100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > howzityoume
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology. True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Sat 05/12/12 11:11 PM
|
|
So evolution does not beat the creationist viewpoint on the fossil record Its must be great when you can just make up your own evidence.  No kidding. Most people who believe in evolution do so mostly out of faith in the opinions of other people. To really understand evolution requires a great deal of study. The following is not a statement about evolution, its a statement about human beings: There are many intelligent, and comparatively well informed people who do not believe in evolution. There are some who not only lack belief in evolution, they have belief that evolution is wrong. They may be wrong, but they actually have good reason for being wrong. If Howzit is completely sincere in everything he says here, then I think he is worthy of respect. He is obviously coming from a creationist standpoint, and gives much indirect evidence for having been steeped in creationist discourse. The quality of that discourse has improved a great deal in the last decade (i think the internet is to thank, in wearing away at subcultural isolation), but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. The cherry picking in that community is pretty strong - and the thing about cherry picking is, when someone else does it for you, its very easy for you to miss it. No matter how smart you are, or how honest you are, it can be very hard to know just how bad the cherry picking is when you are in in community. Any intelligent, honest person, lacking formal higher education in evolution, steeped in creationist discourse, might reasonable reach a rational, intelligent conclusion that evolution is most likely false. I don't have the time to explore all of howzit criticisms. Not this month. If he is honest and sincere, he will eventually figure it out for himself. We are all emotional, and we all have some tendency to prefer evidence that is more emotionally pleasing. I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses. Thanks for the conciliatory tone of your post. Have you ever thought that some evolutionists have the emotional propensity not to believe in God? This could affect their interpretation of the facts. Maybe if I am honest and sincere I will keep finding more scientific support for creationism? And on the other hand if you are honest and sincere this would require you to be objective too, evolutionists are very confident in their hypothesis, and often this confidence unfortunately leads to "tinted glasses". I like to look at what the evolutionary scientists themselves are saying and use their own findings, you would be amazed what comes out from , for example, the fossil record. Scientists themselves admit the land surface was smaller during the early Cambrian, and large portions of previous oceans then became land surfaces. And yet they are committed to the view that lower layers are older, therefore oceanic trilobites definitely existed before land animals. The fossil evidence says no such thing concerning trilobites, the fossil evidence just confirms that oceans became land surfaces, therefore of course you would have oceanic sediment below land-based fossils in most cases, because most of the land surface was previously under water. And so the creation of the theoretical geologic column is not based on pure logic, but the propensity towards evolutionism. These same evolutionary assumptions are causing continuous misinterpretations of geologic layers. I prefer just to look at the facts. The facts are that certain extinct types did proliferate during certain past ages, but proliferation does not mean exclusivity as the "living fossils" that are increasingly found do indicate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Well I put forward some basic facts to explain my position, its your chance to respond with facts. Unfortunately sarcasm is not evidence. I really am interested in facts, the only reason i'm not a "creation through evolution" type christian is because when looking into evolution the evidence appears insufficient. Sarcasm is all anyone ever gets here most of the time. Especially if you don't agree with them. Well you know the saying "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". The word wit is related to intelligence and humour. Lol!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
So evolution does not beat the creationist viewpoint on the fossil record Its must be great when you can just make up your own evidence. Well I put forward some basic facts to explain my position, its your chance to respond with facts. Unfortunately sarcasm is not evidence. I really am interested in facts, the only reason i'm not a "creation through evolution" type christian is because when looking into evolution the evidence appears insufficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 05/10/12 11:28 PM
|
|
I am not a geneticist. Neither are you, that much is clear. But even if no such thing exists, ie we did not know about genes and could not pull apart the causal relationship between genes and heredity, we would still know evolution is correct if not how it occurs. The evidence is overwhelming. Scientific criticism does not start at taking some highly resolved detail of a field such as genetics to refute evolution. No to refute evolution you need to find a bunny in the Cambrian layer. There are other ways, but my point is that your argument is an argument from ignorance, you do not understand how heredity works, and there for do not accept evolution as true despite no competing theories, and no falsification of evolution. That is irrational. It illustrates a lack of understanding of how science works, and how the theory of evolution is supported. Genetics is a major part of the debate. But if you would like to discuss the fossil record too, I have no problem with that. Evolutionists explain the missing transitionary forms by saying fossils do not easily form, therefore during a rapid transition phase of earth's environment its unlikely to have many transitional fossils. Creationists explain that all the animals existed simultaneously, but were fossilised in a different order because of the way the flood covered over the landscape, and the order of submersion of the carcasses. I have a different explanation, I believe the wetlands environment dominated during the carboniferous , and fossils easily fossilise in a wetlands environment. Mammals were in more dryer environments which scientists agree were not widespread in the Carboniferous age. So do scientists agree that fossilisation does not occur as well in a dryer environment. So evolution does not beat the creationist viewpoint on the fossil record, all three theories have to be analysed for their empirical accuracy. I really do not like the evolutionist theory on the fossil record, because in those transitional layers I believe you should find at least one transitionary form between the masses of pre-transition extinct forms and the new masses of post-transition proliferate forms during each transition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
