What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have said, over and over there are small changes, you can bread
dogs to be bigger or smaller, the trouble is you start with dogs you
end with dogs. You are the one telling me that evolution can take
one type of creature and turn it into something completely different,
you believe that the changing of one type of bacteria into another is
evolution whe ...[text shortened]... faith,
and a strong belief in something that has never been seen, but it
is infered. 🙂
Kelly

so what about the paper detailing speciation then? One species splitting into two. Do remember with the dog example, that we've only been breeding dogs (i.e. applying a selection pressure) for a couple of hundred years, which is absolutely nothing in geological terms. Of course, you won't even accept the fact that the planet is over 7,000 years old, so you won't accept this either.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution isn't an observed phenomenon!
There are small changes within DNA, that is observed, your labeling
them evolution is faith on your part.
Kelly

We have seen bacteria evolve (and this is a big problem facing society), we have fossil evidence and there is no reason to think "macroevolution" is impossible. Evolution is an observed phenomenon!!!!

There are small changes within DNA...
Evolution is just a natural consequence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
We have seen bacteria evolve (and this is a big problem facing society), we have fossil evidence and there is no reason to think "macroevolution" is impossible. Evolution is an observed phenomenon!!!!

[b]There are small changes within DNA...
Evolution is just a natural consequence.[/b]

Fossils? The biggest collection of dots that get connected there is!
As I pointed out with your evidence for evolution, you start with
bacteria you end with bacteria, so the only reason you can say
there is a reason to believe evolution is real is, because you
want it to be. You have not shown evolution, you can show small
changes, which does not mean in any fashion that those changes
will build up to major changes over time, accept to those that believe
in that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fossils? The biggest collection of dots that get connected there is!
As I pointed out with your evidence for evolution, you start with
bacteria you end with bacteria, so the only reason you can say
there is no reason to not think evolution is real is, because you
want it to be. You have not shown evolution, you can show small
changes, which does not me ...[text shortened]... changes
will build up to major changes over time, accept to those that believe
in that.
Kelly

so why, in the fossil record, do we see a continuum from simple bacteria dated nearly 4 billion years old, through to the earliest multicellular organisms (def 550 mya, poss as old as 1bya), then organisms of increasing complexity with decreasing age? You can wax as lyrical as you like about "interpreting evidence as faith"; it is nothing of the sort - there are no other logical conclusions that you could possibly reach other than either (a) there have been numerous organismal forms over the last 4 billion years (although based around the same fundamental bodyplans) and (b) the complexity of those organisms has generally been increasing through time (although there have been periods of more and less rapid development). Evolutionists have a mechanism, shown to work in the lab as well as in the wild (which you still have not refuted, other than your usual, irritating hand waving exercise), whilst creationists like yourself remain on the sidelines crying into you communion w(h)ine that your dogma is no longer the prevalent idea about the central place of man (i.e. you) in the universe.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
so why, in the fossil record, do we see a continuum from simple bacteria dated nearly 4 billion years old, through to the earliest multicellular organisms (def 550 mya, poss as old as 1bya), then organisms of increasing complexity with decreasing age? You can wax as lyrical as you like about "interpreting evidence as faith"; it is nothing of the sort - ...[text shortened]... gma is no longer the prevalent idea about the central place of man (i.e. you) in the universe.

Even if time were not an issue as I believe it is, there is still the
possibility that we are simply seeing creatures that are not a
continuum from simple to multicellular, but different species all
together! You are dot connecting and calling it facts, what faith
you have!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Even if time were not an issue as I believe it is, there is still the
possibility that we are simply seeing creatures that are not a
continuum from simple to multicellular, but different species all
together! You are dot connecting and calling it facts, what faith
you have!
Kelly

Your life must be a real adventure, all these unconnected phenomena all the time. I mean, I bet you saw your first motor car 2,354 times today, right? Or maybe, just maybe, we all connect the dots all the time. Sure, it's what Darwin did - connect the dots, and 150 years of the most severe scrutiny possible has never disproven it. That's about as close to aa fact in science as you'll ever get. But, you probably don't believe in gravity either....

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fossils? The biggest collection of dots that get connected there is!
As I pointed out with your evidence for evolution, you start with
bacteria you end with bacteria, so the only reason you can say
there is a reason to believe evolution is real is, because you
want it to be. You have not shown evolution, you can show small
changes, which does not mean ...[text shortened]... changes
will build up to major changes over time, accept to those that believe
in that.
Kelly

Ok Kelly.

1) All living things have genes.
2) Genes can change.
3) An environmental pressure can "select" the best genes.

Thus, living things evolve.

Now apply this hypothesis to the past and we have the Theory Of Evolution.
It is entirely valid and has been substantiated by scientific obervations of evolution in action and yes, even fossils.

We do not start with bacteria but with a hypothesis...which then becomes a theory.

You have not shown evolution, you can show small
changes, which does not mean in any fashion that those changes
will build up to major changes over time, accept to those that believe
in that.

There is no reason why those changes" cannot amount to "major changes" over time. Our theory predicts that it will (and its right about everything else)- and there are no conpeting theories to contradict it. And by proof of non- contradiction, evolution wins. 😀

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok Kelly.

1) All living things have genes.
2) Genes can change.
3) An environmental pressure can "select" the best genes.

Thus, living things evolve.

Now apply this hypothesis to the past and we have the Theory Of Evolution.
It is entirely valid and has been substantiated by scientific obervations of evolution in action and yes, even fossi conpeting theories to contradict it. And by proof of non- contradiction, evolution wins. 😀

Again, Mr. Natural Selection enters the conversation. This single-minded selector, which is not a force of nature, prefers to be known as a process... like photosynthesis, or other equally measurable occurences, except, unique guy that Mr. Selection is, he is unmeasurable! What a guy this Mr. Selection is, huh folks?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, Mr. Natural Selection enters the conversation. This single-minded selector, which is not a force of nature, prefers to be known as a process... like photosynthesis, or other equally measurable occurences, except, unique guy that Mr. Selection is, he is unmeasurable! What a guy this Mr. Selection is, huh folks?

Again, for the twentieth time - it's called competition. Very, very measureable. Go back to sleep Freaky.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, Mr. Natural Selection enters the conversation. This single-minded selector, which is not a force of nature, prefers to be known as a process... like photosynthesis, or other equally measurable occurences, except, unique guy that Mr. Selection is, he is unmeasurable! What a guy this Mr. Selection is, huh folks?

What do you want to measure?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, Mr. Natural Selection enters the conversation. This single-minded selector, which is not a force of nature, prefers to be known as a process... like photosynthesis, or other equally measurable occurences, except, unique guy that Mr. Selection is, he is unmeasurable! What a guy this Mr. Selection is, huh folks?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Again, for the twentieth time - it's called competition. Very, very measureable. Go back to sleep Freaky.

Your calling it a competition is one thing, it being a competition is
another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your calling it a competition is one thing, it being a competition is
another.
Kelly

Yes, let's just overturn 150 years of scientific endeavour because Kelly is unhappy with the word. What would you do Kelly, invent another language perhaps? Not such a bad idea really - feel free to go for it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, let's just overturn 150 years of scientific endeavour because Kelly is unhappy with the word. What would you do Kelly, invent another language perhaps? Not such a bad idea really - feel free to go for it.

No, you have a term with the word 'selection' in it, but no one is
making a selection, you have been justifying the use of that word
'selection' with the word 'competition' when in fact none is taking
place. Like most of the fairy tales evolution has supporting it, it is
simply some dots being connected between the ears of the true
believers of evolution to sound good. Reality and evolution when
evolution is used to claimed a simple life form was transformed into
the vast array of life we see today, simply doesn't wash except in
between the ears of those that want it to be true.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you have a term with the word 'selection' in it, but no one is
making a selection, you have been justifying the use of that word
'selection' with the word 'competition' when in fact none is taking
place. Like most of the fairy tales evolution has supporting it, it is
simply some dots being connected between the ears of the true
believers of evoluti ...[text shortened]... simply doesn't wash except in
between the ears of those that want it to be true.
Kelly

Kelly, "selection" does not necessarily imply that some agent is selecting. In economics we discuss a phenomena called "adverse selection" in which the distribution of information in a market leads to suboptimal outcomes. In this case there is no agent doing the selecting. Just is the structure of the market leads to a case where some goods (usually low quality ones) come to market and others (high quality ones) are never put up. In this way, the poor goods are "selected" for. Because the quality is low, the selection is adverse.