Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-12-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
NO YOU GUYS GO AWAY, HENRY IS MINE!!

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
29-12-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:27 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

I have been waiting for this day for so long, to whoop some creationist ass. I am happier than when I see fried chicken Tongue. A

Any way You don't know what observed means by definition. Here it is

Observe
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

So what do we notice in science that shows macro evolution. Well one is transitional fossils, in which I have a list http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-Fossils

So what we notice is that these fossils have traits of both releated groups that was able to be known due to predictions.(i.e tiktaalik). So by that notice we have observed macro evolution in action.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution?

There isn't


(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000* new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...tations_01

In short it is something like DNA changing when it copies wrong and how the environment changes the DNA. And this is possible because DNA grows as fast as the cells that grow, they are the reason they grow.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

But we have a natural explanation, I know america is not the brightest, so don't be upset you did not notice.

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

Just did

(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  *PS Obviously this would have had to evolve on something of a bell-curve, resulting in the addition of millions of new cells per generation in latter years.

And what scientific paper did you get that from?

Dear Fried Chicken,

An the evidence that these are 'transitional fossils' rather than 'unique species of fossils' is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:25 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  I am not arguing creationism - I am arguing against evolutionary theory. I don't have to prove anything.

If you have a better theory than evolution, then let's hear what this is. I suppose you have proof for this amazing, Nobel Prize winning theory?

Or do you just nitpick evolutionary theory because the facts don't buttress your faith?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:33 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:27 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I have been waiting for this day for so long, to whoop some creationist ass. I am happier than when I see fried chicken Tongue. A

Any way You don't know what observed means by definition. Here it is

Observe
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

So what do we notice in science that shows macro evolution. Well one is transitional fossils, in which I have a list http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...al-Fossils

So what we notice is that these fossils have traits of both releated groups that was able to be known due to predictions.(i.e tiktaalik). So by that notice we have observed macro evolution in action.


There isn't



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...tations_01

In short it is something like DNA changing when it copies wrong and how the environment changes the DNA. And this is possible because DNA grows as fast as the cells that grow, they are the reason they grow.


But we have a natural explanation, I know america is not the brightest, so don't be upset you did not notice.


Just did


And what scientific paper did you get that from?

Dear Fried Chicken,

An the evidence that these are 'transitional fossils' rather than 'unique species of fossils' is?

First you need to know the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is a fossil that shows an evolutionary connection between to groups and must fit in a certain time line.

For example tiktaalik :

Temporal Range: Late Devonian, 375 MYA

Description: Tiktaalik was a fishapod coming from the Late Devonian. Tiktaalik had traits shown in fish and tetrapods. It had scales, fins, and gills like that of fish, but it had A flexable neck, ribs on its side, ear notches, and an almost complete homologous structure. This is of course, the coolest transitional fossil.

The fact it has traits of fish and tetrapods and the fact that it fits in a time before tetrapods but after more primitive tetrapod like fish, it shows it is transitional fossil.

Sorry there is no other explanation.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
29-12-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:03 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  From a purely scientific perspective micro evolution is observable, as is natural selection. Macro evolution has never been observed and it is why [macro] 'evolution' remains a theory to this day.

What are the biological or logical barriers to macro evolution? If you can provide a reasoned argument to show how completely NEW material can be ADDED at the prescribed average rate of 1,000* new cells per year to go from a single-cell entity to a human as previously noted (a supernatural event of cosmic proportions), then you will have my attention. As you quote, "Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you."

Perhaps you can placate my ignorance?

*PS Obviously this would have had to evolve on something of a bell-curve, resulting in the addition of millions of new cells per generation in latter years.

You misunderstand mutation. A mutation need only occur in one germ cell - not somatic cells; mutations don't affect the organism in which that occurs, they only affects its progeny.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:25 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:14 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Here is a laboratory example of how macroevolution takes place: Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab.

You have already acknowledged that microevolution occurs. What would be the distinction between micro and macroevolution?

No god is necessary to explain human origins, in fact the biblical creation accounts are clearly myths that can't be taken seriously.

I do note that, theists believe a super-genie (god) poofed it all into existence. Since we really don't have any proof of that, there's no reason to believe in it.

It is up to you to prove creationism is anything but a myth.

I am not arguing creationism - I am arguing against evolutionary theory. I don't have to prove anything. I studied the link you provided and it only refers to "accumulating mutations". No new genetic material was added which would be required for macro evolution.

If you are so persuaded that we evolved from a primordial soup perhaps you can answer my question? And, as Lenski points out, it took approximately 20,000 generations to observe the first mutation that resulted in subsequent mutations. Lens's paper further persuades me of the near impossibility of the evolutionary process.

A mutation is new information. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-12-2014, 05:34 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 05:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:25 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  I am not arguing creationism - I am arguing against evolutionary theory. I don't have to prove anything. I studied the link you provided and it only refers to "accumulating mutations". No new genetic material was added which would be required for macro evolution.

If you are so persuaded that we evolved from a primordial soup perhaps you can answer my question? And, as Lenski points out, it took approximately 20,000 generations to observe the first mutation that resulted in subsequent mutations. Lens's paper further persuades me of the near impossibility of the evolutionary process.

A mutation is new information. Facepalm

Ahh, but then that's not "TRULY" new information and when he's shown transitional fossils, those won't be "TRUE" transitional fossils.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 02:10 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  The justice system relies on both faith and evidence. We require faith that:
Going into the trial the jury will be unbiased (no predetermined paradymes);
That the evidence has not been tampered with;
That all available evidence has been presented (no evidence has been excluded);
That the 'expert witnesses' are capable and interpret the evidence accurately;
That the jury will fully comprehend the evidence; and
That the jury will be able to accurately distinguish between differing 'expert' interpretations of the evidence [it was noted that each of the PhD's in the movie received their doctorates from 'secular' universities.]

The latter is the most important faith-element as both sides in the evolutionary/Creationist trial are both relying on exactly the same evidence which is being presented.

Are these not the very attributes that allow us to 'have faith in the justice system'?

No. They are areas where we may need to trust the abilities of the attorneys and the judge. They are areas where we may have to hope that things work out the way we want them to. Hope and trust are very different things than is meant by religious faith. I have a measured level of trust in the justice system because it seems to work most of the time; I do not have "faith" in it in any way. I base my hopes, trust, and expectations based on the evidence of the past workings and failures of the system.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-12-2014, 06:35 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:29 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  NO YOU GUYS GO AWAY, HENRY IS MINE!!

Go get 'im Zeke!

*Harry

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
29-12-2014, 07:32 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 04:37 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 04:33 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  Dear Fried Chicken,

An the evidence that these are 'transitional fossils' rather than 'unique species of fossils' is?

First you need to know the definition of a transitional fossil:

A transitional fossil is a fossil that shows an evolutionary connection between to groups and must fit in a certain time line.

For example tiktaalik :

Temporal Range: Late Devonian, 375 MYA

Description: Tiktaalik was a fishapod coming from the Late Devonian. Tiktaalik had traits shown in fish and tetrapods. It had scales, fins, and gills like that of fish, but it had A flexable neck, ribs on its side, ear notches, and an almost complete homologous structure. This is of course, the coolest transitional fossil.

The fact it has traits of fish and tetrapods and the fact that it fits in a time before tetrapods but after more primitive tetrapod like fish, it shows it is transitional fossil.

Sorry there is no other explanation.

From the description you provide it sounds very much like a unique specie. It's a question of perspective. Is your glass half full or half empty? It's the same glass viewed from a different viewpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: