Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Polls
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Polls Discuss Do You Believe In Evolution? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by rivrrat Once more - we have observed evolution on a small scale and large. That evolution happens ...

Poll: Do You Believe In Evolution?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Do You Believe In Evolution?

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 11:02 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,498
Thanks: 9,529
Thanked 10,069 Times in 6,140 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Once more - we have observed evolution on a small scale and large. That evolution happens is indisputable. We observe random mutations all the time. In some cases, we observe those mutations spreading through a population.

Hell, blonde hair is a mutation.
Once again, can you prove mutations are random? Nope. Declaration doesn't make it true. For the Darwinist random mutation to be true, please explain how blonde hair in humans was passed along to subsequent generations. The first blonde just happened to mate with another product of random mutation with the same trait. Oh and the trait has been passed along safe from random mutation for thousands of years.
Reply With Quote
  #192 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 11:11 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,891
Thanks: 9,694
Thanked 5,936 Times in 4,015 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Once more - we have observed evolution on a small scale and large. That evolution happens is indisputable. We observe random mutations all the time. In some cases, we observe those mutations spreading through a population.

Hell, blonde hair is a mutation.
you've totally missed the point.
micro evolution (as some scientist have called it)
includes things like changes in Hair color, changes the sizes of features, some change in shapes.
look at all the different types of dogs. But they stay dogs, they never change into cats or birds. If THAT'S what you want to call "mutation" and "evolution" that's fine we are in agreement.

the problem is you're assuming that those types of changes are what happened to change a single celled animal into a multicelled, an arm into a wing, a photocell into an eye, a scale into a feather, all working and integrated into the NEW dna and passed on perfectly.
BUT we KNOW by experiment and breeding that there are fixed limits to the range of mutations built into the natural genes.

it's Science fiction to claim other wise, there are NO examples of experimental natural but forced mutations or breeding EVER, that pushs a living creature passed those limits.

WHAT HAS been done is to take an already WORKING feature of DNA from one animal and intelligently Splice it into another animal to create an animal that has a NEW feature taken from another.
but that's NOT evolution. that's just more intelligent design.

And they are trying to create brand new creatures but they have NO idea how to make a normal gene mutate a NEW feature, NEW information or NEW genetic complexity.

They have to design it, and and this point they are trying to copy and paste natural genes, because we aren't smart enough to make it up.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #193 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 12:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Anna Maria Island
Posts: 1,345
Thanks: 140
Thanked 570 Times in 402 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

If intelligent design is so intelligent, why did it take millions and millions of years? Oh, that's right. It only took five thousand years. My bad.
Reply With Quote
  #194 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 02:49 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,891
Thanks: 9,694
Thanked 5,936 Times in 4,015 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post
....
"Darwinism" was the cradle of the Theory of Evolution, ... When Darwin got this idea that species changed and new ones arose out of old ones, we did not have much of a fossil record. Now we have an almost complete array of transitional species in the paleontological records. We can trace the development of the eye from photo sensitive cells to the eyes we know today, in the development of species. We can trace the need for limbs and ears from their first hints to their fully developed variations in every species.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post
...
I have been following the fossil record since I first got interested in it. The amount of information has increased exponentially since then, and so many examples of evolution of species have been shown, that it is inevitable that only more and more will show up,.....
just fyi
Below is Quoted from article.
About famous paleontologist description of the fossil record.


[QUOTE]
One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson. This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].

...
Stephen J Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

...
During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.


‘One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’—the late Dr Colin Patterson, formerly senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History


‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:

‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6

Although these are only excerpts from Patterson’s very frank and startling lecture that evening (the full text is even more revealing), it is plain to see the doubts he was having. It also shows that creationist usage of such quotes by Patterson does not amount to ‘creationist foul play’.
"

That quote!?about the missing transitional fossils - creation.com

........
Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?November 1981 Presentation at the American Museum of Natural History
By Colin Patterson
excerpts
C010 Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?

"I shall take the text of my sermon from this book, Gillespie's Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation....He takes it for granted that a rationalist view of nature has replaced an irrational one, and of course, I myself took that view, up until about eighteen months ago. And then I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

"Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people, 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' And the absence of an answer seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it."

"Now I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here."

"So that's my first theme. That evolution and creationism seem to be showing remarkable parallels. They are increasingly hard to tell apart. And the second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics."
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #195 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 03:03 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Once again, can you prove mutations are random? Nope. Declaration doesn't make it true.
Whether or not they are random is irrelevant. You can say they aren't random, but then you'd need to prove that there's a pattern.

Quote:
For the Darwinist random mutation to be true, please explain how blonde hair in humans was passed along to subsequent generations. The first blonde just happened to mate with another product of random mutation with the same trait. Oh and the trait has been passed along safe from random mutation for thousands of years.
How is it passed on? It's in their DNA. WTF?
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel

Last edited by rivrrat; 06-04-2014 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #196 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 03:07 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
you've totally missed the point.
micro evolution (as some scientist have called it)
includes things like changes in Hair color, changes the sizes of features, some change in shapes.
look at all the different types of dogs. But they stay dogs, they never change into cats or birds. If THAT'S what you want to call "mutation" and "evolution" that's fine we are in agreement.
That IS mutation. That IS evolution.

Bacteria that mutate and are resistant to antibiotics is also evolution.
Insects resistant to pesticides is another.

Quote:
the problem is you're assuming that those types of changes are what happened to change a single celled animal into a multicelled, an arm into a wing, a photocell into an eye, a scale into a feather, all working and integrated into the NEW dna and passed on perfectly.
This makes no sense. A mutation is IN the DNA. If that organism breeds, it's in it's children's DNA. There's nothing to assume there, that's how it works.

Quote:
BUT we KNOW by experiment and breeding that there are fixed limits to the range of mutations built into the natural genes.
What are you talking about? What limit are you talking about? What is "fixed"?

Quote:
it's Science fiction to claim other wise, there are NO examples of experimental natural but forced mutations or breeding EVER, that pushs a living creature passed those limits.
What are these "limits" you are referring to?

Quote:
WHAT HAS been done is to take an already WORKING feature of DNA from one animal and intelligently Splice it into another animal to create an animal that has a NEW feature taken from another.
but that's NOT evolution. that's just more intelligent design.

And they are trying to create brand new creatures but they have NO idea how to make a normal gene mutate a NEW feature, NEW information or NEW genetic complexity.
You're right, that's not evolution. Never said it was. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
They have to design it, and and this point they are trying to copy and paste natural genes, because we aren't smart enough to make it up.
This bears no relevance to the discussion. You're talking about some genetic manipulation in a lab. That's not what we're talking about it.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #197 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 04:42 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,891
Thanks: 9,694
Thanked 5,936 Times in 4,015 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
That IS mutation. That IS evolution.
Bacteria that mutate and are resistant to antibiotics is also evolution.
Insects resistant to pesticides is another.
And the Bacteria remains Bacteria.
AND in every case the Bacteria's mutation are like Sickle Cell Anemia. it's a change that a loss of what's already in the genes ...already in the population... so that it's a generally WEAKER form of bacteria.
If the original bacteria are reintroduced into the resistant population the original bacteria would become dominate again. It's only in the presents of antibiotics that the "evolved" bacteria come to the front.
but again it's still BACTERIA. it's not Bacteria with arms or a brain with ANY NEW information.
it's got a BROKEN part. It's like a saying someone born without arms has evolved because in the police state environment the police can't hand cuff him.
he's IMMUNE to hand cuffs, and if his kids have no arms too they're also evolved with the police state immunity. But the thing is, they have LOSS function overall, they haven't gained anything.
Evolution says life went from a one celled creature to a muliticeled creature... to a self reproduction by division to reproduction by sex... from no limbs to limbs.... each steps means there is NEW information added. THATS the kind of to mutaations need for macro evolution to work.

there is NO example of that anywhere. period . only changes in whats already there.

If the DNA of a one celled creature is a book say "green eggs and ham". evolution says you could reaagnge the pages and get a mutant book. EVOLUTION! you could erase words and get a mutant version. EVOLUTION! your could cut the edges off the book to change its shape, EVOLUTION! your could put it in the water and get it wet. EVOLUTION! all of those thing would MUTATE the book yes. and if you made exact copies each of those mutated books new versions they could say LOOK EVOLUTION!
Ok fine if that's evolution I can see that. we agree

the problem is we hear evolutionist say you can go from 'Green Eggs and Ham" to "Gone With the Wind" "war and Peace" "the Lord of the Rings" "the "Baga va gida" "the writings of Confucius" and every other book in the world just by doing the above, rearranging the words, letters, pages, erasers and environment changes to "green eggs and ham" ....over a million years or so.... by accident.
"we see it happen everyday" they say.
uh no we don't.

the point is 1st you don't have the information in Green Eggs and Ham to EVER transform it into Gone With the Wind etc.. and it sure won't happen by a series accidents. you need more letters and much more specific and well planned arrangements just to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
This makes no sense. A mutation is IN the DNA. If that organism breeds, it's in it's children's DNA. There's nothing to assume there, that's how it works.
not all mutations are passed on from the parents to the children. And even when they are they are not necessarily dominant traits. or pass on to the following grandchild generation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
What are you talking about? What limit are you talking about? What is "fixed"?
What are these "limits" you are referring to?
When breeding flowers you cannot breed a flower to mutate outside of it genomic bonds. Roses can only be breed to certain colors/size shapes of roses no more. You can't natural breed a rose to have cotton ball pedals or palm leaf like petals. there's a limit to the mutations that are available in the living plant, to much mutation and it dies. mutation limited. Breeder have known this to 100s of years, evolutionary scientist basically ignore this and assume SOME unknown mechanism makes it happen anyway.
But Horses are always horses, there are small ones and large ones but no horses with scales or wings, it's outside of it genomic limits. the gene are all set to make horses. And whatever mutations they do have are within that limit. Generally they are corruptions of what's already there. Same with every other kind of creature.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 06-04-2014 at 04:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 06:12 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wonder View Post
And the Bacteria remains Bacteria.
AND in every case the Bacteria's mutation are like Sickle Cell Anemia. it's a change that a loss of what's already in the genes ...already in the population... so that it's a generally WEAKER form of bacteria.
If the original bacteria are reintroduced into the resistant population the original bacteria would become dominate again. It's only in the presents of antibiotics that the "evolved" bacteria come to the front.
but again it's still BACTERIA. it's not Bacteria with arms or a brain with ANY NEW information.
Yes, it does have new information. It's resistant to antibiotics. It may still be bacteria, but it also may eventually become a new species of bacteria. But it doesn't have to be a new species to be evolving.

Quote:
it's got a BROKEN part.
No, it's not broken.

Quote:
It's like a saying someone born without arms has evolved because in the police state environment the police can't hand cuff him.
he's IMMUNE to hand cuffs, and if his kids have no arms too they're also evolved with the police state immunity. But the thing is, they have LOSS function overall, they haven't gained anything.
WTF are you talking about? No, it's not like saying that at all. Not even remotely.

Quote:
Evolution says life went from a one celled creature to a muliticeled creature... to a self reproduction by division to reproduction by sex... from no limbs to limbs.... each steps means there is NEW information added. THATS the kind of to mutaations need for macro evolution to work.
Yes. mutations.

Quote:
there is NO example of that anywhere. period . only changes in whats already there.
That's how evolution occurs. And yes, there are examples of it all over the place.

Quote:
If the DNA of a one celled creature is a book say "green eggs and ham". evolution says you could reaagnge the pages and get a mutant book. EVOLUTION! you could erase words and get a mutant version. EVOLUTION! your could cut the edges off the book to change its shape, EVOLUTION! your could put it in the water and get it wet. EVOLUTION! all of those thing would MUTATE the book yes. and if you made exact copies each of those mutated books new versions they could say LOOK EVOLUTION!
Ok fine if that's evolution I can see that. we agree

the problem is we hear evolutionist say you can go from 'Green Eggs and Ham" to "Gone With the Wind" "war and Peace" "the Lord of the Rings" "the "Baga va gida" "the writings of Confucius" and every other book in the world just by doing the above, rearranging the words, letters, pages, erasers and environment changes to "green eggs and ham" ....over a million years or so.... by accident.
"we see it happen everyday" they say.
uh no we don't.
No, what you're talking about is just retarded. It bears absolutely ZERO relevance to a discussion about evolution because whatever crazy ass sh*t you're talking about has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Quote:
not all mutations are passed on from the parents to the children. And even when they are they are not necessarily dominant traits. or pass on to the following grandchild generation.
Yes, they are. The mutation is in the gene. The child may only be a carrier, but the mutation is there.

What I believe you're talking about are somatic mutations. Those mutations occur AFTER conception. Of course those wouldn't be passed on. They are acquired mutations. Those are different and bear no relevance to evolution.


Quote:
When breeding flowers you cannot breed a flower to mutate outside of it genomic bonds. Roses can only be breed to certain colors/size shapes of roses no more. You can't natural breed a rose to have cotton ball pedals or palm leaf like petals. there's a limit to the mutations that are available in the living plant, to much mutation and it dies. mutation limited. Breeder have known this to 100s of years, evolutionary scientist basically ignore this and assume SOME unknown mechanism makes it happen anyway.
But Horses are always horses, there are small ones and large ones but no horses with scales or wings, it's outside of it genomic limits. the gene are all set to make horses. And whatever mutations they do have are within that limit. Generally they are corruptions of what's already there. Same with every other kind of creature.
Evolution theory doesn't imply that horses are suddenly born with functioning wings. And if that's your understanding of evolution, then there's really nothing to discuss here because you HAVE no understanding of evolution.

Additionally, there is no "limit". All traits are not as simple as you portray them and are influenced by multiple loci.
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #199 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 07:23 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,498
Thanks: 9,529
Thanked 10,069 Times in 6,140 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
Whether or not they are random is irrelevant. You can say they aren't random, but then you'd need to prove that there's a pattern.



How is it passed on? It's in their DNA. WTF?
We see thousands of species adapted to their niches in nature, Darwinism claims that is due to random occurrences whereas intelligent design holds it is a process driven by conditions. There is no proving Darwinism's random mutation but an intelligent designer can be discovered using the scientific method. Yet, you value faith in the random above science.

If it is all random mutation, what prevents desirable mutations from being erased by yet another mutation? DNA mutation gets switched off when convenient to Darwinism. How is it that favorable traits get passed along? Are there two random mutations with the same trait that by chance reproduce? That would require literally millions of miracles but that is what Darwinism requires.
Reply With Quote
  #200 (permalink)  
Old 06-04-2014, 07:30 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Virginia
Gender: Female
Posts: 15,833
Thanks: 3,272
Thanked 10,473 Times in 6,022 Posts
Default Re: Do You Believe In Evolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
We see thousands of species adapted to their niches in nature, Darwinism claims that is due to random occurrences whereas intelligent design holds it is a process driven by conditions. There is no proving Darwinism's random mutation but an intelligent designer can be discovered using the scientific method. Yet, you value faith in the random above science.
no, evolution doesn't claim that it's due to randomness. Far from it. Again, your lack of understanding of evolution is profound.

Quote:
If it is all random mutation, what prevents desirable mutations from being erased by yet another mutation?
Mutations don't get "erased". But if you're asking if negative mutation can occur.... of course it can.

Quote:
DNA mutation gets switched off when convenient to Darwinism.
No, it doesn't.

Quote:
How is it that favorable traits get passed along?
The organism reproduces.

Quote:
Are there two random mutations with the same trait that by chance reproduce? That would require literally millions of miracles but that is what Darwinism requires.
What are you talking about?
__________________


Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
My YouTube Channel
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
believe, evolution, you

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0