THAT SPECIES.

Physical Science has never came close to proving Vertical Evolution....the breaching of the scientific law of Biogenesis where life is proven to propagate life...ONLY in the confines of the same species. Biogenesis is a Law of Physical Science because it is OBSERVED and REPEATED in nature on a daily basis, where as LIFE has never been proven to come from COMMON DESCENT, first having evolved from DEAD NON-LIVING matter. (Spontaneous Generation) In the entirety of history there has never been an OBSERVED example of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER.

Simply finding ONE sample of a never before found fossil does not prove this example of a single fossil has evolved from anything, it simply means this is the ONLY sample of that particular life form to have been found.....as of the date of that first discovery. Its all but laughable when an example of a DEFORMED creature is presented as SUPPOSED prove of evolution....like finding a deformed flounder caused by negative mutation of genes...and falsely propagating such as A MISSION LINK.

Such intellectual dishonesty is exampled by the LIVING FOSSIL labeled by the theoretical philosophers as the Coelacanth. This FISH was being espoused as PROOF that fish evolved legs and moved unto land for years......before a LIVING example of this EVOLVING animal was found still existing in the exact same body that was first propagated as coming from the Cretaceous Period ( ranging from 65 to 144 million years ago), and declared as EXTINCT. And of course how can anyone forget the HONESTY exampled by the Piltdown Hoax.

Science is Science and Philosophy is Philosophy...there is nothing wrong with either, as long as the two are not attempted to be morphed together...and that is exactly what the theory of GENERAL EVOLUTION does, it presents philosophical theory dressed in the clothing of Physical Science, as this Theory does not have a Scientific Leg to stand on. As it propagates an UNPROVABLE message that life is a product of dead matter and that dead matter is the ancestor of man by COMMON descent. Simply find one example of life having evolved from dead matter....just ONE, there is none, never has been one...but LIFE is exampled every day as being a product of Biogenesis...life propagating life within the same species. The scientific method of Observed, Reproducible....empirical evidence does not and can not support GENERAL EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT 'micro evolution' is a valid and observed fact of physical science this in no fashion proves the theory of MACRO, GENERAL, VERTICAL....EVOLUTION, as the philosophers simply hide behind physical science while propagating theory as TRUTH.

 

[Toro]

science > intelligent design

 

[Toro]

It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].

It's just science.

First PHYSICAL SCIENCE must prove that "mutations" can add unto an existing strain of DNA and not cause negative mutations (deformities within an existing species), which TAKES away from the existing DNA instead of ADDING any viable superior addition. Horizontal evolution ( or side ways evolution...WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES) is a product of existing DNA strains that are dormant and called upon when the species needs to adapt to its natural surroundings. Such as is observed by a moth that changes colors to adapt to its surroundings, or the male breasts found on the species of man....useless but there because the DNA strain contained shared traits of the female...WITHIN THAT SPECIES.

Physical Science has never came close to proving Vertical Evolution....the breaching of the scientific law of Biogenesis where life is proven to propagate life...ONLY in the confines of the same species. Biogenesis is a Law of Physical Science because it is OBSERVED and REPEATED in nature on a daily basis, where as LIFE has never been proven to come from COMMON DESCENT, first having evolved from DEAD NON-LIVING matter. (Spontaneous Generation) In the entirety of history there has never been an OBSERVED example of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER.

Simply finding ONE sample of a never before found fossil does not prove this example of a single fossil has evolved from anything, it simply means this is the ONLY sample of that particular life form to have been found.....as of the date of that first discovery. Its all but laughable when an example of a DEFORMED creature is presented as SUPPOSED prove of evolution....like finding a deformed flounder caused by negative mutation of genes...and falsely propagating such as A MISSION LINK.

Such intellectual dishonesty is exampled by the LIVING FOSSIL labeled by the theoretical philosophers as the Coelacanth. This FISH was being espoused as PROOF that fish evolved legs and moved unto land for years......before a LIVING example of this EVOLVING animal was found still existing in the exact same body that was first propagated as coming from the Cretaceous Period ( ranging from 65 to 144 million years ago), and declared as EXTINCT. And of course how can anyone forget the HONESTY exampled by the Piltdown Hoax.

Science is Science and Philosophy is Philosophy...there is nothing wrong with either, as long as the two are not attempted to be morphed together...and that is exactly what the theory of GENERAL EVOLUTION does, it presents philosophical theory dressed in the clothing of Physical Science, as this Theory does not have a Scientific Leg to stand on. As it propagates an UNPROVABLE message that life is a product of dead matter and that dead matter is the ancestor of man by COMMON descent. Simply find one example of life having evolved from dead matter....just ONE, there is none, never has been one...but LIFE is exampled every day as being a product of Biogenesis...life propagating life within the same species. The scientific method of Observed, Reproducible....empirical evidence does not and can not support GENERAL EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT 'micro evolution' is a valid and observed fact of physical science this in no fashion proves the theory of MACRO, GENERAL, VERTICAL....EVOLUTION, as the philosophers simply hide behind physical science while propagating theory as TRUTH.

But we know that the DNA of chimpanzees is very similar to humans. If you assume that horizontal evolution occurs, why not vertical evolution, given that the DNA between humans and chimps is so close?

 

[KittenKoder]

I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:

The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe so that it would all work perfectly together, which means, evolution was part of that creation and neither cancels the other out ... they are the same damned thing. Intelligent design = evolution ... duh.

I am so sick of this argument now, and becoming more bitter toward both die hards on both sides.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

I like humming birds, really. They hum. They can fly, what isn't there to like already? God is neither here nor there. So, were DID god come from, anyway? Just shut up, and take pictures. It doesn’t matter anyway. No?

 

[JBeukema]

First PHYSICAL SCIENCE must prove that "mutations" can add unto an existing strain of DNA and not cause negative mutations (deformities within an existing species)

look into 'junk DNA' and 'Endogenous Retroviruses'

which TAKES away from the existing DNA instead of ADDING any viable superior addition

. Horizontal evolution ( or side ways evolution...WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES)

What species evolved to become sideways..

wait, I got it

is a product of existing DNA strains that are dormant and called upon when the species needs to adapt to its natural surroundings.

or when mutations occur and spread via genetic drift... or when genes are lost...

Such as is observed by a moth that changes colors to adapt to its surroundings, or the male breasts found on the species of man....useless but there because the DNA strain contained shared traits of the female...WITHIN THAT SPECIES.

so the nylon-eating bacteria... since nylon didn't exist 'til man made it in 1935, where did the necessary DNA or 'information' come from?

Physical Science has never came close to proving Vertical Evolution....the breaching of the scientific law of Biogenesis where life is proven to propagate life...ONLY in the confines of the same species

You're playing word games., 'life propogates life only within the same species' is actually wrong, as life can propagate hybrid life

also, barring hybrids, each creature is the same species as the 'parent(s)'- no shit, sherlock. Speciation occurs as progressive changes among one or more populations render those piopulation incapable of interbreeding and propgating one jiond- as they have become two different things.

. Biogenesis is a Law of Physical Science because it is OBSERVED and REPEATED in nature on a daily basis, wher.

1)

Law of Biogenesis

Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is referred to as the law of biogenesis, which asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

2)

(Spontaneous Generation) In the entirety of history there has never been an OBSERVED example of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER.

We're no talking about 'sponteneous generation' or even where life originated. Evolution =/= abiogenesis

Simply finding ONE sample of a never before found fossil does not prove this example of a single fossil has evolved from anything, it simply means this is the ONLY sample of that particular life form to have been found.....as of the date of that first discovery. Its all but laughable when an example of a DEFORMED creature

Demonstrate that it is simple 'a deformed creature'

Such intellectual dishonesty

is rampant throughout your post

is exampled by the LIVING FOSS

oxymoron

IL labeled by the theoretical philosophers as the Coelacanth

has nothing to do with anything- it's simply an example of a successful species

. This FISH was being espoused as PROOF that fish evolved legs and moved unto land for years.....

No, it wasn't It was siumply cited as an ancient species of fish

Science is Science and Philosophy is Philosophy...there is nothing wrong with either, as long as the two are not attempted to be morphed together...and that is exactly what the theory of GENERAL EVOLUTION does,

No, it doesn't, moron.

it presents philosophical theory dressed in the clothing of Physical Science, as this Theory does not have a Scientific Leg to stand on

Which is why there is no debate at all in the halls of science and fools like you are left shouting in front of churches

. As it propagates an UNPROVABLE message that life is a product of dead matter

No, it doesn't. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:

The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe

-Demonstrate that the universe was 'created'
-Demonstrate the creator exists

so that it would all work perfectly together

-demonstrate such a motivation by the creator you are to have demonstrated

, which means, evolution was part of that creation

-prove/demonstrate your assertion

 

[WillowTree]

I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:

The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe so that it would all work perfectly together, which means, evolution was part of that creation and neither cancels the other out ... they are the same damned thing. Intelligent design = evolution ... duh.

I am so sick of this argument now, and becoming more bitter toward both die hards on both sides.

Take a pill or sumpin!

 

[JBeukema]

I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:

The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe so that it would all work perfectly together, which means, evolution was part of that creation and neither cancels the other out ... they are the same damned thing. Intelligent design = evolution ... duh.

I am so sick of this argument now, and becoming more bitter toward both die hards on both sides.

Take a pill or sumpin!

 

[xotoxi]

The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?

YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird

Okay...then lets just say that the Hummingbird was created by God and then move on.


Or better yet...lets say that the Hummingbird was created by MAGIC! That's much more exciting because everyone loves MAGIC!

 

[Ralph]

The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?

YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird

Okay...then lets just say that the Hummingbird was created by God and then move on.


Or better yet...lets say that the Hummingbird was created by MAGIC! That's much more exciting because everyone loves MAGIC!

Like Naturalism? Which is propagated as CREATING itself......FROM NOTHING. Or the magical birth canal of the female? Which is propagated as defining Human Life, its not human life...and then PRESTO, as soon as the head breaches the birth canal...ITS ALIVE !!!!! Creation and Intellect Design is a far more plausible conclusion than is NATURALISM, when the Scientific Method is observed.

 

[xotoxi]

Creation and Intellect Design is a far more plausible conclusion than is NATURALISM

Why?

 

[Darkwind]

Wow. All of this and no one took the time to just notice how beautiful that little bird is?

That was just plain awesome and some great videography.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow. Another "this is too complicated to happen by evolution" diatribe.

I guess people had to find something new after Dr. Miller explained the whole bacterial flagella thing.

You guys can believe what you want. Saying something is "too complicated to have happened without the guidance of some sort of supernatural force" is inherently unscientific and can't fit within the confines of the scientific method (a man-made venture).

Your arguement fails on procedural grounds, not on merit, which can never be addressed by a discipline that limits itself to the natural world.

 

[geauxtohell]

you sound like the idiot! Isn't there room for discussion?

There is always room for discussion, but if we are going to discuss science, it would be nice if we could limit ourselves to science and not insert theology, mythology, and philosophy into it.

 

[Shogun]

Someday, if you have time pick up a copy of "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors." Carl Sagan.. I thought it a very thought provoking book.



Sagan and Druyan argue that territoriality, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, occasional outbreeding and a preference for small, semi-isolated groups are elements in a survival strategy common to many species, including Homo sapiens. They assert that society's problems increasingly demand global solutions and require a dramatic, strategic shift which the authors believe humankind is capable of achieving. The authors discuss the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and life forms, the genetic code, and the advantages of sexual reproduction. The final third of the book deals chimpanzees, baboons and apes, with the authors finding the social lives of these primates "hauntingly familiar" to the lives of humans with their dominance hierarchy, combat, suppression of females and chimps' remarkable ability to communicate through symbols.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_Forgotten_Ancestors_(book)

i have that book too. interesting read.

 

[Shogun]

Look closely at the Pelican. Dosen't he remind you of a taradacytal?

birds in general. Scales and feathers don't just HAPPEN to have the same structures. And, really, bird feet. bird fucking feet. bird feet beaks and scales.

 

[mattskramer]

It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].

It's just science.

I'm a designer, you'll need to do better than "it's science". "Science" has been proven wrong continually since the first "scientists" barfed up their ideas about whatever they studied. Why would this bird need to "evolve" to just drink from particular flowers that needed the abilities it's capable of, why not just feed from flowers that were easier to access. Why would this bird evolve this far and yet a shark hasn't changed much since it's original design. We are suppose to buy that this incredible bird started as a spark in the primordial ooze.

Religious ideas about the atmosphere have been proven wrong too. Lightning is not the result of an angry God named Zeus throwing darts at people. Things do not need a purpose in order for them to exist. Why does the cockroach exist but just to annoy people? Why do we have a 5th toe? Why do men have nipples? The flower that you mention may exist without the hummingbird. If the environment was right for a hummingbird but through eons of evolution, the hummingbird did not develop, then there would not be a hummingbird. On the flip-side, if mutations started to make a hummingbird, but the environment was not conducive to support the hummingbird in the making, then such a hummingbird would not survive. The mutations have to be right and the environment has to be right. Some new species do make it – along with the old species. Also, sometimes unnecessary things survive too.