Is the Theory of Evolution on the ropes?

[DrPizza]

Eyeballs aside, if intelligent design has been debunked as you claim, then why has no Evolutionary Biologist been able to explain how bacterial flagellum evolved?

The flagellum requires no less than 50 genes to function properly. Removing, or tampering with any of those genes causes complete system failure.

How the fuck could random, grandual, successive changes and modifications create that?

Yooohoooo! Bacterial flagellum does NOT require intelligent design. Get with the times - that's was the chant of intelligent design proponents nearly a decade ago. You need to move on to something new. At least you've given up on the idiotic claim that the eyeball could not have evolved. Read the links I provided. Want more?

 

[Carfax83]

Oh, and read this:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...epage&q=bacterial flagellum evolution&f=false

It points out the bullshit of your creationist propaganda using facts, not opinions.
Furthermore, even the CATHOLIC POPE says "Uh, evolution? Well, we might have been dumbasses in the dark ages when we thought the Earth was the center of the solar system (Sorry Galileo), but those scientist guys - they've provided so much fucking evidence that we're convinced that evolution is a fact."

Oh, and here:
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n1/abs/nrmicro1493.html
How many hundreds of articles *based on evidence* do you want?

I can google articles as well :sneaky:

If you had bothered to read up on what intelligent design entails, then you'd realize that those supposed refutations don't tackle the hard issues at all, but merely side step or trivialize them.

 

[vshah]

unfortunately for you, the patience to read walls of text evolved out a few thousand years ago

 

[Matthiasa]

I stopped reading after the numbered points that were wrong(as already pointed out).

 

[Carfax83]

Crap. I haven't even finished reading your poor ass attempt at posting more creationist bullshit. Now I've gotten to the word "macroevolution." For the 1000th fucking time, there's NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVOLUTION AND MACROEVOLUTION. MACROEVOLUTION SIMPLY MEANS EVOLUTION ON A LARGE TIME SCALE.

Do you believe in evolution? Yes? Evolution over a great expanse of time - longer than your brain can fathom - is macroevolution.
No? You're a dumbass because there are 1000's of examples, not the least of which is the rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. See, that happened in 40 years. Can you comprehend 40 MILLION years? Probably not.

Here, try this out... maybe it'll make sense to you.

Wow, can you try not frothing at the mouth and have a reasonable debate?

May be I was wrong to post this topic on this forum, as people aren't as civil as I thought they'd be.

 

[IronWing]

I can google articles as well :sneaky:

If you had bothered to read up on what intelligent design entails, then you'd realize that those supposed refutations don't tackle the hard issues at all, but merely side step or trivialize them.

And being the hard thinker you are, you've no doubt developed a testable hypothesis concerning the existence of an intelligent designer.

 

[IronWing]

Wow, can you try not frothing at the mouth and have a reasonable debate?

May be I was wrong to post this topic on this forum, as people aren't as civil as I thought they'd be.

We're only on post #30 and you've already slipped into snarling victim mode.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Every point you've made has been addressed convincingly. I know for a fact that there are chapters devoted to each in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. There are many other places to find good responses if Dawkins leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I recommend that you at least abandon every point you made in the OP and look for more original angles to attack evolution from.

 

[J-Money]

Now lets look at the most controversial aspects of Theory of Evolution and what they suppose:​

1) That all Life on Earth has a common ancestor​

2) That Life on Earth arose from inorganic matter via natural processes (abiogenesis).​

3) That the incredible diversity of Life now present on Earth came about due to random mutations occurring over billions of years in tandem with natural selection, which preserves beneficial mutations, thus increasing an organisms' chances of survival and propagation.​

As far as I'm aware (and I may be wrong), there is good evidence supporting the first assertion (that life on Earth has a common ancestor), but evidence supporting the second and third assertions is severely lacking.​

If by severely lacking you mean has been demostrated to happen, then yes.

Google the Miller-Urey experiment. It confirmed through natural chemical reactions that amino acids (aka the "building blocks of life") were formed.

 

[Carfax83]

How can you observe a creator? Who created the creator? Did the creator arise from natural evolution? Think harder.

Edit: Creator, designer, what's the difference?

Um, this may be a shock to you, but if the Universe and Life was indeed created, do you think It/He/She whatever would fall within the same limitations as what It/He/She created?

Whatever created the Universe and or Life, had to be something of immense power and intelligence, the likes of which you and I cannot even begin to fathom.

I can accept that there are things out there that I will never understand, and that there are many things that are simply beyond me.

You on the other hand, think you are capable of understanding everything....which is why you think the Creator has to have some kind of natural explanation..

 

[Alone]

The flagellum requires no less than 50 genes to function properly. Removing, or tampering with any of those genes causes complete system failure.

How the fuck could random, grandual, successive changes and modifications create that?

It's funny that you chose the flagellum as your example. My best friends father in law is a professor who studies only this in biology. I've only spoken to him a couple times, but he also believes in evolution.

 

[busydude]

Intelligent design does.. The theory of evolution makes no sense at all if the primary catalyst for evolution are mutations that are random and unintelligent.

Do you think we were all designed by an intelligent designer?

Did he design cancer too?

 

[IronWing]

Um, this may be a shock to you, but if the Universe and Life was indeed created, do you think It/He/She whatever would fall within the same limitations as what It/He/She created?

Whatever created the Universe and or Life, had to be something of immense power and intelligence, the likes of which you and I cannot even begin to fathom.

I can accept that there are things out there that I will never understand, and that there are many things that are simply beyond me.

You on the other hand, think you are capable of understanding everything....which is why you think the Creator has to have some kind of natural explanation..

Good thing you aren't a Creationist.

 

[Carfax83]

Every point you've made has been addressed convincingly. I know for a fact that there are chapters devoted to each in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. There are many other places to find good responses if Dawkins leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I recommend that you at least abandon every point you made in the OP and look for more original angles to attack evolution from.

OK, so if my points were addressed convincingly, has any Scientist ever demonstrated mutation as being capable of creating a new species in a lab?

What about the presence of information in DNA? Does Dawkins have an answer to that?

If these things are as concrete as you believe, where is the hard evidence?

 

[J-Money]

Something I've always wondered about....

If one starts one of these threads and hangs in there awhile defending the faith, is there a prize? Does the OP print out the thread and show it to the cute babe at Bible study and thereby get laid? Is there an evolutionary advantage to being a Creationist?

He can't get laid. Has to marry the cute babe first.

 

[Brigandier]

Um, this may be a shock to you, but if the Universe and Life was indeed created, do you think It/He/She whatever would fall within the same limitations as what It/He/She created?

Whatever created the Universe and or Life, had to be something of immense power and intelligence, the likes of which you and I cannot even begin to fathom.

I can accept that there are things out there that I will never understand, and that there are many things that are simply beyond me.

You on the other hand, think you are capable of understanding everything....which is why you think the Creator has to have some kind of natural explanation..

No, just no.

I understand a fig in the forest, that's it. The thing is, I can understand a creator, wanting to make all we have, but that understanding does not make it true. What makes more sense to me is that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, which I understand very little of, can do things that seem magical millions of years after the fact.

 

[busydude]

OK, so if my points were addressed convincingly, has any Scientist ever demonstrated mutation as being capable of creating a new species in a lab?

You cereal?

 

[DrPizza]

Crap - now you're saying the Big Bang is false? We can't know what happened in the past with 100% certainty?! I'm going to guess you're in the United States. Intelligent Design believers are almost exclusively a US phenomenon. It's night time. Go outside. Look up. Guess what - those dots you see - that light happened a lonnnnnnnng time ago. Now, believe it or not, we have these telescope things. They can see a long way into the distance - and the farther into the distance they see, the older things are.

You're probably wondering how they know how far things are away - magic. It's all fucking magic. Not really of course, but sometimes it seems that the only way to convince you loons would be to force you to sit through about 1000 hours of college level science courses because it's a constant "well, how do they know this." Every time you question how something has been learned, you seem to think it's a feather in your own cap - your own little "win" in some battle that the war has been lost in long ago. But then, that question is answered and you sit back, reflect for a moment, and come up with another "well, how..." And, eventually you come to a point where the answer is "well, we're working on it" (i.e. the eyeball 15 years ago) and you say "AH HA! THAT PROVES IT! YOU CAN"T EXPLAIN IT! THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT ALL THE OTHER THINGS TOO."

 

[IronWing]

He can't get laid. Has to marry the cute babe first.

In my experience even the most rigidly devout are capable of great flexibility in these matters.

 

[Carfax83]

If by severely lacking you mean has been demostrated to happen, then yes.

Google the Miller-Urey experiment. It confirmed through natural chemical reactions that amino acids (aka the "building blocks of life") were formed.

I know that they were successful in creating amino acids, but if you think amino acids = Life, then you are highly mistaken.

 

[darkswordsman17]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

OP, I actually read what you posted, and I'm sorry, but this really reeks of the same stuff we've seen before. You try and state things to make it seem like you're genuinely interested, but there's several tell tale signs that seem to indicate its the typical copy-paste arguments overused by anti-evolutionist people. Maybe you just were brought up on it and therefore that's your starting frame of reference, but I have a feeling that the only "willful delusions" here are your own. The fact that your only real reference for knowledge comes from a not well-received-scientifically book and parrot more or less many of the same silly extrapolations it contains is telling.

First, theory. The fact that you admit you don't understand that alone tells me you are in way over your head. You say how ridiculous some ideas are. What is ridiculous is that you don't understand something as simple as scientific theory and yet you think you are fully capable of discussing not just evolution but microbiology, gene sequencing, among many complex topics.

Calling abiogenesis and random mutations "retarded" or needing leaps of faith just shows again that you really do not understand this stuff at all, and yet you try to discredit them by basically saying they're stupid and you can't believe them therefore they're obviously wrong.

I'm also very baffled why you believe the fossil record or all the "information" in DNA contradicts/discredits evolution, since that's actually kinda the complete opposite. You don't really explain other than you think the coding of genes cannot be "not intelligent" and therefore not natural.

Essentially, you're trying to discuss calculus without having studied and understood Algebra. Actually in some of the things you bring up, its closer to not understanding basic math.

You readily admit your ignorance, and yet you seem unable to believe that is in fact the actual problem here. There's a lot more that you need to understand before you should even be actually considering if being unable to create life from simple matter in a lab invalidates evolution.

 

[Carfax83]

It's funny that you chose the flagellum as your example. My best friends father in law is a professor who studies only this in biology. I've only spoken to him a couple times, but he also believes in evolution.

Intelligent design does not preclude evolution. It merely enhances it by adding intelligence into the mix.

 

[DrPizza]

I can google articles as well :sneaky:

If you had bothered to read up on what intelligent design entails, then you'd realize that those supposed refutations don't tackle the hard issues at all, but merely side step or trivialize them.

Ohhh look at the little eyeballs going back and forth like you're sly. That's why I edited my post. I realized that the book isn't a great source. However, the journal Nature is peer reviewed. That means, you can't put up any bullshit without a very convincing argument. Anyone can put up a biased website filled with lies - and that's what you linked to. Why don't you spend an hour learning what it means to have your source peer reviewed.

 

[makken]

two things:

1) review the scientific meaning of 'theory' as was posted above
2) I don't think you truly comprehend how long a time scale several billion years is.

 

[busydude]

It merely enhances it by adding intelligence into the mix.

Intelligence of what/ whom?