i think that creationist are not looking at the time frames as well as they should... it almost a billion years just for the single celled organisms to combine, and another billion years for "advanced" life forms to evolve...we have been here about 100,000 years or so... Good point. With limited knowledge, Darwinism was correctly embraced as the better theory. Now with more knowledge about variation and mutation in the chromosomal patterns , the "stasis" of useful genes observed within each organism makes creation seem more logical. But your point is taken, that this stasis could also be explained by evolution because the large time-frames would make observed change unlikely in the short period we have been analysing DNA. Good point! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Evolution is falsifiable, you have failed to falsify it. I have no desire to battle against straw man arguments anymore. We can know nothing of genetics, and evolution is still true, and falsifiable. Your argument is an argument from ignorance. I keep saying its an interesting possibility and hypothesis. I have no evidence for it being falsifiable agreed, I believe its a possibility. Its just that organisms do exist with differing chromosomal patterns, and these patterns do not easily adjust in favourable ways, so the fact that organisms exist, yet do not change very easily, favors creation more than evolution from an empirical perspective. Its only the propensity to not believe in a creator that would fail to see that basic biological fact, that organisms do not easily get succesfully more complex, but remain at a certain level of complexity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. Mating is not completely random, but mating most definitely has a random component to it. For the purposes of the biologist, looking at the evolution of an entire species, treating mating as 'random' works as a simplifying assumption. If mating is completely random, evolution works. If mating is not completely random, just mostly random, evolution still works. If mate selection is strongly influenced by cultural factors, evolution still works. Well evolution, is still not called "fact." It is still called "theory." And while I believe that evolution within a species clearly does happen, can anyone identify a particular species that has changed over to another species? The "evidence" for evolution just appears to be indications and clues. But is there proof? If there was, then what they call "theory" would be called "fact." Mightymoe said: since man has not been around for the millions of years to see the change, it would hard to say someone has actually "seen the change", or found the missing link. change would be so gradual we cannot see it as you seem to think we could. we still have a DNA strand that would make humans to grow tails, and some humans are born with small tails. if the majority of humans that have these tails would mate with each other, then gradually humans would start having longer and bigger tails. and in a few million years, humans with tails would be the norm. Thats another reason why people do what they call "selective breeding" with animals, to get the traits they want most in animals. some pics of humans with tails here... http://www.realitylove.eu/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm Now you have hit on something! Yep you are correct. If enough generations of certain people kept inner breeding, they could mutate into humans with tails or other reptilian traits. I had a best friend who had a tail at birth and so did her brother. The tails were removed. They belonged to a "secret society" (not so secret now) but it was the Masons. Her marriage was an arranged one, and she was told that her blood type was so rare that she had to marry this guy with the rare blood type in order to have any children. Her children were also raised within a secret society. This is all true. So are these tails reptilian or from the monkey or lemur gene pool? Apparently they are just called reptilian because of the tail and the slightly lower body temperature of that particular blood group. Apparently there are problems breeding outside that blood group. I have heard about this phenomenon, very fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 05/10/12 02:08 PM
|
|
You mean in this particular thread? How much do you expect from three guys on a dating site? The important thing is that we keep investigating; not that we reach any particular plateau in any particular conversation. This is true. Yes we are all learning. I do not doubt you will have your evidence soon anyway. I'm sure some scientist will create a very beneficial organism through some sort of genome increase. And show how nature could do the same. I am looking forward to that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 05/10/12 08:56 AM
|
|
Without that , creation beats evolution as a viable theory to explain the appearance of advanced life-forms. Your delusional. You have been given everything you need to sort out the truth of evolution. Lol if insults were scientific evidence you guys wouldve proved evolution a long time ago. Its actually pretty amazing how little evidence has been put forward. Especially those videos, they concentrated on projecting natural selection and how it works. A process that I believe in wholeheartedly. Yet no evidence of increased beneficial complexity which the theory of cells to arthropods to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to apelike mammals to human relies on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Thu 05/10/12 12:00 AM
|
|
