EPTHydras, the origin of eyes! - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing... Disgusting. For god's sake, take some basic college level biology and maybe gain enough knowledge to distinguish pure bullshit from "impressive arguments". The arguments were "convincing" because you don't know shit about the subject. If you'd like to cite a specific example of an argument that impressed you, i'd be happy to rip it apart for you. But I won't bother otherwise. There's far too much bullshit to shovel through. Here's an except from the writing you linked, this is their answer to "What is Evolution?" The question of evolution, per se, comes in many shapes and definitions. In its most basic form, it is the brainchild of Charles Darwin. In his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin postulated that all living creatures and, by extension, matter itself had come from previous, simpler substances. The example you may have most often heard is that humans came from apes. It basically purports that life came about by accident—chance—and that there is no evidence of intelligent design. This is completely incorrect. The author doesn't even know what evolution actually is. How could they hope to provide "impressive arguments" to disprove it when they don't even know what it is to begin with? Disgusting. Here is the correct answer: 1. What is evolution? Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution. This has been observed and repeated many times and is the basis for much of modern medicine and almost all of genetic research. Evolution is a fact. It's like debating neutons laws of physics or chemistry. We know it works like this because we have observed it. Many many times. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On November 09 2007 10:01 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Try reading their paper then. Of course you won't see any proof for their claims if you don't even look. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001054 This is for those who actually want to read it. Although I must warn you if you arent very framiliar with biology/organic chemistry it's a very tough read  Oh and TesisMech,I'd hate to be condescending (ok not that much ) but seeing as you flat out deny the existance of evolution I'm pretty sure it will be way over your head. However, maybe you could take a look at the enormous complexity of the work they are doing and realize that its far more than simply "specuation". Perhaps you are unaware of the scentific method? Its actually the exact opposite of speculation. If you insist on being ignorant, at least keep quiet about it. I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations. | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing... I skimmed through some of it. With those kind of arguments you could probably disprove Calculus  I don't see how you can question evolution if you look at the facts with an open mind. If you really want God to be true you could probably bring yourself to believe some of these kind of arguments though. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 12:56 TesisMech wrote: I dont think its the "exact opposite" scientific method is based on speculations. No its based on observable data that's tested and re tested. Speculation is only used to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and retested. If it fails then the theory is revised or abandoned. Perhaps you need to retake your elementary school science courses. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
;o | ||
|
man
United States272 Posts
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing... I love how you go to a religious website to learn about evolution. | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:07 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: No its based on observable data that's tested and re tested. Speculation is only used to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested and retested. If it fails then the theory is revised or abandoned. Perhaps you need to retake your elementary school science courses. Then how can you apply succesfully the scientific method on hydra evolution without the experiment step? | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:07 TesisMech wrote: http://www.the-aps.org/education/k12curric/activities/pdfs/martin.PDF ;o We did something like that back in school a long time ago! Watching hydras in microscopes and stuff. Was cute. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:10 TesisMech wrote: Then how can you apply succesfully the scientific method on hydra evolution without the experiment step? The paper the scientists published details all the experimentation done. I even gave you the link and told you to read it, or at least skim it to realize how clueless you are(call it a hunch). It says exactly what they did, the results they found and also provided references to simular experiments. All of which reached the same conclusion. Just because you're too stupid to know what they're talking about doesn't mean they based it on "speculation". | ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On November 09 2007 12:36 unknown.sam wrote: ive read some stuff on evolution...came across this http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html back a few months ago...it was a very lengthy read, but well worth it...it basically discusses (through science and logic) why evolution is not true...some impressive arguments by my standards (duno if it will be the same for those of you who read it). i must say though, the arguments there were very convincing... educate yourself please, the link you just posted is more rehashed creationist crap that has been shot down by scientist a million times. Go read the origin of species and come back for a meaningful discussion. Here go read this, It seems you have very little understanding of what evolution is. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html <-- PBS is reliable no? Hell, even the pope believes in evolution! | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
Couldn't find the documentary, but here's an article on the topic http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n19_v151/ai_19432100 | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:32 jtan wrote: By the way, on a scientific documentary I saw like a year ago they said eyes evolved independantly over 30 times through history. Couldn't find the documentary, but here's an article on the topic http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n19_v151/ai_19432100 Awesome thanks. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 09 2007 09:15 Rev0lution wrote: who says evolution makes you not believe in god? I have tons of christian friends who believe in evolution. If everything about life is in principle explained by evolution by random mutations, like the great majority of biologists claim, then religion can't be true, period. But it is obvious that evolution will never be able to explain consciousness, so these arrogant Darwinists are fooling themselves. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
that's it | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On November 09 2007 13:45 intrigue wrote: this is my first time reading a religion thread (i was lured because i didn't expect it to turn into one) and i'd like to remark on how embarrassingly stupid some people are that's it Like who!? Name names! And honestly you really shoulved expected it to turn into one Creationists have been using the eye as a counter to evolution forever now (of course they stole it right out of Darwins book...but hey, they aren't exactly smart ) | ||
|
jtan
Sweden5891 Posts
edit:Hmmm I think Dennet's title on origninal language is "Consciousness explained" | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
Waves
Australia185 Posts
| ||
| ||
