or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 8  

post #281 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Stop shouting (and beign a jerk).

"the correct definition of Macroevolution IS Biological (reproductive) Isolation"

Yes.

Are you sure?, because when I give you a link for Biological Isolation, you will have to accept the theory of evolution as defined by "Scientists" is correct.
post #282 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
You're not getting it Chris.

Teh fish in the example didn't want to breed with each other because they looked different and had different mating rituals.

In the case of the fruit flies, the females had thier choices of males. They picked the ones with undusal looks or behaviors. Over time (not that much time in this case) many different species evolve

I think I get what you are saying. Really I do. I don't you are getting what I am saying.

It is a hypothesis that this isolation will eventually lead to state where new populations that are biologically incapable of reproducing. The picking and choosign (or not) you are referring to isn't really any different than me deciding I like blondes vs. brunnettes...so I won't have sex with brunnettes. You are suggesting (as is Marc) that eventually this can lead to a situation where I would not be able to produce children with a brunnette (as I could now). This is possible, even probable, but not certain...and there is not evidence (my reading of your linekd article notwithstanding) of this happening.

I am venturing an educated guess (based on what you've already said) that the fish and fruit flies COULD mate and produce offspring.
post #283 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Are you sure?, because when I give you a link for Biological Isolation, you will have to accept the theory of evolution as defined by "Scientists" is correct.

Quit stalling and post your links.

Not sure why you have "scientists" in quotes. Can onyl imagine that's not a good thing. But link away.
post #284 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Quit stalling and post your links.

Not sure why you have "scientists" in quotes. Can onyl imagine that's not a good thing. But link away.

Because Scientific theory IS defined by Science and Scientists, and not by people who have an agenda to pervert or create strawmen.

Now, Because I really want to have the last laugh, I will link to the most pathetic example of Biological Isolation, thus speciation, thus Macroevolution I can find.

Check back later

You'll have read Carson's links by then I take?
post #285 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes, but your example is much different than saying that "Red Penguins" and "Blue Penguins" will not reproduce because of "mating ritual" (Red's don't like the Blues)...but if they were to get drunk one night and "go for it"...would still produce a penguin (albeit probably a purple one......not anything else.) Blues and Reds can mix (well...not in American politics, but that is a debate for another time.) The penguins and gees (in your example) cannot produce any offspring with each other...this is the boundary of each species.

At some point for speciation to be valid...there must be an entity that would be considered a "bridge" or "branch" species...one that likely has one foot in both camps...it reproduces within its own (new) kind...say Blue...but cannot reproduce with the old kind from which it came. The Blues are a new species...slightly different in some manner...perhaps a minor step towards something "more different". They are now biologically reproductively isolated.

This isn't about cows berthing chickens. No one is really expecting that kind of evidence. But it also sort of is in a micro sense.

Don't confuse this with "micro evolution" which is variation within a species (note the variations are all still able to inter-breed...they are not biologically reproductively isolated.)

I am not confused in any way whatsoever. In fact, if you apply Red and Blue to mean Magellanic and Emperor penguins, they are biologically incapable of breeding despite the fact they are both penguins.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #286 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Because Scientific theory IS defined by Science and Scientists, and not by people who have an agenda to pervert or create strawmen.

So they get to define their own terms. Their own meanings. Etc. This sounsd a lot like religion to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Now, Because I really want to have the last laugh, I will link to the most pathetic example of Biological Isolation, thus speciation, thus Macroevolution I can find.

Check back later

You don't have it NOW?

Pffft.

post #287 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I am not confused in any way whatsoever. In fact, if you apply Red and Blue to mean Magellanic and Emperor penguins, they are biologically incapable of breeding despite the fact they are both penguins.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

Next question...are there any examples/data/evidence of a single ancestral species from which they both emerged/evolved? Or even that one evolved from the other?
post #288 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So they get to define their own terms. Their own meanings. Etc. This sounsd a lot like religion to me.



You don't have it NOW?

Pffft.


I have alot of examples to read through to find the most pathetic one, admittedly I havn't done it already, something really really pathetic, that proves MACROevolution.
post #289 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
I have alot of examples to read through to find the most pathetic one, admittedly I havn't done it already, something really really pathetic, that proves MACROevolution.

Okay. Whatever. Have fun. Take all of the time you need.
post #290 of 430
First pengiuns are all gay and now they are used in evolution arguments... little tuxedo wearing DEMONS!

Here is my interpretation of penguins debating this topic.

proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #291 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay. Now we're getting somewhere.

Next question...are there any examples/data/evidence of a single ancestral species from which they both emerged/evolved? Or even that one evolved from the other?

Yes.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #292 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Yes.

And?

( that means I'm not just taking your word for it )
post #293 of 430
Yes, you want me to present links. Which since I am cooking dinner I am not going to take the time to search them out.

Why don't you go ahead and point me to irrefutable evidence they are in fact NOT related?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #294 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Yes, you want me to present links. Which since I am cooking dinner I am not going to take the time to search them out.

Why don't you go ahead and point me to irrefutable evidence they are in fact NOT related?