You will never see it. You don't see the connection between my later post and the Wiki posts. You don't see the connections ... period ... because you have already made your mind up and nothing will change it. No I do not see the connections because they are not there. Both those Wikipedia posts on page 18 do not mention beneficial DNA lengthening processes. We are just repeating ourselves here. I have nothing against beneficial DNA lengthening, I would like evolution to be a competing theory. In the meantime it looks like DNA appeared in its current form, because mutation increases to the genome do not benefit organisms, and they would have to have a benefit for natural selection to work. The evidence favours creation. Just be honest and state what you believe. I believe in creation as the reason behind the appearance of advanced life forms. I have made that clear in this thread. Evolution works mainly within the pre-existing gene pool. All this crap about "proof" is just you showing how much you don't understand about how evolution works. Proof would only work for you if you were able to understand it and your mind is slammed shut tightly. I do understand how evolution works. All scientists have to show, is how an added gene or set of genes is starting to show signs of having a function, rather than being useless additions to the genome. The mice example was close, but not quite, the proof was lacking, it was just speculation. There are signs of genome increases in many species, mutations that have been passed down genetically through the generations. The proof required is that these genome increases have some benefit. Without that , creation beats evolution as a viable theory to explain the appearance of advanced life-forms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Well perhaps that is evidence that an advanced race of alien beings came to the earth and took the primitive humans living here and souped up their genes with some of their own to make primitive earthlings smarter and help them a bit with their "evolution." Hence the legends of the Gods and the Adam and Eve project. And the reptilian race of redheads with high IQ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/09/12 01:55 PM
|
|
Wow! You really struggle hard to twist facts. Let me explain it to you in slightly simpler terms. The telomere (which you admitted you know nothing about) keeps the ends of DNA from unraveling. The posts you misinterpret describe how, through inter specie breeding match uneven numbers of chromosomes and the TELOMERE was used to attach the new unmatched chromosomes into a new longer chromosomes (two into one) using the TELOMERE as the binding agent and absolute proof of chromosome lengthening. The TELOMERE is then left intact in the middle of the strand showing what happened and how it happened i.e., DNA lengthening. Where telomeres exist inside a DNA strand they no longer provide the function of keeping the ends of DNA from unraveling but they now act as the glue that holds the two former strands together. Newsflash. The discussion on polymorphism explains (to those who can understand it) the mechanism where combined strands of DNA have the ability to use the duplicate genes as mutation options (since they are duplicates they are redundant) and allow the chromosome to acquire different genes. On page 18 you have two long quotes from Wikipedia concerning the subject of polymorphism. Neither quote mentioned anything like your description above, except for the one word "polyploidy" in the middle of your first wikipedia quote. This is the only time the Wikipedia articles mentioned a DNA lengthening process, of chromosone duplication, but it does not mention it in the manner you have described above, no mention is made of telomeres in that quote concerning polyploidy. Then the other post by you mentions telomeres, but in the context of a split chromosone, not an increased or duplicated chromosone. But referring to your explanation above, I have always agreed that DNA can lengthen through mutation, I just haven't yet seen it lengthen in a beneficial manner, in such a way that we could see how evolution could create the fully functional 32000 genes of the human genome. Sure the human genome carries a lot of useless "junk DNA" but what process made it get so FUNCTIONALLY long? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I agree with natural selection, I agree with mutation combined with natural selection . . . and thread! The rest is just you confusing yourself. Ooh nasty! :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/09/12 01:09 PM
|
|
You really need to go to school. Here is your obviously first lesson. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/did-copying-mistake-build-man-brain/ They found a piece of duplicated mutation of the human brain gene, and put it into mice, and now their brains seem better. Their thoughts: the duplicate piece of brain gene may just be useful to humans too. hahahahaha Surely the correct conclusion is that you add any human brain genes to mice their brain will look more like humans? Sure there could be proofs that gene duplication can start having a function, this isnt it: here's part of the article mentioned above: The researchers THINK this partially duplicated gene is able to interfere with the actions of the original, ancestral copy of SRGAP2. When the researchers added the partially duplicated gene copy to the mouse genome (mice don’t normally have it) it seemed to speed the migration of brain cells during development, which makes brain organization more efficient. These cells that expressed the incomplete duplication of SRGAP2 also had more "spines" — knoblike extensions on the cell surface that connect with other brain cells, which make them look more like human brain cells. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Okay so now how about the statement that mating is "random." If mating is simply "random" then we should all have mates. (We don't need mingle, all we need to do is go into a shopping mall and find a member of the opposite sex and randomly pair up.) Mating is not simply random. In fact, like attracts like. True ! Let's not forget that we are on a dating site 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
