Natural Selection and evolution don’t exist huh?
People a helluva lot smarter than us would disagree. But its cool, I am sure that for people like Steveo this proves absolutely nothing.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Well, there you go again. “Evolution is fact.” You guys would love everyone to swallow this hook, line and sinker.
You may as well swallow now, because it’s the truth. There are two distinctly different things: 1) evolution (small “e”) and 2) The Theory of Evolution. The first thing is an observed fact, something we can see happen in short-lived species: their characteristics change so they get better at surviving.
[/quote]
That is not evolution, it is adaptation. You workout, your body adapts and you get bigger muscles. Under your definition, people who lift evolve into new species. This doesn’t occur in bodybuilding and is doesn’t occur in complex organisms.
No complex organism has ever been OBSERVED in a lab to change into another species. So we could say that adaptation within species has and is observed, but evolution has not.
[quote]40yarddash wrote:
You guys really shouldn’t rip on SteveO or these museum people just because they believe in something different. Personally I believe in evolution but I don’t judge people who believe in creation as being stupid or ignorant. They have a right to believe what they want and its not like they’re forcing it down other people’s throats. Besides the majority of the world doesn’t share their views so who cares what they believe in?[/quote]
I think you hit the nail on the head. BELIEF! When there are no actually observable facts to validate, belief is all you have. And if I have faith in science without any actually verified scientific facts, and you have faith in creation without any observable facts, what’s the difference? It still boils down to one’s own beliefs.
So half the world believes in a theory that they neither truly understand, and in fact, cannot be conclusively observed or tested. What does that tell you? These are the same countries that held fast to a belief not too long ago that the world was flat. So the belief of the masses really counts for very little.
Historically, it was those individuals who took another approach and had wildly different beliefs who made the most impact on advancing society. Not those who followed the crowed.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No complex organism has ever been OBSERVED in a lab to change into another species. So we could say that adaptation within species has and is observed, but evolution has not. [/quote]
How do you define “specie?”
Is the common criteria of reproductive compatibility correct in your view? Two members of a specie can mate and reproduce (ie, any two dogs: poodle with German shepherd, for example); while two specimen of different species cannot (a cat with a dog)?
Speciation according to that criteria has been observed in laboratory settings. The experiments involve worms and fruit flies, but it is possible to start from a single population; split it in two groups; submit the groups to various stimuli to encourage genetic drift (or “micro-evolution”) until at one point members of group A cannot mate with members of group B. Or rather, they can mate, but reproduction no longer occurs.
You’ve basically taken a population of specie X, and made two population of specie X and Y.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is not evolution, it is adaptation…
[/quote]
Right, you go to the gym and work out hard, and your kids get muscles. That’s some adaptation.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I have faith in science without any actually verified scientific facts
[/quote]
What happened? You fell asleep in class?
If you haven’t any facts, you have no need of science.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Ren wrote:
And there you have it folks, I hear their next project is a museum dedicated to the rapture!!
OK…and so your point is what?
He doesn’t have one, it’s implied that he thinks this is ridiculous. Which it is.
Creationism belongs no where but in the Mythology where it is found, or in a museum of Mythology.
So does evolution, but there are plenty of museums dedicated to that very unscientific “theory.”
Creationism and Evolution are both faith based explanations of how everything began and developed. The fact is that both are “religious” in nature, but your side wants total dominion in our educational system. To this I and others like me say – “no, sorry, you cannot have the stage all to yourself.”
Creation = God made it all with His purpose in mind. Therefore, we are God’s creation and are accountable to Him.
Evolution (along with “Big Bang”) – everything was created out of random processes with no intelligent plan and man developed after millions of years from the same lines as apes and chimps. Therefore, we are accountable to nobody but ourselves because there is no higher authority than ourselves.
So, why do you have a problem with a museum dedicated to Creationism when you have no problem with those who tout evolution?
[/quote]
-
stevo, great to see that you are still a moron.
-
Palentological evidence tends to make a great museum piece. Depictions of the Ark won,t.
-
You wouldn’t know a scientific principle if it smacked you in the mouth. If you did, you wouldn’t say that.
-
This thread sadly pulled me out of my lurking, so it is bad.
-
Stevo is bad
-
Its great to think this site had moved on…
7.Evolution is not a faith based principle…it is a theory backed up by evidence.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Well, there you go again. “Evolution is fact.” You guys would love everyone to swallow this hook, line and sinker.
You may as well swallow now, because it’s the truth. There are two distinctly different things: 1) evolution (small “e”) and 2) The Theory of Evolution. The first thing is an observed fact, something we can see happen in short-lived species: their characteristics change so they get better at surviving.
That is not evolution, it is adaptation. You workout, your body adapts and you get bigger muscles. Under your definition, people who lift evolve into new species. This doesn’t occur in bodybuilding and is doesn’t occur in complex organisms.
No complex organism has ever been OBSERVED in a lab to change into another species. So we could say that adaptation within species has and is observed, but evolution has not.
[/quote]
great point…the 2 are often mixed in peoples views.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Well, there you go again. “Evolution is fact.” You guys would love everyone to swallow this hook, line and sinker.
You may as well swallow now, because it’s the truth. There are two distinctly different things: 1) evolution (small “e”) and 2) The Theory of Evolution. The first thing is an observed fact, something we can see happen in short-lived species: their characteristics change so they get better at surviving.
That is not evolution, it is adaptation. You workout, your body adapts and you get bigger muscles. Under your definition, people who lift evolve into new species. This doesn’t occur in bodybuilding and is doesn’t occur in complex organisms.
No complex organism has ever been OBSERVED in a lab to change into another species. So we could say that adaptation within species has and is observed, but evolution has not.
[/quote]
Read my post above please.
Steveo? Hello? Are you there?
none of the anti-evolutionists want to comment on the lactose gene evolution I posted? What’s wrong, gonna call it adaptation again?
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
I have faith in science without any actually verified scientific facts
What happened? You fell asleep in class?
If you haven’t any facts, you have no need of science.
[/quote]
You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and theory. Evolution is theory based on some questionably unrelated non-complex organisms. So this is taught in class as fact and you believe.
Do you believe because you can touch, taste, smell, and verify it yourself? No, you believe because you have FAITH in the institution that is teaching you or the western model of evolutionary science in general. So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
[quote]Ren wrote:
none of the anti-evolutionists want to comment on the lactose gene evolution I posted? What’s wrong, gonna call it adaptation again?[/quote]
Well, it is adaptation. I don’t know why they keep calling it evolution as there are many people with racial backgrounds that make them at risk for certain diseases because of their ancestors lifestyle or environment. So why is this not adaptation?
Also, they have the Lactose enzyme process a little off. Most people ARE lactose tolerant without the specific lactose enzyme. The HCL produced in the stomach is fully capable for most people to digest lactose. So the enzyme is really not needed for most people.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Ren wrote:
none of the anti-evolutionists want to comment on the lactose gene evolution I posted? What’s wrong, gonna call it adaptation again?
Well, it is adaptation. I don’t know why they keep calling it evolution as there are many people with racial backgrounds that make them at risk for certain diseases because of their ancestors lifestyle or environment. So why is this not adaptation?
Also, they have the Lactose enzyme process a little off. Most people ARE lactose tolerant without the specific lactose enzyme. The HCL produced in the stomach is fully capable for most people to digest lactose. So the enzyme is really not needed for most people.
[/quote]
Lorisco, you are missing the forest for the trees. Adaptation is a generalization. It is possible to adapt and not evolve. Evolution is a continual change in genetics brought about by external stimuli.
In a single generation, adaptation can happen by overcoming a negative influence such as lower temperatures by learning how to build a hut in such a way as to insulate from the cold. This is not evolution because it is not genetic. Evolution might be adaptation over time by growing hair.
When a species changes enough to bring about discernable differences we call it a new species–this is speciation. This is nothing more than a taxonomic convention. Technically, anything that strays from its genetic parentage is a new species. What we view as race on a human level could be considered speciation.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
40yarddash wrote:
I have faith in science without any actually verified scientific facts
What happened? You fell asleep in class?