How clever. Sorry, but the burden of this evidence is on your shoulders now.
post #295 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How clever. Sorry, but the burden of this evidence is on your shoulders now.

I wonder if penguin is on the menu?
post #296 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How clever. Sorry, but the burden of this evidence is on your shoulders now.

The burden of evidence is always on the shoulders of someone that supports the theory of evolution. I believe that's the crux of this entire thread.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #297 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
The burden of evidence is always on the shoulders of someone that supports the theory of evolution. I believe that's the crux of this entire thread.

Is this wrong? In this particular case, I asked a very specific question. You provided a very specific (though incomplete) answer. I asked for support for your affirmative answer. That is how debate works.
post #298 of 430
Actually, that's how questioning works.

Debates requires each side to offer evidence supporting their assertions.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #299 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Actually, that's how questioning works.

Debates requires each side to offer evidence supporting their assertions.

I understand this. But I am not the one saying that our two penguin species (or anything else for that matter) have evolved from something else.

Look we keep hearing about the "tons" or "mountains" of "obvious" evidence. here is one specific example for which there is (according to you) evidence and examples.
post #300 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How clever. Sorry, but the burden of this evidence is on your shoulders now.

Considering there are fossils, dna evidence and features that point to evolution, it's actually you that needs to collect the data and present an alternative hypothesis that takes into account all available data. Whatever rageous provides will be a very short and essentially inconsequential summary of a vast amount of data. A simple google search (scholar or web) could turn up article upon article, but that would barely scratch the surface. If you want to create an alternative theory, then it is very much your responsibility to dive into the data and evidence in a serious manner. Trying to play skeptic in a subject you don't know anything about just means you are uninformed.
post #301 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Considering there are fossils, dna evidence and features that point to evolution, it's actually you that needs to collect the data and present an alternative hypothesis. Whatever rageous provides will be a very short and essentially inconsequential summary of a vast amount of data. A simple google search (scholar or web) could turn up article upon article, but that would barely scratch the surface. If you want to create an alternative theory, then it is very much your responsibility to dive into the data and evidence.

I'm not creating an alternative theory. I am questioning the existing one. I have asked for evidence of a specific case, and from the "ample", "tons" and "mountains" of evidence, none is presented.

The fact about the fossils (in particular) is that there is an amazing LACK of evidence that supports this theory. DNA. Perhaps...but DNA presents a snap shot in time...the how...the gaps...the change from one form to another is a guess...a hyptothesis...an idea. It MIGHT be right it might be wrong too.
post #302 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am questioning the existing one.

Without doing any research or knowning anything about the subject.
post #303 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not creating an alternative theory. I am questioning the existing one. I have asked for evidence of a specific case, and from the "ample", "tons" and "mountains" of evidence, none is presented.

The fact about the fossils (in particular) is that there is an amazing LACK of evidence that supports this theory. DNA. Perhaps...but DNA presents a snap shot in time...the how...the gaps...the change from one form to another is a guess...a hyptothesis...an idea. It MIGHT be right it might be wrong too.

Yes, there is a lot of evidence as of yet undiscovered. Not many people would claim evolution to be an unassailable and entirely complete theory. On top of that, it might even be wrong.

Judging on the evidence we DO have, it appears to be right, at the very least in part. Just because we don't have all the evidence, or enough for you, doesn't make it right or wrong. We can only speculate given what we do know now, and what we know is that there is a lot of evidence, even if spotty, to support the evolution theory. You openly admit this by conceding certain types of evolution are indeed observable and ongoing while others are less obvious and more difficult to corroborate (micro v macro).

However, there is zero evidence that shows evolution is impossible and zero evidence showing the possibililty or act of intelligent design and creation. SO whiloe this does not rule out that they might be correct, there is no reason to believe they are until evidence suggests otherwise.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #304 of 430

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #305 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
However, there is zero evidence that shows evolution is impossible

Oh dear. This is true.
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
zero evidence showing the possibililty or act of intelligent design and creation.

Oh dear. This is true too.



And Chris 'A Molecule of Water Is Made From One Atom of Crisco, One Atom of Lard, Two Atoms of Potato Juice and Some Labrador Fur' Cullia so nearly had me convinced that the last two centuries of research into the natural sciences were a total, worthless mistake apart from the bits about medicine and the internal combustion engine.

I'm going to bed. Damn you, Scientific American.
post #306 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
..the change from one form to another is a guess...a hyptothesis...an idea. It MIGHT be right it might be wrong too.

Ring species provide plenty of evidence of all the missing links you assert during the diversification from a common ancestor. Check it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_052_05.html
post #307 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz

The fossile record is a movie with 999 of each 1000 frames missing, in DNA any argument of similarity can be turned immediatley around and used as evidence of a single designer, and on, and on, and on.

Absolutely, unequivocally incorrect. While I can point to similar DNA, physical charactisitics, and social behaviors of mice and rats in an attempt to make a case for evolution from a common ancestor, there is absolutely nothing within DNA that in any way evidences a single designer. Nothing. Why can't it be two designers? Four? Aliens?

Quote:
Face it guys, without a consistent, scientfic way to provide order from chaos you're lost.

I'm not lost. I don't see the research into evolution being a lost cause.