NO, what you are doing is trying to frame the argument so that evolution cannot be true, by making evolution something its not. That is called a straw man. If you drop the BS, Drop the BS ... haha I like the personal stuff. There's no straw man, its only evolutionists that don't seem to have realised that their own theory requires beneficial increases (mutations) to the genome size. Sure a lot of the genome size means nothing, but increases in complexity passed down through breeding, from a single cell organism to humans of 3 billion DNA base pairs sorta rests on genome increases of some sort. Really could ALL the DNA usefulness required for a human to survive already exist in the genome of a single celled organism? No, beneficial increases are required, this is no strawman argument, and evolutionists have got no proof of these beneficial increases in size. Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, I enjoy imaginative creative thinking. and just take the time to really honestly go through those videos, take notes even, take umbrage with the evidence if you want. We can discuss that, I am not discussing your straw man however. Jot down the time in the vid, and present why its wrong. Those videos are not wrong. They present interesting possibilities in a very logical manner. They just fail to back it up with proof. A lot of their arguments against creationists do not apply to me, because I do agree with the possibilities presented, unlike other creationists who will cry "impossible!", I say "interesting possibility". So for me personally they are strawman arguments, for example I do not rely on the irreducibility complex argument. Natural selection does definitely work, this is not just a possibility but an observed and logical reality. Its only when trying to extend natural selection to continuous complexifying mutations that evolution fails as a theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
Here is Berkeley's website for the evidence for evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 If you are serious about it, you WILL come to understand how flawed your current position is, if not, oh well. I looked through about 8 of those videos and its the same old stuff I've been coming across for 6 months now. I agree with natural selection, I agree with mutation combined with natural selection. But it is generally accepted that insertions and duplications of DNA are junk DNA and are not functional. I am still waiting to see these favorable/functional/beneficial insertions and duplications, whereby the organism increases in complexity through mutation, selection, and time. They mentioned insertions and duplications in the third video, but without saying that so far those have only created "junk DNA", which I felt wasn't giving the true picture from an empirical point of view ie they gave the impression that the DNA can increase favorably in size, and then projected how natural selection would then select the improved complexity. If it occurred natural selection would do that, but that's all possiblities, not facts. All those videos need now is a proven experiment that shows beneficial increasing to genome size, so they have some facts to back up the interesting possiblities they present. Then I will accept evolution as a viable theory and we can then start debating if that particular theory does apply to the fossil record, a whole new and interesting topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
howzityoume
on
Wed 05/09/12 10:56 AM
|
|
Feel free to post your evidence , that is what a discussion forum is all about. Ive done this before, on this very forum we have other threads that are even larger than this one that we battled it out with hard headed, dead set in there beliefs creationists before. I am not interested in that battle. The web has an amazing set of resources for learning about evolution. Ill be a nice guy and post a few vids, and a few websites you can learn about it. The hard work needs to be done by you, no one is going to convince you, you will just have to spend many hours being honest while reading and learning the science. Watch this playlist, it does a better job of explaining the many straw mans against evolution (some of which you are presenting btw), and presenting the overwhelming evidence for evolution than anyone not specialized in the field could do anyways. I dont know about you, but I work in Radiology, not Biology, this gent in the vids is a scientific researcher with a college degree specializing in evolutionary biology. In fact I believe now he is an award winning PHD. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87&feature=plcp Here is Berkeley's website for the evidence for evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 If you are serious about it, you WILL come to understand how flawed your current position is, if not, oh well. All I'm asking for is proof that there can be beneficial increases to the genome. That's all. With your knowledge, surely you can solve this in one short sentence, and tell me when this sort of mutation or increase has been observed, in a laboratory or otherwise. Without proof, evolution is merely an interesting idea, not even a theory. So far others have showed me evidence for mutations which I have always believed in. I am the only one who has posted evidence for beneficicial mutations, which I do believe in. But the only increases in genome size relate to DNA junk, and are not useful and naturally selected. So no proof has been shown so far for beneficial increases to the genome, if you can point to any such posts in this thread, then I will gladly accept your label of "hardheaded". (I thought we were not allowed insults on this site :)) And I will look through those links you have given me, and hope that I find this evidence, because without it your confidence in evolution appears a little silly, because evolutionists are currently claiming a progression from single cell organisms to humans, which requires beneficial increases to the genome. Why call yourselves scientific if you have no evidence for your confident claims? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
|
|
I'm sure there is staggering evidence for evolution. I doubt the evidence even scratches the surface of what is actually going on. Are all the important questions answered? I doubt it. I have a feeling if I spent years studying today's evidence for evolution I would be very disappointed and find more questions than answers. Right off the bat I get the feeling that in the over all scheme of things, they don't really have the answers to the most important questions. Have sharks evolved much? Religion has nothing to do with it. Exactly Jeanniebean. Sharks, arthopods, coelecanths etc etc. Obviously these living fossils are not discovered all at once, but as time goes on, more and more modern forms are found already intact in the fossil record. And you are perfectly correct, the more you investigate evolution, the less evidence there is. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
