Creation Science?

[Tominator]

IIRC, amino acid chains have been formed in laboratories who's conditions mimic primordial earth theories. These are the building blocks of life.

BULL! They've been exposed to environments that have never existed and even then they NEVER formed life only 'mimiced' it.! They failed to get life from no life.

This has nothing to do with fitness. IMHO, humans have removed most of the selecting factors from themselves.

So you are saying there is more to 'evolution' than science.....Oh God forbid...if you'll pardon the expression.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

I find it funny that most of the people who argue against evolution are usually English majors (if that) and always, always bring up the "giraffe example." They are totally oblivious to the countless microscopic/cellular events which make you what you are today because they are evolutionarily conserved.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: Tominator

IIRC, amino acid chains have been formed in laboratories who's conditions mimic primordial earth theories. These are the building blocks of life.

BULL! They've been exposed to environments that have never existed and even then they NEVER formed life only 'mimiced' it.! They failed to get life from no life.

This has nothing to do with fitness. IMHO, humans have removed most of the selecting factors from themselves.

So you are saying there is more to 'evolution' than science.....Oh God forbid...if you'll pardon the expression.

Who cares, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

And yes, the Miller Urey experiment worked.

 

[BDawg]

They've been exposed to environments that have never existed

Never existed? Are you referring to specific studies, or is this back to the "facts" as proposed in Genesis?

 

[Maetryx]

Originally posted by: BDawg

life comes from non-life

IIRC, amino acid chains have been formed in laboratories who's conditions mimic primordial earth theories. These are the building blocks of life.

You don't recall correctly. They didn't match. The experiment was conducted by intelligent beings. They controlled the environment. They used concentrations FAR greater that those found in the real world. And they used a timing sequence for intoducing, extracting and reintroducing components in a fashion that they themselves admitted could not happen in a natural environment.

If scientists ever *DO* put a cell together in a laboratory, it will support the same scientific notions enumerated in my earlier post:

Life comes from life
Intelligence comes from intelligence

 

[exp]

LMK if something new is added that has not been posted in any of these threads (85-356 posts each):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

 

[Maetryx]

That's a little black and white.

Yeah, that's science for you.

 

[Tominator]

They are totally oblivious to the countless microscopic/cellular events which make you what you are today because they are evolutionarily conserved.

Even the most avid Evolutionistsa admit that the world would need to be hundreds of times older than science will admit for evolution to take place. It has never been observed in nature. The results have only been imagined.

Never existed in that scientists had to manufacture environments and they still failed.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: exp
LMK if something new is added that has not been posted in any of these threads (85-356 posts each):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Seriously...ends the same way everytime too.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: Tominator

It has never been observed in nature. The results have only been imagined.

LOL! Keep pushing your head further into the sand...

 

[exp]

Whenever possible I always post this link in every creation vs. evolution thread that pops up. It would behoove some people here to read through their FAQs before spewing garbage like it's going out of style.

 

[BDawg]

The experiment was conducted by intelligent beings. They controlled the environment. They used concentrations FAR greater that those found in the real world. And they used a timing sequence for intoducing, extracting and reintroducing components in a fashion that they themselves admitted could not happen in a natural environment.

Blinded ignorance at its best.

Of course the presence of humans can never be completely removed from the equation, but that's the goal. Of course they used different concentrations than those found in the modern day. Have you even read the experiment, or did you only read the rebuttal published by Jerry Faldwell?

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: SmackdownHotel

Originally posted by: Tominator

It has never been observed in nature. The results have only been imagined.

LOL! Keep pushing your head further into the sand...

Be specific please. Name ONE, just one species that has changed and improved it;s existence through evolution....Just one that cannot be disputed is all I ask.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

One species? How about a whole kingdom? Animalia....

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: SmackdownHotel
One species? How about a whole kingdom? Animalia....

Observed? Not hardly!

 

[exp]

Be specific please. Name ONE, just one species that has changed and improved it;s existence through evolution....Just one that cannot be disputed is all I ask.