If you haven’t any facts, you have no need of science.
You don’t seem to know the difference between fact and theory. Evolution is theory based on some questionably unrelated non-complex organisms. So this is taught in class as fact and you believe.
Do you believe because you can touch, taste, smell, and verify it yourself? No, you believe because you have FAITH in the institution that is teaching you or the western model of evolutionary science in general. So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
[/quote]
Ha, ha. Lorisco: too many times around. There are two “evolutions”, that was already explained to you. One is fact and one is theory.
You need a new dodge.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lorisco, you are missing the forest for the trees.[/quote]
Nah, it’s the rest of us who don’t get it.
Lorisco wants us to beat him over the head with the forest, and always spring back. Doesn’t matter whether what he gives back makes any sense or not, or even if it is repetitious. It is a game to him, like Whack-a-Mole. His purpose in the conversation is purely to manipulate us to extend the conversation.
In common parlance, Lorisco is a troll.
Steveo is conspicuously absent.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lorisco, you are missing the forest for the trees.
Nah, it’s the rest of us who don’t get it.
Lorisco wants us to beat him over the head with the forest, and always spring back. Doesn’t matter whether what he gives back makes any sense or not, or even if it is repetitious. It is a game to him, like Whack-a-Mole. His purpose in the conversation is purely to manipulate us to extend the conversation.
In common parlance, Lorisco is a troll.[/quote]
Riiight! Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a troll! Good one!
You guys seem to be running in circles, lets lay this out one more time.
Adaptation occurs within a species and it does result in genetic changes.
Macroevolution is the process of large scale genetic changing such as a fish becoming a bird, etc.
You seem to be playing a game to prove your point by being very flexible with the term speciation. Under your definition it would appear that blacks and whites are different species. And under that definition you can state that evolution has been observed by science. Well if that is your definition of evolution, then yes, I agree that those genetic changes have been observed. However, we all know that that is not what the issue is about. It is about large scale changes in complex organisms (apes to men, etc). Those changes have not been observed and there is only speculation. Yet, that is taught as fact in school. THAT is the problem!
So if you want to say that because there are black people and white people that it proves your definition of evolution, fine! But don’t expect anyone who knows anything about science to believe that observation of these adaptations proves macroevolution as fact.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So the fact is that you believe in something that you have to take someone else’s word on. That’s faith my friend.
[/quote]
Scientists have presented convincing evidence that the moon is not made out of cheese, the sun is a large super heated ball of gas, and that evolution has occured (and many other things). Should I now ignore all this evidence because I didn’t do the studies myself?
People weigh evidence presented to them and decide whether they’re going to incorporate that evidence into their belief system.
Intelligent people tentatively accept evidence into their belief system until better evidence is obtained.
People of blind faith reject ANY evidence that doesn’t support their pre-existing belief system.
Which kind of person are you Lorisco?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Those changes have not been observed and there is only speculation. Yet, that is taught as fact in school. THAT is the problem!
[/quote]
Is that all that’s bothering you? Relax then. You’ve been misinformed. The Theory of Evolution is customarily introduced as a theory, while the process of evolution is demonstrated as a fact. The theory is introduced as the best explanation we’ve got for the facts we have, and such it is. For explicative and predictive power, no other theory in this area holds a candle to it. It’s so heavily supported by evidence that many people come to regard it as a fact, but you can’t blame the schools for that.
You can say the Theory of Evolution isn’t a fact, and that’s correct, but it’s incorrect to say that it is speculation. BTW there is a role for speculation in science, it’s called conjecture. Conjecture plays a role in deciding what future experiments may be valuable. The Theory of Evolution is far beyond the stage of conjecture in terms of the amount of supporting evidence that has accumulated. It was beyond that stage even by the time Darwin published his book.
As for talking about birds evolving into fish, I think you are moving the goalposts rather a lot. It’s generally regarded as sufficient confirmation of a species boundary when we see interbreeding become impossible.