Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 2329303132333435363743 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 825 of 1079
  1. #801
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    Post Count
    14,938
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.
    Have you seen Patrick Ewing?

  2. #802
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    51,121
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Claim CF001:

    The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

    Source:
    Morris, Henry M
    ., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.


    Response:

    The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

    the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
    I have given you the information you need to answer a very basic question, about a very basic claim you have posted.

    These questions don't go away, are simple to answer with less than five minutes worth of reading.

    According to the second law of thermodynamics:

    Is the earth an isolated system?

    Is the inside of a plankton cell living in the ocean an isolated system?
    No and No, and I will ask what led to plankton? Lemme guess, it came from an asteroid?
    You have now accepted TalkOrigins very specific rebuttal of Mr. Morris' claim. Biased or no, they were right, and you saw that for yourself.

    I chose that to start with, because it is one of the easiest and most accessible claims about evolution. If you care to take my word for it, after many hours of debating this, the vast majority of them fall apart with just a little bit of objective scrutiny.

    We can, and I will be happy to, march through every single one of Mr. Morris' assertions and statements, if you like.

    Plankton are eukaryotes that came from prokaryotes. Two or more different species of prokaryotes merging shortly before the process of evolution kicked off.

    If you are looking for a discussion of abiogenesis that is useful in understanding evolution, but not necessary to understanding it.

    Evolution is not abiogenesis. Two different theories, although somewhat related.

  3. #803
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    51,121
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I really am. Science fascinates me. What I hate is that you are immediately discredited by the scientific community if you don't believe in evolution. Are there any scientist testing the theory or at least looking for alternative theories? No, simply because they are afraid of ridicule.
    The reason for this is that there is no real alternative *scientific* theory at this point that is supported by any evidence.

    The judges in court cases concerning this have, after looking at the evidence in court have ruled, after looking at far more evidence than we have considered here that creationism, or intelligent design, are not scientific theories.

    Give me a competing scientific theory concerning the process of life on this planet.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-17-2013 at 02:42 PM. Reason: clarify something

  4. #804
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    “ Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[135] ”

  5. #805
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.

  6. #806
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    So your wiki author is upset that all the available evidence actually fits the theory of evolution?

    lol

  7. #807
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.
    You don't know of any after all your research?

    lol

  8. #808
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    51,121
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs

    Decision[edit]
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.
    On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
    For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

    A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
    (page 26)

    The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

    The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

    Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

    After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

    [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
    ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

    Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
    Again, give me a scientific theory, I would be happy to address it.

  9. #809
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    I'm not a scientist. And not science? Like I said before, who here has observed evolution?

  10. #810
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    I'm not a scientist. And not science? Like I said before, who here has observed evolution?
    So can you just not find a different theory?

    Is that why you are asking other people to look for you?

  11. #811
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    How would I in any any shape or form be qualified to come up with my own theory?

  12. #812
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    How would I in any any shape or form be qualified to come up with my own theory?
    No one asked you to make up your own theory.

    Enough straw man stalling.

  13. #813
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    Post Count
    14,938
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs

  14. #814
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    51,121
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post a link to a scientist looking for an alternative theory.
    I don't claim there are any. Should I be trying to prove things I don't claim now?


    The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:



    Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.


    Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.


    There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.


    Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.


    Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.


    Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.


    Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.


    Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.


    In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.


    It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.


    From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.


    In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.


    Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.


    In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
    "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
    Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
    This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.


    Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
    The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.



    A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.


    The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
    This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.



    An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
    Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

    Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

    It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

    The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.
    One of the most interesting, more recent predictions that panned out from evolutionary theory:

    Baterial Flagellum.

    Creationists argued that this cellular structure could not be found to be a sum of its parts. It was created out of whole cloth at once.


    Evolutionary science predicted that would not, and could not be the case. That structure must have evolved out of various other structures.

    Care to guess what they found when they sequenced the genomes?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2alpk8PUd4

  15. #815
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

  16. #816
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    Your theory isn't science either so it can go screw itself

  17. #817
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
    Yeah, there are myriad experiments and observations concerning evolutionary change.

    You've never come across any in your extensive research?

  18. #818
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    lemme guess, the fruit fly is evidence?

  19. #819
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    51,121
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    So your wiki author is upset that all the available evidence actually fits the theory of evolution?

    lol
    He is concerned, and rightly so, that various aspects of evolution not become unquestionable tenets. Dogma is for religion and creationism.

    We should always question things in science.

  20. #820
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    lemme guess, the fruit fly is evidence?
    Elaborate.

  21. #821
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    Okay son, who on earth today has observed evolution?

  22. #822
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    He is concerned, and rightly so, that various aspects of evolution not become unquestionable tenets. Dogma is for religion and creationism.

    We should always question things in science.
    Absolutely, but if evidence fits a theory, how is that a bad thing? (question to robdiaz)

  23. #823
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    154,411
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    Okay son, who on earth today has observed evolution?
    You're telling me in your extensive research on this subject, you haven't seen anything about observations?

  24. #824
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    Can you prove that God did not create the earth?

  25. #825
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    Post Count
    51,864
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    Texas Longhorns
    guppies in the lab

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •