What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If someone found the background radiation and then decided to call it the echo of the Big Bang perhaps you'd have an argument.

That's not what happened though, the existance of the echo was predicted and certain things were estimated about it. Then it was observed and shown to correspond to the estimations (Actually while one group was searching for th ...[text shortened]... ground radiation they expected to be there, a seperate group was struggling to get rid of it).

Indeed, they thought it was noise generated by the amplifiers or bird poop, but it turned out to be neither.

Originally posted by amannion
What is the bloody problem?!

Why is it so hard to accept evolution? It does not in any way conflict with religious faith.

It's a non issue ...

There is nothing, and I mean nothing that shows me that what people
believe about evolution is true, nothing supports it beyond
people connecting the dots on what they think may have occurred.
There are small changes within DNA of life, but that does not mean
that those small changes accumulate into more functionally complex
systems causing a simple single cell creature at the beginning of life
some X-llion years ago, mutate into all the variety of life we see
today.

Seeing the effort it takes to build something functionally complex
then having someone tell me that life in all its variety and complexity
came about without any plan, without any purpose, without any
design is simply unbelievable to me. I rank the believers of that
theory right up there with those that believe they see mother Mary’s
face in a bowel of soup.

People see what they want to see when it comes to evolution, and
they try to justify it by saying science makes the faith they have in
that theory some how more acceptable than another’s faith in God.
Science is not a being that speaks truth, it is people that do, you
cannot separate people from science. So saying that science supports
evolution is simply another way of saying, the people you agree with
support evolution, nothing more. Which is no different that a Baptism
saying that Baptism believe in this doctrine, and a Methodist making
the same claims about those of their denomination.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is nothing, and I mean nothing that shows me that what people
[b]believe about evolution is true, nothing supports it beyond
people connecting the dots on what they think may have occurred.
There are small changes within DNA of life, but that does not mean
that those small changes accumulate into more functionally complex
systems causi ...[text shortened]... this doctrine, and a Methodist making
the same claims about those of their denomination.
Kelly[/b]

'Functionally complex' is a meaningless phrase.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is nothing, and I mean nothing that shows me that what people
[b]believe about evolution is true, nothing supports it beyond
people connecting the dots on what they think may have occurred.
There are small changes within DNA of life, but that does not mean
that those small changes accumulate into more functionally complex
systems causi ...[text shortened]... this doctrine, and a Methodist making
the same claims about those of their denomination.
Kelly[/b]

Can you please explain how a single celled organism cannot evolve (you used the word 'mutate' but this can be confusing) into the "diversity of life"?

Your avesion just seems to be a prejudcie that you retain in order to cling to your beliefs.

Seeing the effort it takes to build something functionally complex
then having someone tell me that life in all its variety and complexity
came about without any plan, without any purpose, without any
design is simply unbelievable to me.

As I have said, you clearly have no understanding of evoluion. Your argument relies on prejudice and is not supported by ANY tenable deductions.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
It evolved from the harpsichord which itself evolved from the clavinet

The clavinet was intelligently designed and later replaced by the harpsichord which was also a product of intelligent design...

Or are you saying the harpischord and clavinet came about by random chance?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Can you please explain how a single celled organism cannot evolve (you used the word 'mutate' but this can be confusing) into the "diversity of life"?

Your avesion just seems to be a prejudcie that you retain in order to cling to your beliefs.

Seeing the effort it takes to build something functionally complex
then having someone tell me that lif evoluion. Your argument relies on prejudice and is not supported by ANY tenable deductions.

Can you please explain how a single celled organism cannot evolve (you used the word 'mutate' but this can be confusing) into the "diversity of life"?

The burden of proof lies with you, since you made the claim that it is possible.

If you cannot reproduce this action in the lab, then it is not scientific at all. It is merely wishful thinking.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is nothing, and I mean nothing that shows me that what people
[b]believe about evolution is true, nothing supports it beyond
people connecting the dots on what they think may have occurred.
There are small changes within DNA of life, but that does not mean
that those small changes accumulate into more functionally complex
systems causi ...[text shortened]... this doctrine, and a Methodist making
the same claims about those of their denomination.
Kelly[/b]

is simply unbelievable to me

It's been said before but is an important point so I'll remind you of it.
Just becuaes something is unbelievable to you soes not make it false.

Let me give you an analogy:
Believers in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence often cite the size of space as evidence. It goes somthing like this - it's inconceivable that in all the space of the universe, that we are the only intelligent species. There must be others.
Whether or not ETIs actually do exist, the above reasoning fails to prove it.

My point for you on evolution is the same - and it's an argument that could be used in the ID debate too:
Just because you can't imagine or believe that something is possible doesn't make it impossible.


On your connecting the dots stuff - I'm not sure what you're actually trying to get across here. In a sense what you are talking about, connecting the dots and so forth is exactly what scientists do in building any theory. They try to build theories (or I prefer to use the term models) that satisfy the known facts and match existing evidence and experimental results. They connect the dots. If something doesn't fit then they can do one of a number of things - check that what doesn't fit is real (verify the experimental results), modify their model, or scrap it and try again.
At this moment evolution is the best model that fits the existing data.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
'Functionally complex' is a meaningless phrase.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1

Certainly to those who do not understand the phrase...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Certainly to those who do not understand the phrase...

If there is someone who does understand the phrase can they please explain it in more detail?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there is someone who does understand the phrase can they please explain it in more detail?

Sure they can...

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn058/tinycode_dna.htm

Originally posted by Conrau K
Can you please explain how a single celled organism cannot evolve (you used the word 'mutate' but this can be confusing) into the "diversity of life"?

Your avesion just seems to be a prejudcie that you retain in order to cling to your beliefs.

[b]Seeing the effort it takes to build something functionally complex
then having someone tell me that lif ...[text shortened]... evoluion. Your argument relies on prejudice and is not supported by ANY tenable deductions.

[/b]You have the belief that it occurs, I said nothing that I have ever
read or seen has shown me any reason to believe 'your beliefs'
on the matter are true. You need to show me how small mutations
turned something called simple into the 'diversity of life' here today
in all of lifes systems, over coming all odds against it.
It isn't up to me to prove your beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Here lies an interesting way of demonstrating how the scientific process works.

First a theory:
Two senior scientists from Columbia University have proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BCE - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flo e that this flood happened before creation if you believe the Young Earth Creationists.

The only problem with the TOE is that it is never re-assed and discarded but always manipulated and adapted to fit the evidence, if the evidence cannot sufficiently be manipulated and adapted to fit the theory. The TOE is not falsifiable and thus not a legitimate Scientific Theory as such.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The only problem with the TOE is that it is never re-assed and discarded but always manipulated and adapted to fit the evidence, if the evidence cannot sufficiently be manipulated and adapted to fit the theory. The TOE is [b]not falsifiable and thus not a legitimate Scientific Theory as such.[/b]

Not sure what re-assing is, but manipulating and adapting is exactly what scientists do with their theories - that's science. (And I might add it's the antithesis of religion which can't be adapted at all.

The TOE is perfectly falsifiable - do you even know what that means?
All you need to do is demonstrate an example of a species that has NOT evolved.

Originally posted by amannion
Not sure what re-assing is, but manipulating and adapting is exactly what scientists do with their theories - that's science. (And I might add it's the antithesis of religion which can't be adapted at all.

The TOE is perfectly falsifiable - do you even know what that means?
All you need to do is demonstrate an example of a species that has NOT evolved.

Not sure what re-assing is, but manipulating and adapting is exactly what scientists do with their theories - that's science.

How pray would you adapt and manipulate the theory that stated that the world was flat, when suddenly evidence arises that the earth is round?

The TOE is perfectly falsifiable - do you even know what that means?
All you need to do is demonstrate an example of a species that has NOT evolved.

What criteria would you use to determine whether or not a specie has evolved ?

How would a specie look like that has not yet evolved?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Sure they can...

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn058/tinycode_dna.htm

The word "functionally" does not appear once on the page you linked. I've addressed Werner Gitt before; in fact the thread I linked above is specifically intended to challenge Gittian ideas about "information" (another word that is not effectively defined in Gitt's analysis).