170
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 464:
Line 464: + Line 469:
Line 470: + Line 474:
Line 476: + Line 479:
Line 482: + Line 484:
Line 488: + Line 489:
Line 494: + Line 494:
Line 500: + Line 499:
Line 506: + Line 504:
Line 512: + Line 509:
Line 518: + Line 514:
Line 524: + Line 519:
Line 530: + Line 524:
Line 536: + Line 529:
Line 542: + Line 534:
Line 548: + Line 539:
Line 554: + Line 544:
Line 560: + Line 549:
Line 566: + Line 554:
Line 572: + Line 559:
Line 578: + Line 564:
Line 584: + Line 569:
Line 590: + Line 578:
Line 600: + Line 583:
Line 606: + Line 588:
Line 612: + Line 597:
Line 622: + Line 602:
Line 628: + Line 607:
Line 634: + Line 612:
Line 640: + Line 617:
Line 646: + Line 622:
Line 652: + Line 627:
Line 658: + Line 632:
Line 664: + Line 637:
Line 670: − + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution/archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 18:09, June 20, 2011
, 18:09, June 20, 2011→Objection
: A4 original stated that any beneficial mutation was coupled with lethal results. The CCR-5 receptor gene mutation is beneficial and has no known negative side effect.
: A4 original stated that any beneficial mutation was coupled with lethal results. The CCR-5 receptor gene mutation is beneficial and has no known negative side effect.
::You did not provide the proof.
::You did not provide the proof.
:::Here http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/CCR5
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
A7- Yes, there are. Mules are the infertile off-spring of a male donkey and a female horse. Donkeys and horses are both members of the Equidae family, both species having evolved from a common ancestor, the Hyracotherium, which lived during the early Eocene period. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce viable offspring and thus the process of separate lines of evolution have rendered these animals too genetically dissimilar to have viable offspring. This is the process of speciation.
A7- Yes, there are. Mules are the infertile off-spring of a male donkey and a female horse. Donkeys and horses are both members of the Equidae family, both species having evolved from a common ancestor, the Hyracotherium, which lived during the early Eocene period. Horses and donkeys can no longer produce viable offspring and thus the process of separate lines of evolution have rendered these animals too genetically dissimilar to have viable offspring. This is the process of speciation.
:The records are in the fossils.
:The records are in the fossils.
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
:::That isn't what the theory of evolution contends, you are misunderstanding the theory.
------------------------------
------------------------------
A8- Such egocentric behaviors benefit the INDIVIDUAL human life; lying and stealing gain more for the individual and increase the chances it will survive. Additionally, psychopathy is an aberration in psychological development, not a trait.
A8- Such egocentric behaviors benefit the INDIVIDUAL human life; lying and stealing gain more for the individual and increase the chances it will survive. Additionally, psychopathy is an aberration in psychological development, not a trait.
:From a biological perspective, lying allows an organism to increase its standing in a social group and stealing means the organism can gather resources without expending great amounts of energy. It also means that it can acquire food when food is scarce. That increases its chances of survival.
:From a biological perspective, lying allows an organism to increase its standing in a social group and stealing means the organism can gather resources without expending great amounts of energy. It also means that it can acquire food when food is scarce. That increases its chances of survival.
::So, lying is an inherent part of evolution now. That's explains the theory perfectly.
::So, lying is an inherent part of evolution now. That's explains the theory perfectly.
:::Knock off the word games.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
A9- The listed organisms haven’t changed greatly because they have had little to no evolutionary pressure to do so. They are well adapted to their environment and thus natural selection is not doing much to push the species. The process of speciation happens fastest in a high-stress environment where a species has to react or face extinction.
A9- The listed organisms haven’t changed greatly because they have had little to no evolutionary pressure to do so. They are well adapted to their environment and thus natural selection is not doing much to push the species. The process of speciation happens fastest in a high-stress environment where a species has to react or face extinction.
:What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
:What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
::You've been given an easy task to recreate the domestic dog from the wolf, exactly as your evolutionary scientists said it happened. It's must be so easy, a caveman could do it!
::You've been given an easy task to recreate the domestic dog from the wolf, exactly as your evolutionary scientists said it happened. It's must be so easy, a caveman could do it!
:::It's a process that takes tens of thousands of years and is still ongoing, it takes time for the gene pools to become sufficiently diverse as to not be able to interbreed.
---------------------------
---------------------------
B2- “Information” is not a scientific term nor is it defined on this website (in a scientific context).
B2- “Information” is not a scientific term nor is it defined on this website (in a scientific context).
:It has no meaning.
:It has no meaning.
::Information has no meaning? Well, if our information on evolution has no meaning, than what are you doing here trying to refute it?
::Information has no meaning? Well, if our information on evolution has no meaning, than what are you doing here trying to refute it?
:::Look, knock off the word games. If you aren't in this seriously, then tell me so I dont waste more time.
---------------------------
---------------------------
B5 and 6- This is entirely subjective and as such does not have a place in an objective theory or critique of a theory. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not have to nor does it purport to explain aesthetics. Evolution explains the diversity of life. This point demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory.
B5 and 6- This is entirely subjective and as such does not have a place in an objective theory or critique of a theory. Additionally, the theory of evolution does not have to nor does it purport to explain aesthetics. Evolution explains the diversity of life. This point demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory.
: What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
: What? That…makes absolutely no sense at all. That doesn’t even relate to the point I made
::It does make perfect sense. Too much of evolution, up to and including your statements here, are based on nothing more than the word of the scientist, and we have to take that word as fact. It's not going to happen here.
::It does make perfect sense. Too much of evolution, up to and including your statements here, are based on nothing more than the word of the scientist, and we have to take that word as fact. It's not going to happen here.
:::The "word of the scientist" is based off of research and currently established knowledge. What's yours based off of?
----------------------------
----------------------------
B7- This shows absolutely nothing. If it’s like clockwork, then why is it 13 years for some parts of the world and 17 for other parts?
B7- This shows absolutely nothing. If it’s like clockwork, then why is it 13 years for some parts of the world and 17 for other parts?
:Evolution does not explain why cicadas lay dormant. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.
:Evolution does not explain why cicadas lay dormant. Evolution explains the diversity of life. Period.
::Again, that's a cop-out statement. Evolutionists want to explain away everything.
::Again, that's a cop-out statement. Evolutionists want to explain away everything.
:::It is not a cop-out statement, it's a statement of fact; evolution does not explain why cicadas go dormant. Why not ask an entymologist?
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
B12- Complete speculation, we have no way of determining if other animals lack consciousness. We infer this from our lack of ability to communicate, but we cannot objectively demonstrate that we are the only creatures with a consciousness.
B12- Complete speculation, we have no way of determining if other animals lack consciousness. We infer this from our lack of ability to communicate, but we cannot objectively demonstrate that we are the only creatures with a consciousness.
:You are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. We have no indication animals are sentient.
:You are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. We have no indication animals are sentient.
::That's right. Animals are not human, they never were, nor will they ever be.
::That's right. Animals are not human, they never were, nor will they ever be.
:::Well, no one actually said animals are humans. Humans are actually animals, like it or not.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
B13- Speculation again, additionally evolution does not predict nor explain the presence of higher intellectual functions in humans.
B13- Speculation again, additionally evolution does not predict nor explain the presence of higher intellectual functions in humans.
:And that is not an argument.
:And that is not an argument.
::Well, you do have a problem with our arguments against it, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
::Well, you do have a problem with our arguments against it, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
:::Yes, they're poor arguments that are demonstrably faulty.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
B16- The temperature of the ambient water drops as you approach the poles, as such, a fish who gradually developed the genes for enduring in colder water could progress further north or south until they could withstand very cold temperatures. This process is well known and documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11181960
B16- The temperature of the ambient water drops as you approach the poles, as such, a fish who gradually developed the genes for enduring in colder water could progress further north or south until they could withstand very cold temperatures. This process is well known and documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11181960
:We didn’t have to
:We didn’t have to
::Yes you do have to. It's called ''observation'', the first step of the scientific method.
