Originally posted by sugiezdYes I remember them, but you have moved into faith and belief now
It's becoming a different species of slug.
1. A population of animals is split for some reason.
2. Conditions change.
3. The 2 poulations change via natural selection to adapt to the conditions and become 2 races.
4. The 2 populations become more and more different and eventually become 2 species rather than 2 races.
Remember the lions and tigers?
correct? Have you seen such splits occur, have you or anyone else
recorded one outside of a slug turning into a slug, or dog turning into
a dog, or cat turning into a cat? I acknowledge change, I don't believe
you can show me how far those changes can go, we can only make
assumptions and believe them or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI have that and read it, while I still have time if you wanted to go
Richard Dwarkin would be a reasonable place to start (The Blind Watchmaker). His style is confrontational but all the same he is able to communicate the science very effectively.
over that text I'd be willing.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI see...and so do you think that having faith in God and/or ID despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support these claims (independant of sources that themselves are questionable:- such as the bible) as being in the same league as making sound logical moves backed up with strong *physical* evidence that we can not only test but also use to make predictions that later turn out to be true?
That is right, and if you were able to understand that I do not think
faith is a bad thing my saying something is faith does not mean that
it isn't true; it only means that is faith. If I point out to you, you have
beliefs that cannot be shown wrong, that is not the same thing as
saying you are wrong, only that you have beliefs that cannot be shown
to ...[text shortened]... e for character assassination and insult,
not an honest discussion of views and ideas.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI don’t mind the confrontational—I’ll probably agree with him since I’m not a theist or a creationist. Thanks.
Richard Dwarkin would be a reasonable place to start (The Blind Watchmaker). His style is confrontational but all the same he is able to communicate the science very effectively.
Just a few thoughts here since we're starting to cover ground we've already covered for the tenth or hundreth time.
We all have certain beliefs - Kelly is dead right about that. From religious beliefs to scientific beliefs.
I for example, believe evolution to be a true and accurate account (as far as any scientific theory can be said to be so) of the way life has developed over time on this planet.
But, despite being able to draw on evidence from microbiology, palaeontology, and despite being able to talk about lucy's and spotted moths and slug - I can't show that it's true. I have to rely on the authority of others and on the very nature of the scientific process with its peer review and its predictive ability and its falsifiability and so on.
Which of course is only justifying my existing position.
A religious person who does not accept evolution will do the same from their perspective.
No amount of excruciating evidence and lengthy philosophical posts; no mud slinging and verbal barrages (which I must confess to be very guilty of) will hide the fact that we all have our established positions, and we're sticking to them.
This post is not about changing anyone's mind let's face it.
What it's really about is trying to ridicule the ones who disagree with you (I challenge anyone to tell me it's about anything else.)
Isn't everyone tired of it by now?
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, do you know how you run a marathon? One step at a time. You end up 26 miles from where you started. Now, I know what you are thinking. "It's impossible to get from point A to point B (26 miles away) in a single leap." That's true, of course. You run one step at a time. Each step is only maybe 80 cm; less than a metre. It's not huge. Your change in position, when taking it relatively from the start and end points, is tiny with each step you take. Yet, over enough time, probably around the 3 and a half hour mark, you can move that whole distance. Amazing, huh?! The same is true of evolution. We;ve went from cells to cells over 4 billion years - we just altered the configuration a bit over that time.
Cool a slug changing into a slug.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are making an assumption with your analogy that I don't agree is
Kelly, do you know how you run a marathon? One step at a time. You end up 26 miles from where you started. Now, I know what you are thinking. "It's impossible to get from point A to point B (26 miles away) in a single leap." That's true, of course. You run one step at a time. Each step is only maybe 80 cm; less than a metre. It's not huge. Your ...[text shortened]... ls to cells over 4 billion years - we just altered the configuration a bit over that time.
an actuate one. It is the same one I disagree with when I read
Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker” Dawkins in his opening
chapter, “Explaining the very improbable” goes on about complex
things he touches on a number of things airliners, watches, a moon,
mountains, and settles down to talk about a combination lock for his
bicycle that has 4,096 different positions. This I thought was
laughable when speaking about the complex and how to solve it, he
choose something that had a built in answer as all locks do. This is
not the same thing as setting up DNA and finding the odds, because
given X time running through random numbers you are going to hit
that right combination of a lock, that is what the lock is designed for
that one combination. The same thing cannot be said of DNA and life,
there are things that require simultaneous reactions, it must work
together just right or it doesn’t work, getting it wrong would result in a
dead end product or life form. So saying you can take little steps and
go the distance of a marathon is no different than Dawkins choosing a
combination lock to talk about how we can overcome odds.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionIt can be an enlightening discussion from time to time, but a lot
Just a few thoughts here since we're starting to cover ground we've already covered for the tenth or hundreth time.
We all have certain beliefs - Kelly is dead right about that. From religious beliefs to scientific beliefs.
I for example, believe evolution to be a true and accurate account (as far as any scientific theory can be said to be so) of the ...[text shortened]... ge anyone to tell me it's about anything else.)
Isn't everyone tired of it by now?
of times I feel like I've painted a bull’s eye on my name for insults
just by saying I don't agree with some views that go along with
evolution. The insults go both directions, and I'm afraid I've taken
that route too when I have gotten tired of being insulted over and
over. I have tried to apologies for those times when I see myself
doing it, but I'm sure I have not always done that. I will also say
there are a few here that avoid insults completely, or at least if they
do insult it isn't the driving force behind their full post or most of
their posts as the custom of some here seem to live for.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree with you.
It can be an enlightening discussion from time to time, but a lot
of times I feel like I've painted a bull’s eye on my name for insults
just by saying I don't agree with some views that go along with
evolution. The insults go both directions, and I'm afraid I've taken
that route too when I have gotten tired of being insulted over and
over. I have tried ...[text shortened]... heir full post or most of
their posts as the custom of some here seem to live for.
Kelly
Much as I try to avoid insults, I know I've traded a few, including at you.
But that's the beauty of these forums - we can agree and disagree, even in at times heated ways, and still come out of them to live (and argue) once more.
Originally posted by amannionI agree too.
I agree with you.
Much as I try to avoid insults, I know I've traded a few, including at you.
But that's the beauty of these forums - we can agree and disagree, even in at times heated ways, and still come out of them to live (and argue) once more.
I realised, yesterday, that trading insults isn't going to get us anywhere.
Originally posted by KellyJayRemember DNA?
No I don't see them as all holding the same ancestor, the fossil
record is just that fossils they don't come with little tags saying all
groups came from the same place. The belief the fossils show
a common ancestor is just that, a belief. We have creatures today
that look a like, we have creatures today that don't, and what we
see with fossils are cr ...[text shortened]... witness or record these massive
changes from one type of creature unto another type.
Kelly
Sequencing has shown that they DO have the little tags you mentioned.
Originally posted by KellyJayObviously not.
Yes I remember them, but you have moved into faith and belief now
correct? Have you seen such splits occur, have you or anyone else
recorded one outside of a slug turning into a slug, or dog turning into
a dog, or cat turning into a cat? I acknowledge change, I don't believe
you can show me how far those changes can go, we can only make
assumptions and believe them or not.
Kelly
All that can be directly observed is microevolution.
These things are additive.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, will you accept that the common house cat and the lion have a common ancestor? If so do you also accept that human beings and chimpanzees have a common ancestor? If not, why not?
Yes mutation happens all the time, yet when they happen within
cats we are still seeing cats, when they happen within humans we
are still seeing humans at the end of the day. It is an amazing
process and I do not deny mutations or even evolutionary change
if how you define evolution is simply change within kinds or species
either. What we can see, what ...[text shortened]...
blade of grass over time through generations, that is a belief and
a matter of faith.
Kelly
Your claim that anything you cannot see with your own eyes is faith is false. Is it faith that leads you to believe that I am human? Maybe I am a chimpanzee!
Originally posted by sugiezdI do recall DNA, but are those little tags due to a common designer
Remember DNA?
Sequencing has shown that they DO have the little tags you mentioned.
using the same coding style as we do when we write in C++ or Perl,
or is it due to evolution without a designer? It isn't as strait forward
as some would like to make it.
Kelly