Quote:
Just admit that evolution is essential to your postmodernist belief system -- and that in order for you guys to keep your autonomy, YOU MUST HAVE IT, to the point of speaking to what may or may not exists in metaphysics -- something you even deny to exist

Opinion.

Quote:
No one is faulting you for operating on a Faith-based system. Why not just be self-consious about it?

Belief in evolution is not faith based. It's backed by observable evidence, even if said evidence is presently incomplete. Belief in some invisible guy that made the earth in seven days, made man, then flooded his planet, then somehow repopulated every corner of it with billions of species that subsequently developed very intricate social structures and hierarchies, all within the span of a few thousand years, and with absolutely no evidence to support such fanciful ideas, is faith based.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #308 of 430
Damn, you got me before the edit. I have to watch those errors in judgement!

I can't argure this anymore! I'm, sorry -- any way to strike this from the record?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #309 of 430
tomorrow night we discuss the 'evidence' supporting the literal interpretation of Genesis. Starting at sentance one, at the very beginning, and systematically go through each sentance until we reach the end.

Dont forget to show up Atomic_angel
post #310 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Damn, you got me before the edit. I have to watch those errors in judgement!

I can't argure this anymore! I'm, sorry -- any way to strike this from the record?

and you....tomorrow night.

"In the Beginning, God"

STOP RIGHT THERE.

"God" is a mistranslation.....

should be fun, dont ya think?
post #311 of 430
post #312 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
and you....tomorrow night.

"In the Beginning, God"

STOP RIGHT THERE.

"God" is a mistranslation.....

should be fun, dont ya think?

Yes of course, I'll bring the IPA and baby oil.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #313 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Yes, there is a lot of evidence as of yet undiscovered.

That isn't evidence then...only speculation.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Not many people would claim evolution to be an unassailable and entirely complete theory.

Ha.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Judging on the evidence we DO have, it appears to be right, at the very least in part.

Right about what though?

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
We can only speculate given what we do know now, and what we know is that there is a lot of evidence, even if spotty, to support the evolution theory.

There is more speculation going on than you realize. As to the issue of supporting the theory, that I do not deny.

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You openly admit this by conceding certain types of evolution are indeed observable and ongoing while others are less obvious and more difficult to corroborate (micro v macro).

Yep.
post #314 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
And Chris 'A Molecule of Water Is Made From One Atom of Crisco, One Atom of Lard, Two Atoms of Potato Juice and Some Labrador Fur' Cullia

What the hell is that supposed to mean. Oh...wait...it is a substitute for a rational argument.
post #315 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Absolutely, unequivocally incorrect. While I can point to similar DNA, physical charactisitics, and social behaviors of mice and rats in an attempt to make a case for evolution from a common ancestor, there is absolutely nothing within DNA that in any way evidences a single designer. Nothing.

You mean nothing except the remarkable DNA similarities and commonality that exist. Duh!
post #316 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You mean nothing except the remarkable DNA similarities and commonality that exist. Duh!

And it what way does that point to intelligent design? What evidence does commonality present to suggest someone actually thought up the idea?

For someone so hell bent on the presentation of evidence, I would think you'd find the argument that in the absense of supporting evidence similarity = willful design holds any weight whatsoever.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #317 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Without doing any research or knowning anything about the subject.

Or so you assume.
post #318 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
And it what way does that point to intelligent design? What evidence does commonality present to suggest someone actually thought up the idea?

Well let's see how far we have to go on this trip...

Let's look at only one example. Let's take someone like Frank Lloyd Wright, famous designer and architect. No doubt you've heard of him. Would you agree after looking at all of his designs that many share common themes, details and characteristics while still, at times, being very different in many ways?

Wouldn't an intelligent creator of a world/universe/planet/animal kingdom/plant kingdom possibly do the same? Wouldn't he likely re-use concepts, ideas, themes, details, etc. in creating very different things?

Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
For someone so hell bent on the presentation of evidence, I would think you'd find the argument that in the absense of supporting evidence similarity = willful design holds any weight whatsoever.

You'll need to re-word this more coherently before I can understand and respond to it.
post #319 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well let's see how far we have to go on this trip...

Let's look at only one example. Let's take someone like Frank Lloyd Wright, famous designer and architect. No doubt you've heard of him. Would you agree after looking at all of his designs that many share common themes, details and characteristics while still, at times, being very different in many ways?

Wouldn't an intelligent creator of a world/universe/planet/animal kingdom/plant kingdom possibly do the same? Wouldn't he likely re-use concepts, ideas, themes, details, etc. in creating very different things?

I see, so your evidence supporting intelligent design would be the architectural style of Frank Lloyd Wright. Well then I'll go ahead and take that and say that if you look at Wright's body of work, at no point did he spontaneously create wood for paneling, sand for glass, or lead for stained glass windows.


Quote:
You'll need to re-word this more coherently before I can understand and respond to it.

it's plenty coherent.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #320 of 430
In addition, and according to you, it is not reasonable to assume what might be possible or what may be likely. Please produce evidence that shows God actually creating this DNA that is consistant amongst many varying species and the process by wich He went about doing so.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism