Evolution Test!

[Azy]

There is no cut and paste at all,it is from your ignorance thinking.....
So you are here saying that you are a smart boy,but everyone is stupid!
Remember this: Do not never guess,it is better for you...be sure than say!

Unless your name is Wiliam Dembski I'm guessing this is a cut and paste job. It's quite a well known article too.

But most of these progressions result from arbitrary picking and choosing among the totality of fossils.

Every fossil found fits in with the timeline as you would expect. You don't find human and dinosaurs together, you don't find mammals before reptiles, etc.
Show me something that indicates what you're suggesting is true, using real examples.

For instance, there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that insects and vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor.

Look at the Cambrian fossils. Do you see any horses or insects? These fossils are from a time before there were even any land animals. This suggests that life gets less diverse the further back in time you go.

The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion...

Section cut and pasted from here.
In the pre-Cambrian era the organisms would have been soft bodied simple creatures which do not fossilise very well, but there are examples of simple plants and bacteria from this time. Some here (at the bottom).

In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection.

It's a perfectly rational process if you actually understand it and noone is attributing intelligence to anything. It is the creationist position that attributes intelligence to the formation of life.

There are no choices, the best organisms live, the others die. The next generation then have the benefit of the best organisms from the previous generation, and so on.

WHY?:?Explain...

Being unbiased and impartial is key to actually discovering the truth. If you go into something looking for god you're automatically excluding other options. People stop looking when they have satisfied their own agenda.

Take, for instance, the bacterial flagellum, which is now referred to as the “Icon of Intelligent Design” by some evolutionists because it has been so effectively used to criticize evolution. The bacterial flagellum is a marvel of nanoengineering.
Despite thousands of research articles that have been written about the structure and function of the flagellum, biologists don’t have a clue how it could have evolved.
You have only one straw at which you continually grasp when trying to explain how the flagellum might have evolved, namely, that the flagellum contains within it a structure similar to a microsyringe found in some bacteria.
Having found this sub-structure, evolutionists merrily conclude that the microsyringe must have evolved into the flagellum.

Link - read the section entitle "The Type -III Secretory Apparatus", it's the bit that Dembski is talking about.

The creationist argument is that the flagellum is 'irreducibly complex', that it's parts could not have developed separately and that if it were not whole it would not function. As shown in the link above, there exists in other bacteria the same structure but without the tail component, and it performs a function. If half of the flagellum can occur in other bacteria, and it can continue to work with several parts missing, how can it be irreducibly complex?

 

[Trumble]

There is no cut and paste at all,it is from your ignorance thinking.....
So you are here saying that you are a smart boy,but everyone is stupid!
Remember this: Do not never guess,it is better for you...be sure than say!

Don't be a fool. He, and I, can use Google (and come up with Dembski's article) just as well as you can. You have yet to post anything that is your own presentation of others' (credited) work, let alone anything original.

Plagiarism aside, the trouble with parroting without any real understanding is that, because of where you choose to parrot from, you only ever see one side of the argument - the other is simply never presented. I could explain why the Cambrian explosion does not 'fly in the face of evolution'. And how it simply isn't true that those pesky evolutionists "don't have a clue" how certain complex systems might have evolved.. indeed it was precisely because they did ask those questions that Behe's "theory" on irreducable complexity (including that 'iconic' flagellum) was shot down - although Yayha and Co. never mention that, of course. That doesn't mean evolutionists can provide easy answers to all the questions; in many cases they can't. Yet. But neither are they floating in the despair and ignorance the creationist propagandists (I do have a chuckle when a compulsive Yahya quoter uses that word in relation to anyone else ) would have you believe. Where the answer is not known they are looking for it and, sooner or later, they come up with it.

"Theory" is in inverted commas above, by the way, because Behe had to redefine the word to include ID as one. He later famously admitted that same re-definition would happily admit astrology as well. Which brings me back to the point you never answer.. can you produce any scientific evidence, any at all, that supports creationism? You asked " What evidence would convince you that evolution is false?" The simple answer is an alternative scientific theory that better fits the empirical evidence. There are no such theories.

Do yourself a favour.. read around the subject from both sides with an open mind. If you still think the same after that, fine.. but at least you will have stopped insulting your own intelligence.

 

[barney]

Trumble is giving some wise advice there.

I am an expert in Aztec history and can quote ream upon ream of facinating facts about them. I wasnt an expert a few seconds ago. But I have Wikipedia and Google. With such mity toolz i can shoot down anyones knowlage based on years of study leaving myself feeling very very smug and all those so-called- professors of Aztec History, looking very foolish.
Hooray me!

 

[johan]

This experiment addresses the claim that simple chemicals in an early earth scenario could not form something like a cell membrane without help.

Yes the chemicals are popped into a container by someone because it would be terribly inconvenient to evacuate the earth and destroy all life, then wait millions of years for organic compounds to form, just to make it more authentic.

I understand your point that this special interference is to accelerate the process so that we could see the effect. BUT, haven't you noticed?
The fact that it emerges out of nothingness is something astonishing, something that has to be created where by the process of it's creation in normal condition is millions of years; with the human catalyst around, it can be accelerated into a few moments.

What is important, is that once the chemicals are in there, they don't just sit around doing nothing. Their basic physical properties cause them to form groups around droplets in an ordered fashion.

Exactly, when an agent is from nothingness (void / "mere randomnes" / gibrish / etc.) and then out of nowhere turns to have a basic property (something that is defined / constant / consistent ) this then proves that it's been "created" by some mysterious creator, whom Muslims address it as Allah SWT.

It isn't a matter of chance.

You bet!!
This time you're spot on mate.
It's definitely planned.

I'm not sure what you mean...
Find me examples of these special conditions and we can discuss them.

ok, let me see if i can find you an example..ah here it is:

In the url it says:
...
When we see a cell membrane in a biology textbook it looks like each of the molecules had to be one by one purposely placed there then somehow bonded into place. But that is not the case.
...

Ok, wouldn't you consider this statement as a special condition? :
had to be one by one purposely placed there


If you don't consider that as a good example cuz there's human intervention then take this one:
The fact that humans have two gender, men and women, but algae are single gendered (asexual).
Wouldn't you consider that as a special case? why would nature come about to creating that kind of specialization?
Is it really "pure randomness"?
Isn't it a too complex task for something to happen just out of randomness?

If it happened not out of randomness but with the help of those basic properties, then who defined those basic properties?
Can it just go abrakadabra, puff, and it's there without anyone creating it out of nothingness (void / "mere randomnes" / gibrish / etc.) ?

I still believe that there's this notion of creation in everything.

regards,
Johan

 

[johan]

I sense that we have a dualistic understanding of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists recognize that species are dynamic and change over time through the basic processes of evolution, but they reject as implausible strict naturalistic evolution as the means by which all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor all without the intervention of a Creator.
...

Can anyone refer me to a fatwa on this matter?

I feel that as long as there is no aya or hadeeth that contradicts this notion of theistic evolution then we might as well consider it to be safe/beneficial to do research on.


Regards,
Abu 'Ammar

 

[Azy]

I understand your point that this special interference is to accelerate the process so that we could see the effect. BUT, haven't you noticed?
The fact that it emerges out of nothingness is something astonishing, something that has to be created where by the process of it's creation in normal condition is millions of years; with the human catalyst around, it can be accelerated into a few moments.

Yeah it's quicker if someone puts them there than if they self assembled, what's your point? I never said life didn't take millions of years to come about did i?

Exactly, when an agent is from nothingness (void / "mere randomnes" / gibrish / etc.) and then out of nowhere turns to have a basic property (something that is defined / constant / consistent ) this then proves that it's been "created" by some mysterious creator, whom Muslims address it as Allah SWT.

Could you tell me exactly why that proves it is created, because I'm not sure I see the logic. In a particle accelerator, when two particles collide and out of nowhere appear subatomic particles with different properties, what is that evidence of?

This time you're spot on mate.
It's definitely planned.

When I say, not by chance I mean that it isn't random. Like when you drop a ball, it won't move randomly and hit just anything, it will be pulled towards the earth and hit the ground. The properties of the objects cause them to act a certain way, they are not guided by an invisible hand, and it is not chance or random.

When we see a cell membrane in a biology textbook it looks like each of the molecules had to be one by one purposely placed there then somehow bonded into place. But that is not the case.
...
Ok, wouldn't you consider this statement as a special condition? :
had to be one by one purposely placed there

You seem to have ignored the bit that says "looks like each of the molecules had to be one by one purposely placed there then somehow bonded into place. But that is not the case."

If you don't consider that as a good example cuz there's human intervention then take this one:
The fact that humans have two gender, men and women, but algae are single gendered (asexual).
Wouldn't you consider that as a special case? why would nature come about to creating that kind of specialization?
Is it really "pure randomness"?
Isn't it a too complex task for something to happen just out of randomness?

Anyone who knows anything about evolution realises that early on, all life would have been asexual. Just because some groups became sexual, and some stayed asexual simply because it better suited the conditions they lived in.
This only strengthens the argument for evolution, and weakens creationism.
e.g.
(Koran 51:49) And of every thing WE have created pairs, that ye may receive instruction.

If it happened not out of randomness but with the help of those basic properties, then who defined those basic properties?
Can it just go abrakadabra, puff, and it's there without anyone creating it out of nothingness (void / "mere randomnes" / gibrish / etc.) ?

See the bit about particle accelerators. Things just puff in and out of existence all the time in the subatomic world. You only ask 'who' because you believe that someone had a hand in it, not because there's any evidence to suggest that they did.

 

[Azy]

oops, forgot to remove your bit at the bottom, sorry folks
(changed it, have edit power now, w00t)

 

[Dr.Trax]

Don't be a fool. He, and I, can use Google (and come up with Dembski's article) just as well as you can. You have yet to post anything that is your own presentation of others' (credited) work, let alone anything original.

Plagiarism aside, the trouble with parroting without any real understanding is that, because of where you choose to parrot from, you only ever see one side of the argument - the other is simply never presented. I could explain why the Cambrian explosion does not 'fly in the face of evolution'. And how it simply isn't true that those pesky evolutionists "don't have a clue" how certain complex systems might have evolved.. indeed it was precisely because they did ask those questions that Behe's "theory" on irreducable complexity (including that 'iconic' flagellum) was shot down - although Yayha and Co. never mention that, of course. That doesn't mean evolutionists can provide easy answers to all the questions; in many cases they can't. Yet. But neither are they floating in the despair and ignorance the creationist propagandists (I do have a chuckle when a compulsive Yahya quoter uses that word in relation to anyone else ) would have you believe. Where the answer is not known they are looking for it and, sooner or later, they come up with it.

"Theory" is in inverted commas above, by the way, because Behe had to redefine the word to include ID as one. He later famously admitted that same re-definition would happily admit astrology as well. Which brings me back to the point you never answer.. can you produce any scientific evidence, any at all, that supports creationism? You asked " What evidence would convince you that evolution is false?" The simple answer is an alternative scientific theory that better fits the empirical evidence. There are no such theories.



Do yourself a favour.. read around the subject from both sides with an open mind. If you still think the same after that, fine.. but at least you will have stopped insulting your own intelligence.

First, Thanks for your advice!Sorry,I am a little bit late wit my reply,I had some other works to finish!
Second,I wanted to test Azy if he is investigating somewhere my questions and answers.Because every post that he makes contains this: COPY and PASTE!!!Every time he is attacking me with those stupid words...
So he was so boring with his words, that I became so nervous and I wrote to him that: there is no copy and paste!
Third,I AM OPEN MINDED PERSON,but for example:When someone Lies you 10 times,Would you believe in him again??? What do you say?
For ME:NOOOOO,NO,NO!
That is the same with this EVOLUTION PROPAGANDA!
And the most important thing is that I believe 100% just in the Word of GOD(The QURAN)!The Quran does not support Evolution!
One of the things for creationist scientific evidence is the unchanged fossils!(Not a fabricated fossil)!

And you said very good in one of my threads:
[PIE]evolution will remain the accepted scientific theory until somebody comes up with a better one. At present there are not even any candidates.[/PIE]
That means it is not sure 100%,you still are in doubt!
There is a better one,but you do not want to accept it!
Try you also to be an OPEN Minded,and do not accept A big propaganda,that only makes sense to you!Think and Search

Thank you again!
Peace be with you...

 

[Azy]

Second,I wanted to test Azy if he is investigating somewhere my questions and answers.

Well technically they aren't your questions or your answers, I haven't seen you make one decent argument yet using your own words.

Because every post that he makes contains this: COPY and PASTE!!!Every time he is attacking me with those stupid words...

So far I have only added links to material and quoted what you have pasted, the rest are my own words, if you think otherwise please quote the offending paragraph and the source.

So he was so boring with his words, that I became so nervous and I wrote to him that: there is no copy and paste!

Basically you lied to try and fool us like you have done from the start.

Third,I AM OPEN MINDED PERSON,but for example:When someone Lies you 10 times,Would you believe in him again??? What do you say?

1) You're possibly the least open minded person i've come across on this board or anywhere else.
2) Show me where I have lied instead of just making accusations.

That is the same with this EVOLUTION PROPAGANDA!
And the most important thing is that I believe 100% just in the Word of GOD(The QURAN)!The Quran does not support Evolution!

a couple of sentences ago you said you were open minded.

One of the things for creationist scientific evidence is the unchanged fossils!(Not a fabricated fossil)!

Get on a plain to China or USA and watch as people dig skeletons of dinosaurs out of the solid rock.

evolution will remain the accepted scientific theory until somebody comes up with a better one. At present there are not even any candidates.
That means it is not sure 100%,you still are in doubt!
There is a better one,but you do not want to accept it!

Nobody ever said it was 100% except you. Science is never 100% because tomorrow you could find something that you didn't know. So far no evidence (and a surah doesn't count as evidence by the way) has shown evolution to be false, if it had, science would abandon it and find a better solution.
There are no other candidates, because creationism contradicts what people are finding out in the real world. You know, actually testing things and looking for the answers rather than just believing everything you're told.

 

[Dr.Trax]

Well technically they aren't your questions or your answers, I haven't seen you make one decent argument yet using your own words.

Now I can see that you are the one who is out of school!
You totally don't get it...what I am trying to say.
I won't again explain to you!
Of course they aren't my!Men Wake UP!

So far I have only added links to material and quoted what you have pasted, the rest are my own words, if you think otherwise please quote the offending paragraph and the source.

So again here,you don't get it.
[pie]Well, cut and pasted some anyway, but still, I like it.[/pie]
This is the point!You always say I cut and paste!

Basically you lied to try and fool us like you have done from the start.

I wanted to test you and you proved to be fool!
Most of the members here knows that I only cut and paste!
I rarely use my own words,especially when I ask.
Because it is the same for me when I search and find something and try to post it here,whether I mix my words on it or not!
Better to put it originally,that to try to be a smart boy, like you are doing!Don't tell me that you are a Scientist and they are your own thoughts!

1) You're possibly the least open minded person i've come across on this board or anywhere else.
2) Show me where I have lied instead of just making accusations

.
Now you are totally ignorant here!
I never said that you've lied,
I refer to the Scientists(evolutionists),not you!
Hmmmmmm....what can I say now!?

a couple of sentences ago you said you were open minded.

I think,you are the one who is not Open minded!

Nobody ever said it was 100% except you. Science is never 100% because tomorrow you could find something that you didn't know. So far no evidence (and a surah doesn't count as evidence by the way) has shown evolution to be false, if it had, science would abandon it and find a better solution.
There are no other candidates, because creationism contradicts what people are finding out in the real world. You know, actually testing things and looking for the answers rather than just believing everything you're told.

I think every evolutionist says that!
Don't try me to bring you their statements!
There is evidence but you avoid them....sorry ....
There are candidates,but you evolutionists have the power now!
Everyone who tries to bring new claims ,you destroy it,and try to prove your claims to be true!
For example:
Today the Media claims that every terorist is a Muslim,every attack is done by muslims!
But for real it is not true!The reason is that The media or the West has the power to do whatever they want.

AND Please let this be the last post you have posted!
I am just wasting my time with you!
Remember:
It is my last post that refers to you!I will never disscus with you anymore!
Thanks!

 

[barney]

I need that 2 minuites of my life back after reading that.

This could turn out to be the longest "refute someones material with ever increasing hyperbole" thread in existance.

You should have just typed: "No Im Right" and left it at that.

 

[MustafaMc]

Anyone who knows anything about evolution realises that early on, all life would have been asexual. Just because some groups became sexual, and some stayed asexual simply because it better suited the conditions they lived in.This only strengthens the argument for evolution, and weakens creationism.
e.g.
(Koran 51:49) And of every thing WE have created pairs, that ye may receive instruction.

The "evolution" of sexual reproduction is completely illogical because male and female genitalia would have to evolve simultaneously, but they could neither perpetuate nor confer any selective advantage until they were completely "evolved". The creation of a man and a woman (as well as the male and female of all species) as complete beings is the only logical conclusion.
(Quran 51:49) And of every thing WE have created pairs, that ye may receive instruction.

 

[Azy]

The "evolution" of sexual reproduction is completely illogical because male and female genitalia would have to evolve simultaneously, but they could neither perpetuate nor confer any selective advantage until they were completely "evolved". The creation of a man and a woman (as well as the male and female of all species) as complete beings is the only logical conclusion.

See this is the problem. You haven't even looked at the evidence and you've dismissed it as illogical, what sort of starting point is that?

Dr Trax, please, do me a favour and read this.
It's an introduction to the scientific method and if you read it carefully, you'll see that there can't actually be a global conspiracy against you. Science isn't just an anti-islamic tool dreamed up by the west, most western nations are christian but science proves that christian beliefs are also false.
I'm not sure what paper you read but I've never seen the media claim all muslims are terrorists, and if they did it doesn't matter because you know they're wrong. They can say what they like but it doesn't make it true, just as you can say what you like and it doesn't make that true either.

Just please promise me that you weren't joking when you said you'd never discuss things with me again.

 

[MustafaMc]

See this is the problem. You haven't even looked at the evidence and you've dismissed it as illogical, what sort of starting point is that?

OK then the monkey's on your back. Explain to me how sexual reproduction "evolved" all the way from a unicellular asexual organism to human reproduction. Bring forth your evidence so we can discuss it.

Past experience tells me that you will post some link and just say, "Go read it for yourself."

 

[Keltoi]

The question of sexual evolution is pretty interesting. From I understand of evolution, this change in DNA makeup would begin with one specimen, not the whole of the species. This specimen would have to reproduce in order to share these new traits. Personally, I don't find there to be enough evidence to suggest human reproduction has evolved in any significant way from the beginning of the species. Has it ever been documented that a species reproduced in one way and then that method of reproduction changed? I know it has been theorized...but without documentation it is simply conjecture.

 

[barney]

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/reproduction_defs.htm

Some interesting stuff here on it.
The thing is ofc, that even if us armchair scientists and theologians manage to definatly prove such phenomena, we can move on to arguing weather God intended it to be this way or not.

 

[ranma1/2]

The question of sexual evolution is pretty interesting. From I understand of evolution, this change in DNA makeup would begin with one specimen, not the whole of the species. This specimen would have to reproduce in order to share these new traits. Personally, I don't find there to be enough evidence to suggest human reproduction has evolved in any significant way from the beginning of the species. Has it ever been documented that a species reproduced in one way and then that method of reproduction changed? I know it has been theorized...but without documentation it is simply conjecture.

its a little more complicated than one day a guy was born and had no girls to party with.

Its more along the lines of asexual and then sexual too. (able to reproduce with self and others.) Then sexual specialization.

 

[Azy]

Past experience tells me that you will post some link and just say, "Go read it for yourself."

Would you prefer I spent a week compiling documents and then post a 100,000 line message for you to read through? There is a lot of material out there, it's better that I point you at it rather than bring it here wholesale, and doing that allows you to see where I'm getting the material and any references therein.

Also, some people just explain it better than I do and it makes sense to keep it in context. I appreciate it takes time out of your busy day to follow these links, but you will always have to invest time and energy if you wish to genuinely learn anything. I probably spend a couple of hours on any given day reading interpretations of different religious texts, because it gives me a better initial standpoint for any opinions I draw. You wouldn't want me quoting the Qur'an inaccurately or out of context, so I do my best to avoid doing that.

OK then the monkey's on your back. Explain to me how sexual reproduction "evolved" all the way from a unicellular asexual organism to human reproduction. Bring forth your evidence so we can discuss it.

I'm sure you're fully aware neither of us can go back in time and prove how our version of life came about.

What matters is that from examining the fossil record going back to the pre-Cambrian era, we can see that it did happen, regardless of the mechanism by which that was achieved.
In the early part of earth's history, fossils show that all life consisted of was simple single celled organisms like bacteria. As life progressed through the pre-cambrian and into the cambrian, more complex multicellular organisms developed and at some point sexual reproduction came about.

See Talk Origins for more info.

 

[MustafaMc]

In the early part of earth's history, fossils show that all life consisted of was simple single celled organisms like bacteria. As life progressed through the pre-cambrian and into the cambrian, more complex multicellular organisms developed and at some point sexual reproduction came about.

What I want to know is the mechanism through which sexual reproduction "evolved" from asexual. I would rather start with a summary overview than to delve through voluminous books and websites. For example, in a short paragraph I can present a pretty good overview of either Islam or Christianity. Why can't naturalistic evolutionists do the same?:?

 

[Gator]

Since you seem interested, here's a brief description of the current ideas being thrown around. It does of course come from the living compendium of knowledge known as wikipedia so I won't vouch for its accuracy or its comprehensiveness.

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

Origin of sexual reproduction


The most primitive organisms known to undergo meiosis and to reproduce sexually are protists (primitive unicellular eukaryotes) such as those that cause malaria.

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.[23]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.[23]

A theory states that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids. [25]

A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearized genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26]