::Yes you do have to. It's called ''observation'', the first step of the scientific method.
:::No, we dont have to. We can observe the process in it's entirety with the use of the fossil record. If physical observation was REQUIRED to make any sort of scientific statement, half of science would be invalid because it isnt possible to physically observe it.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
B18- In many cases, we can look to the natural world for causes. Darwin’s famous finches are an example, many different subspecies of the same parent species evolved when several populations were established on the islands by birds blown onto the island by storms.
B18- In many cases, we can look to the natural world for causes. Darwin’s famous finches are an example, many different subspecies of the same parent species evolved when several populations were established on the islands by birds blown onto the island by storms.
:The proof is you have different species of finch on different islands with beak configurations that have evolved to take advantage of the island’s most abundant and accessible food source for the finches. These finches are too genetically different to breed with other finch species, thus we have speciation.
:The proof is you have different species of finch on different islands with beak configurations that have evolved to take advantage of the island’s most abundant and accessible food source for the finches. These finches are too genetically different to breed with other finch species, thus we have speciation.
::You have not provided the proof here. Where is the direct evidence of change? Did you or any other scientist SEE IT HAPPEN?
::You have not provided the proof here. Where is the direct evidence of change? Did you or any other scientist SEE IT HAPPEN?
:::You dont have to see it happen for reasons I stated previously.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
C1- Evolution does not nor does it purport to explain the behavior of jellyfish.
C1- Evolution does not nor does it purport to explain the behavior of jellyfish.
:It isn’t supposed to
:It isn’t supposed to
::Evolution has an included philosophy of being "right", no matter what.
::Evolution has an included philosophy of being "right", no matter what.
:::Show me
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
C3- The subjective human idea of what is “good” and “bad” are not factors in evolution.
C3- The subjective human idea of what is “good” and “bad” are not factors in evolution.
:We do behave like animals.
:We do behave like animals.
::Only the anarchists, thugs, murderers, rioters, and those who support them.
::Only the anarchists, thugs, murderers, rioters, and those who support them.
:::Ranting is not an argument.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
C4- I cannot speak for Dawkins, but the occurrence of things like altruism in animals is fairly well understood. Altruistic behavior is a way for social groups to reinforce their bonds and improve the cohesion of the group itself. This behavior has been well documented among apes who will often give gifts to other apes in the same group for future favors. The behavior is never (to my knowledge) displayed in non-social species.
C4- I cannot speak for Dawkins, but the occurrence of things like altruism in animals is fairly well understood. Altruistic behavior is a way for social groups to reinforce their bonds and improve the cohesion of the group itself. This behavior has been well documented among apes who will often give gifts to other apes in the same group for future favors. The behavior is never (to my knowledge) displayed in non-social species.
:What aspect of the bird specifically are you focusing on?
:What aspect of the bird specifically are you focusing on?
::Your aspect above
::Your aspect above
:::That doesnt answer my question.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
C5- A mutation is not necessarily bad. A person’s genome has something like 10,000 mutations in it before that person is even born and most of us do pretty well.
C5- A mutation is not necessarily bad. A person’s genome has something like 10,000 mutations in it before that person is even born and most of us do pretty well.
:Yes, we are still evolving. We have a library of hominid fossils that indicate that humans once looked quite different then than we do today.
:Yes, we are still evolving. We have a library of hominid fossils that indicate that humans once looked quite different then than we do today.
::"That indicate" is words specifying opinion.
::"That indicate" is words specifying opinion.
:::Now you sound like Bill Clinton, you know perfectly well what I mean.
-------------
-------------
C6- Some of us do have an immunity (or nearly so) to the HIV due to our exposure to the Black Death in our genetic past. HIV is not virulent enough to clear large sections of our population who aren’t immune. With a disease like the Black Death, it left enough people with immunity alive to reproduce and successfully repopulate, creating a population that was resistant or immune to the disease that caused the Black Death. At least until it returned after mutating.
C6- Some of us do have an immunity (or nearly so) to the HIV due to our exposure to the Black Death in our genetic past. HIV is not virulent enough to clear large sections of our population who aren’t immune. With a disease like the Black Death, it left enough people with immunity alive to reproduce and successfully repopulate, creating a population that was resistant or immune to the disease that caused the Black Death. At least until it returned after mutating.
:Except there were no records of mass rat die-offs from the time of the Black Death. Additionally, the Y. pestis bacteria (other pathogens have been suggested as the cause of the Black Death but Y. pestis is still the prevailing theory) responsible for the Black Death would not have survived digestion. Even if it did, there is a very slim chance of transmission from the belly of a bird to a human being.
:Except there were no records of mass rat die-offs from the time of the Black Death. Additionally, the Y. pestis bacteria (other pathogens have been suggested as the cause of the Black Death but Y. pestis is still the prevailing theory) responsible for the Black Death would not have survived digestion. Even if it did, there is a very slim chance of transmission from the belly of a bird to a human being.
::You think people have to leave a record of a rat's death?
::You think people have to leave a record of a rat's death?
:::If its a mass die-off, yes. They have previously.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
C7- Traits are only selected out of a population if there is evolutionary pressure to do so. There has been little to no pressure on the human population to eradicate schizophrenia. If we were to start executing all schizophrenic people, then we’d see our instances of people developing the disorder drop after several dozen successive generations because the genes that make us susceptible to schizophrenia would not be passed on. And we do have a fairly good idea that genetics plays a big role in determining the manifesting of schizophrenia.
C7- Traits are only selected out of a population if there is evolutionary pressure to do so. There has been little to no pressure on the human population to eradicate schizophrenia. If we were to start executing all schizophrenic people, then we’d see our instances of people developing the disorder drop after several dozen successive generations because the genes that make us susceptible to schizophrenia would not be passed on. And we do have a fairly good idea that genetics plays a big role in determining the manifesting of schizophrenia.
:They didn’t try it on a wide enough scale to be effective. To eradicate a particular gene from the human gene pool, ALL carriers of the gene need to be removed from the gene pool.
:They didn’t try it on a wide enough scale to be effective. To eradicate a particular gene from the human gene pool, ALL carriers of the gene need to be removed from the gene pool.
::We're not going to try it at all.
::We're not going to try it at all.
:::I'm not advocating that we should and neither is anyone else. I'm simply responding to your objection.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
D1- The human body has dozens of vestigial traits that have no current use. We do know what they are used for in other creatures and in apes and we don’t/cant use them in that way. The goosebump response is a prime example, goosebumps form on our skin when scared to make us look bigger, but no human has enough body hair to make this happen anymore. We also don’t have enough body hair for it to provide insulation. There are several muscles and muscle groups that serve no function in the human body, The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not).
D1- The human body has dozens of vestigial traits that have no current use. We do know what they are used for in other creatures and in apes and we don’t/cant use them in that way. The goosebump response is a prime example, goosebumps form on our skin when scared to make us look bigger, but no human has enough body hair to make this happen anymore. We also don’t have enough body hair for it to provide insulation. There are several muscles and muscle groups that serve no function in the human body, The human eye has something called the plica semilunaris, a musculature remnant of the nictitating membrane that many other creatures have (and we do not).
:I suggest you review the work (or better yet, link it) again and you’ll find ample backing. Additionally, you ignored several other important points.
:I suggest you review the work (or better yet, link it) again and you’ll find ample backing. Additionally, you ignored several other important points.
::Where's your evidence?
::Where's your evidence?
:::Rub your arms, feel the hair? Our goosebump response is still present even though we dont have enough hair to make it function the way it's supposed to.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
D2- Junk DNA is a well-documented phenomenon in the human genome and is detailed in even the most elementary book on the subject of genetics.
D2- Junk DNA is a well-documented phenomenon in the human genome and is detailed in even the most elementary book on the subject of genetics.
:Evolution is not “things getting better over time.” Evolution is “things adapting to their environment better over time.” Big difference.
:Evolution is not “things getting better over time.” Evolution is “things adapting to their environment better over time.” Big difference.
::You included the word "better". My point exactly.
::You included the word "better". My point exactly.
:::Except you completely missed my point.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
D3- This point demonstrates a lack of understanding about how evolution works. Evolution does not “design”. It merely allows natural selection to remove organisms that are less suited for their environment such that their genetic information is not passed on. The human spine and sinus system are not fatal in their current configuration and as such there is no evolutionary pressure to stop people from passing on the genes for the setup of these systems.
D3- This point demonstrates a lack of understanding about how evolution works. Evolution does not “design”. It merely allows natural selection to remove organisms that are less suited for their environment such that their genetic information is not passed on. The human spine and sinus system are not fatal in their current configuration and as such there is no evolutionary pressure to stop people from passing on the genes for the setup of these systems.
:Not hit or miss at all. If you have a population of animals, let’s take a gazelle. If you have a single animal born with the gene that gives him slightly stronger leg muscles, he will be better able to escape from predators and thus is more likely to survive and pass on his genes to successive generations. Being predated upon is the evolutionary pressure that kills off other gazelles that don’t run as fast and thus allows the faster gazelles to breed and populate.
:Not hit or miss at all. If you have a population of animals, let’s take a gazelle. If you have a single animal born with the gene that gives him slightly stronger leg muscles, he will be better able to escape from predators and thus is more likely to survive and pass on his genes to successive generations. Being predated upon is the evolutionary pressure that kills off other gazelles that don’t run as fast and thus allows the faster gazelles to breed and populate.
::And we still have those same gazelles, of which any one of them is dinner for the nearest lion, hyena, leopard, wild dog, or Masai tribesman. The observations just don't match your theories.
::And we still have those same gazelles, of which any one of them is dinner for the nearest lion, hyena, leopard, wild dog, or Masai tribesman. The observations just don't match your theories.
:::Because the population that make up modern gazelles continued along it's evolutionary path while other groups were separated and speciated.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
D4- Very often our teeth ARE over-crowded and often some must be manually removed.
D4- Very often our teeth ARE over-crowded and often some must be manually removed.
:Having teeth removed has nothing to do with evolution and neither does pain in child birth. And I am not aware of ANY organism that has evolved with no way to eat.
:Having teeth removed has nothing to do with evolution and neither does pain in child birth. And I am not aware of ANY organism that has evolved with no way to eat.
::You've never heard of a mayfly?
::You've never heard of a mayfly?
:::A mayfly does, I assure you, have the capability to eat.
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
D5- This point does not take into account the mountain of environmental factors that contribute towards this trend.
D5- This point does not take into account the mountain of environmental factors that contribute towards this trend.
:Wide-scale consumption of artificial chemicals in our food, poor diet, decreasing social pressure to procreate, over-population. Just to name a few.
:Wide-scale consumption of artificial chemicals in our food, poor diet, decreasing social pressure to procreate, over-population. Just to name a few.
::And they were caused by people with no higher authority other then themselves when the rules were made. They rejected God. And evolution just fits right in.
::And they were caused by people with no higher authority other then themselves when the rules were made. They rejected God. And evolution just fits right in.
:::Evolution does not have anything to say one way or the other about religion, nor does science. Individual scientists may have their own opinions, but science itself does not speak on what it cannot test.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
D7- Drug-resistant pathogens are a perfect example of natural selection. In the case of MRSA, some of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria have developed with a structure that renders them immune or resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics. The bacteria that are not resistant to the antibiotics die when antibiotics are introduced into their environment and there is suddenly a gap left that the resistant strain quickly multiplies to fill.
D7- Drug-resistant pathogens are a perfect example of natural selection. In the case of MRSA, some of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria have developed with a structure that renders them immune or resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics. The bacteria that are not resistant to the antibiotics die when antibiotics are introduced into their environment and there is suddenly a gap left that the resistant strain quickly multiplies to fill.
:The proof is in the fossil record
:The proof is in the fossil record
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
:::Yet again, you do not understand the theory.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
E2- Incorrect, we can trace the lineage of horses back to the Family Palaeotheriidae, which gave rise to modern horses, tapirs, and rhinoceros. Additionally, simply because a specific fossil has not been found yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We have basal forms of horses and we have fossilized horse ancestors, so logically there IS an intermediary fossil.
E2- Incorrect, we can trace the lineage of horses back to the Family Palaeotheriidae, which gave rise to modern horses, tapirs, and rhinoceros. Additionally, simply because a specific fossil has not been found yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. We have basal forms of horses and we have fossilized horse ancestors, so logically there IS an intermediary fossil.
:The proof is in the fossil record
:The proof is in the fossil record
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
::Your so-called "proof" is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Until it is demonstrated in the lab that a fish changed into a frog, a monkey into an ape, or even a wolf into a dog, then you cannot prove to anyone your theory is correct.
:::Yet again, you do not understand the theory.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
E3- Literally thousands of transitional fossils have been found. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
E3- Literally thousands of transitional fossils have been found. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
:How exactly does one prove a transitional fossil?
:How exactly does one prove a transitional fossil?
::You claimed proof above with your original statement, and only by your word alone. Did you see these animals change? Were these animals dug up with labels, testimonials, affidavits, or signs?
::You claimed proof above with your original statement, and only by your word alone. Did you see these animals change? Were these animals dug up with labels, testimonials, affidavits, or signs?
:::Yet again, you do not understand the theory.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
E4- The process is well documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/
E4- The process is well documented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/
:We can trace the line of fossils back to show ancestry.
:We can trace the line of fossils back to show ancestry.
::If you say so...and you are saying it instead of proving it.
::If you say so...and you are saying it instead of proving it.
:::We HAVE proved it
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
G4- There are several examples of animals with wings that are also flightless but none the less are able to use their wings for other purposes.
G4- There are several examples of animals with wings that are also flightless but none the less are able to use their wings for other purposes.
:Be careful, I hear ostriches and penguins get upset when you insult them
:Be careful, I hear ostriches and penguins get upset when you insult them
::You did not refute my statement beyond a silly retort.
::You did not refute my statement beyond a silly retort.
:::Honestly, what am I supposed to say to someone who is claiming that no animals currently have wings but dont use them for flight?
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
G5- This staple argument of irreducible complexity has been thoroughly demolished http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
G5- This staple argument of irreducible complexity has been thoroughly demolished http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
:No scientist has stated anyone created a dog from a wolf. Ken Miller has deconstructed the argument of irreducible complexity. If you’d watch the video, you’d see that.
:No scientist has stated anyone created a dog from a wolf. Ken Miller has deconstructed the argument of irreducible complexity. If you’d watch the video, you’d see that.
::And what exactly was his proof? You explain it here.
::And what exactly was his proof? You explain it here.
:::The basic argument for irreducible complexity is that some systems cannot be made simpler or they wont function thus could not have arisen out of multiple gradual changes. The favored example is the bacterial flagellum. It contains roughly 50 "parts" that need to be there in order to make it work. However, you can remove 40 of those 50 parts and still have a functioning biological machine; the Type III Secretory system. This is basically a molecular syringe that is most notably used by disease bacteria to inject toxic proteins into human cells during infection. Irreducible complexity is false.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
H1- Citing yourself is very VERY poor form.
H1- Citing yourself is very VERY poor form.
:Then link them on THIS page, don’t bounce the reader through two or three other Conservapedia pages.
:Then link them on THIS page, don’t bounce the reader through two or three other Conservapedia pages.
::We don't have to.
::We don't have to.
:::So dont, remove the link
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
H2- This is speculation and as such does not belong in an objective article.
H2- This is speculation and as such does not belong in an objective article.
:Because there is no indication whatsoever that there would be one ancestral language.
:Because there is no indication whatsoever that there would be one ancestral language.
::And who says?
::And who says?
:::It's not a who, but a lack of indicators that there would be one ancestral language.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
H3- The link for this is extremely poor, no names are provided to check the source and the scientist who allegedly announced this is un-named. It is a poorly sourced statement and should be removed.
H3- The link for this is extremely poor, no names are provided to check the source and the scientist who allegedly announced this is un-named. It is a poorly sourced statement and should be removed.
:The source I draw on is rudimentary knowledge of what I’m talking about, as should be obvious to anyone who has something similar.
:The source I draw on is rudimentary knowledge of what I’m talking about, as should be obvious to anyone who has something similar.
::No excuses. I want sources that PROVE it to be true.
::No excuses. I want sources that PROVE it to be true.
:::How do you prove a negative?
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
H4- Speculation again. We have no way of determining if other animals do or do not have religion.
H4- Speculation again. We have no way of determining if other animals do or do not have religion.
:Again, you are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. It is speculation and speculation does not belong on an allegedly factual website.
:Again, you are assigning anthropomorphic qualities to animals without any basis for doing so. It is speculation and speculation does not belong on an allegedly factual website.
::Does that include the speculation that evolution is true?
::Does that include the speculation that evolution is true?
:::It SHOULD include factual information, the page currently does not.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
H5- “Kind” is not a scientific term
H5- “Kind” is not a scientific term
:If you’re going to attempt to refute a scientific theory, you need to use the accepted language so we have a common ground of understanding. “Kind” is also extremely poorly defined; are donkeys a different “kind” than horses or mules? If so, then creating a new species isn’t that hard because horses and mules seem to be able to do it no problem.
:If you’re going to attempt to refute a scientific theory, you need to use the accepted language so we have a common ground of understanding. “Kind” is also extremely poorly defined; are donkeys a different “kind” than horses or mules? If so, then creating a new species isn’t that hard because horses and mules seem to be able to do it no problem.
::We are not only refuting a scientific theory, we're falsifying it. And if I'm not using the "accepted language" of the arrogant, so be it.
::We are not only refuting a scientific theory, we're falsifying it. And if I'm not using the "accepted language" of the arrogant, so be it.
:::Erm...you need to look up "falsifying" because I dont think it means what you think it means. If you're going to try to disprove a scientific theory, you need to abide by the rules of the scientific community if you want to be taken seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
H8- Advancing evolution does not require one to be anti-religious. The theory of evolution does not deal with religion whatsoever
H8- Advancing evolution does not require one to be anti-religious. The theory of evolution does not deal with religion whatsoever
:There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution who are devoutly religious. Evolution and religion are not incompatible unless you make them so.
:There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution who are devoutly religious. Evolution and religion are not incompatible unless you make them so.
::It was the evolutionists that made their theory incompatible with religion.
::It was the evolutionists that made their theory incompatible with religion.
:::This has already been addressed previously.
------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that you skipped many of my points. Why, I'm not sure. Just wanted to mention it. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 15:12, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
It should be noted that you skipped many of my points. Why, I'm not sure. Just wanted to mention it. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 15:12, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:What should be noted here is the fact that you still have not provided decisive proof that evolution is a fact, beyond your word. If is true, then take a pair of wolves and create a dog. Come on, do that. Create a dog. If a caveman could do it, a scientist can. And doesn't the average scientist have a battery of degrees on his wall and peer-reviewed papers in his library? What does a caveman have by comparison? Wall art and insurance commercials? There's my public challenge, for any evolutionary scientist to carry out, with no money involved. It's so easy a caveman could do it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:What should be noted here is the fact that you still have not provided decisive proof that evolution is a fact, beyond your word. If is true, then take a pair of wolves and create a dog. Come on, do that. Create a dog. If a caveman could do it, a scientist can. And doesn't the average scientist have a battery of degrees on his wall and peer-reviewed papers in his library? What does a caveman have by comparison? Wall art and insurance commercials? There's my public challenge, for any evolutionary scientist to carry out, with no money involved. It's so easy a caveman could do it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Because you've ignored 90% of what I've said and turned the rest into word games --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:09, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
== Picture of PZ Myers ==
== Picture of PZ Myers ==