It's deja vu all over again. This challenge is posted every single time threads like this begin and every single time the following links are put forward in response:

1
2

These links are invariably ignored/brushed off by the original posters.

 

[BDawg]

Be specific please. Name ONE, just one species that has changed and improved it;s existence through evolution....Just one that cannot be disputed is all I ask.

Before I start, microevolution is an observed fact.

The Galapagos finches speciated different beaks to eat the differing foods on islands.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Just because you can't see the grass grow, doesn't mean it's not growing. The people attacking evolution are the ones who believe in an anthropomorphized god-being that will give them everlasting life. The sciences of psychology and sociology do a pretty good job explaining the basis for such beliefs.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Observed? I don't think anyone has lived several millenia to actually see it like a cool IMax film.

Again, the cellular evidence exists and is overwhelming.

Do you deny genetic mutations? Genetic drift? In a nutshell that's all you need.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: exp

Be specific please. Name ONE, just one species that has changed and improved it;s existence through evolution....Just one that cannot be disputed is all I ask.

It's deja vu all over again. This challenge is posted every single time threads like this begin and every single time the following links are put forward in response:

1
2

These links are invariably ignored/brushed off by the original posters.

In the first we discuss cross-polonization. In the second the species were isolated and mutated......if this is factual evidence a new definition of 'fact' needs to be formulated and preferably NOT from the same minds the articles were from! Mutation happens all the time and has little to ad to and so-called facts to lend to the arguments.

 

[exp]

In the first we discuss cross-polonization. In the second the species were isolated and mutated......if this is factual evidence a new definition of 'fact' needs to be formulated and preferably NOT from the same minds the articles were from! Mutation happens all the time and has little to ad to and so-called facts to lend to the arguments.

I realize the overwhelming list of evidence may be a little much to take in at once. So consider Weinberg's 1992 polychaete experiment for the moment. One population of worms...a new population was founded from the original...decades later the new population was unable (0% success rate to breed with its original ancestors while each population continued to breed amongst themselves). Unless you dispute the BSC definition of evolution this is about as clean a case of speciation as you will find.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: exp

In the first we discuss cross-polonization. In the second the species were isolated and mutated......if this is factual evidence a new definition of 'fact' needs to be formulated and preferably NOT from the same minds the articles were from! Mutation happens all the time and has little to ad to and so-called facts to lend to the arguments.

I realize the overwhelming list of evidence may be a little much to take in at once. So consider Weinberg's 1992 polychaete experiment for the moment. One population of worms...a new population was founded from the original...decades later the new population was unable (0% success rate to breed with its original ancestors while each population continued to breed amongst themselves). Unless you dispute the BSC definition of evolution this is about as clean a case of speciation as you will find.

And did it result in the dominance of one species over the other? Species interbreed all the time with the inability to breed further and that does not support your evolution and survival of the fittest hypothesis.

Btw, you ever hear of a mule?....just joking!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Mutation happens all the time and has little to ad to and so-called facts to lend to the arguments.

Different enviroments change the scope of possible mutation. Mutation is essentially evolution, we're just dealing with different levels of it, and obviously we're limited by language. "Species" is a word invented by humans.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are other intreaguing oddities in the creation evolution debate. People who just want to know the facts are persuaded by evolutionary theory. People who are committed prior to the search to fundamentalist Christianity are persuaded by creation theories. You just don't find scientists who aren't fundamentalists persuaded by creationism. That's a dead give away there's a need driving belief rather than a pure desire to know regardless of where the truth leads.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Mutation happens all the time and has little to ad to and so-called facts to lend to the arguments.

Different enviroments change the scope of possible mutation. Mutation is essentially evolution, we're just dealing with different levels of it, and obviously we're limited by language. "Species" is a word invented by humans.

Now we want to narrow the definition of evolution and broaden the definition of species....Darwin is turning over in his grave!