A calm debate

[Acriku]

I say no. You know why? Because when a SINGLE mutation occurs, and is kept in a population over time, that is the creature evolving. Why can't you understand that? This is what has been empirically observed, tested, repeated. This is evolution. Cross-species evolution is not all that evolution is about. It leads up to it, but it isn't the essense of evolution. I hope to God you understand it by now.

[emprworm]

Acriku, my son. lol. who taught you science?

You come in here saying "Micro evolution PROVES macro-evolution"

Ummmm....errrm...

*clears throat*

Do you realize exactly how many gigantic leaps you just made in order to make that statement? You are far from being a scientist my friend.

Let me give you a parallel example:

Quantum Physics.

It has been long known by science that the quantum universe is on a micro-level. Quantum laws that apply to particles do not apply to the universe on a macro level. Scientists cannot as of yet find the "glue" that binds the quantum universe to the macro-universe. Some scientists theorize that all quantum laws on a micro level apply on a macro scale- we just haven't seen them yet. However, a large amount of physicists like Stephen Hawking do not make the horribly irrational leap to say "Micro, Therefore Macro!" because they might not apply at all!!

That is awful, Acriku.

You will need to do vastly better than that if you are going to keep me in this debate.

You think you can just show me a couple cells changing their DNA and then expect me to think that PROVES empirically that one cell ==> Grizzly Bear?

Show me evidence of MACRO-evolution. Micro evolution falls immensely short.

"If Micro, then Macro" is really bad science dude. You need evidence, let alone even proving such a statement must be true.

Heck, forget the evidence, just prove to me how the statement "If Micro, then Macro" is a logical statement that must be true?

Is that really all you got? Don't you have anything else?

[Acriku]

Come on man, again you are shoveling shit, wrapping it in a nice package, and shoving it into my mouth. ;) I did not say microevolution proves macroevolution, the two are one and the same. But, before I say that (doh), microevolution is evolution and macroevolution is evolution. They are both examples of evolution, just different scales. I don't know how it's hard to understand that one leads to the other, and that you can believe one and not the other boggles the mind.

[emprworm]

I'm not shoveling anything.

You are saying that all you need to do to prove macro-evolution is demonstrate micro-evolution.

lol, thats not good science my man. Find me one single quantum physicist that would utter such a scientific blunder. You cannot assume macro just because you see micro.

If all you have to believe in Macro-evolution is a few cells changing around, then my goodness, do we have a believer or what? This is why evolution is religion. You hear all these hardcore evolutionists spout about how they have empirical facts, yada yada, but when pressed to demonstrate the evidence, all they got is a couple cells banging around into each other. And then they expect you to make the chasmic leap to just toss your hands in the air and say "Well duh! That proves it! Macro evolution must be true!"

lol

hardly.

Until you show me one species evolving into another, all you have is some examples of adaptation.

and...

Faith!

*takes a deep breath*

Ahhh! ID is such a refreshing theory! Finally some answers :)

[Acriku]

*sigh*

This is why evolution is religion. You hear all these hardcore evolutionists spout about how they have empirical facts, yada yada, but when pressed to demonstrate the evidence, all they got is a couple cells banging around into each other. And then they expect you to make the chasmic leap to just toss your hands in the air and say "Well duh! That proves it! Macro evolution must be true!"

Funny you should say that, when I did give you a link that showed proof for macroevolution but you have ignored it so far - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

[emprworm]

lol, acriku. Usually I read a link here and there from an opponent while debating, but you fired a shotgun.

ALl I asked was to demonstrate one species evolving into another. Simple. Just name the species prior to the event, and then tell me what it became. Yet here you are posting a link to a 15,174 word document with 100,049 characters. LOL! Cmon man, there's a 2 sentence proof, and then there is overkill.

Here is what I deduce from that 100,049 letter document: Since they indeed have no proof (which would simply be cite a species that has evolved from a different species which has been observed)...because this proof doesn't exist, they type out 100,049 characters of "explanation" on why they don't need the proof that true science demands.

So, how about you, Acriku, do me the honors: sift through those one hundred thousand characters and just quote me the part that proves that one species evolved into another (as in observed...not speculated)

[Gobalopper]

I like how they just show a bunch of skulls and claim that as confirmation of evolution. :)

[emprworm]

ya and the funny thing is that usually 10 years later we learn that those skulls were either apes, orangutan's, (Lucy), a donkey's head (orce man), or humans with bone diseases like rickets (neanderthal man)

lol.

all of those "men" were once heralded as missing links only to later be debunked. its amazing how rapidly the evolutionary community rushes to embrace everytime a new "man" is found. Then its only a matter of time before its debunked.

Is there actually any "men" still standing that haven't been debunked yet?

[nemafakei]

"Does the theory of evolution require one species to evolve into another?"

No, but the use of it as an explanation of life is...

NB also "You cannot assume macro just because you see micro." You can assume it if the difference between the two is only taxonomic.

PLEASE reply to the below questions.

So let's narrow your problem down: heres a few starters...

Do you agree that random mutations occur in reproduction?

Do you agree that there is therefore variation within any species?

Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

Do you agree that intelligence is genetically based?

[sneezer3]

So let's narrow your problem down: heres a few starters...

Do you agree that random mutations occur in reproduction?

Do you agree that there is therefore variation within any species?

Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

Do you agree that intelligence is genetically based?

Ok, i know this was for emprworm, but i'm going to give you IMO.

-Do you agree that random mutations occur in reproduction?

yes. but only slightly

-Do you agree that there is therefore variation within any species?

Yes. but the more diversion the more likely it is God made it. i think you'd agree with me there.

-Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?

I don't understand the question.

-Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

Yes. but that is the only one that has been observed, changes within kinds. The bigest arguement is how that puddle of goo got there. but both preety much have been won before,

-Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

No. not really. just change there kind. like animals. Dog turning into a hound dog and being able to smell will strong. just a diffrace. stuff like this is all that has been observed.

-Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

No. well some. the weeker don't live. and it goes on and on and on. and in the end you only got the strong ones. Example. Wild birds. they are highly aggresive. why? cause past hunters have been shooting at them. and they learned to run when they see someone comeing.

-Do you agree that intelligence is genetically based?

Some. but intelligence isn't fully that way. its in your gens not to do things. sisters/brothers after years of never seeing each other have found they enjoy the same thing. this is because it was in there gens. however. Knowlege is learned. not inharted

I think there are some questions that can't be explaned in evolution. and even though its argued about how it happend. it would have had to came out of pure nothing. and other things that will not be explaned in the furture. and do not make any since. also Evolution don't make much since to me.

[emprworm]

Do you agree that random mutations occur in reproduction?

yes. they are abnormalities and do not result in benefits to the organism. Conjoined twins, for example. And nearly all of them are restricted specifically to that organism and not passed down to its offspring. i.e. conjoined twins can have children that do not inherit the abnormality.

Do you agree that there is therefore variation within any species?

there is no "therefore" about it. I am not making the same conclusion as you did from question #1. But yes, species have variations, not due to #1, however. When a species adapts to a warm climate, there is nothing random about it. The species is specifically adapting according to a defined parameter. This is not chaos. And it is observable. Again, it is not purely random. there is definitive determinism occuring.

Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?

I have never seen this happen. If you are referring to mutants (such as a pig with 2 heads), then yes. However, this pig with 2 heads is not a species, and it died because it was abnormal. I do not know of any observed case of the mutations removing the original creatures (and if you think you're gonna use the ole' black moths in England, think again. But I'm sure you have many many examples of this...right?)

Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

no, it has not been proven to be true. All species stay within their species. they do not migrate out. have you seen this happen?

Please....

#1. cite the proof that it happened, or

#2. Admit your faith in the system

Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

huh? Are there any examples of this? I've seen a lot of "mutts" before. Those are basically dogs of differeing species getting together for a little.... ;)

Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

Well there are 1 billion people in India that believe in Brahman. There are many tenents of faith in this world. I repsect all people's right to believe in any faith-based statement they wish.

But in this particular case, I do not believe in the faith-based tenent "the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species" on grounds that it is pure speculation with no supporting proof.

Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

I dont even agree that it happens at all. What proof, did you have?

x=INT(15 * RND(1)) + 1 --> will pick a random number between 1 and 15.

It will never equal 17. You can re-run this code for all eternity. All random events within a species are contained within parameters. There is no evidence that such random events will ever leap out of those parameters. You'd think with 30,000+ seperate species on earth, and more than 100 years of observation we would have at least seen something by now! But we havent...or have you seen anything? Please let me know.

Do you agree that intelligence is genetically based

Yes and no.

[TMA_1]

One time my dad debated an evolutionist on "Town Meeting", a local show on KOMO 4 news during the late 80s and early 90s. The scientist brought out some skulls and displayed to the audiance how the bone structure is similar to that of a human skull. My dad then asked him, "How much of that skull is plaster paris?" the guy answered, "... well about 89 % of it, but." then the whole croud kinda murmered and stuff. It was great.lol

[nemafakei]

"Yes. but the more diversion the more likely it is God made it. i think you'd agree with me there"

Remember, we're talking over a long period of time. Nor do I agree that large diversions within a generation imply an external influence except perhaps more radiation.

"Do you agree that natural selection can occur to remove elements of a species?"

What I meant was "the weeker don't live. and it goes on and on and on. and in the end you only got the strong ones". Sou that's a yes.

"-Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

Yes. but that is the only one that has been observed, changes within kinds"

Well, say for some reason a species was geographicallt split for many millenia, and each group evolved in different ways to account for the diffeent conditions on their own 'islands', to the extent that group A cannot breed with group B to produce fertile children. Do you agree that the above can occur?

"Knowlege is learned. not inharted"

Be very careful... knowledge is indeed learned, but is separate from intelligence. Moreover, chemical reactions to situations perceived, which can be mis-understood to be 'knowledge' can also be inherited.

---

I'll answer some of your questions, but I cannot peronally explain the details of every species this person has cared to name.

"Where did the space for the universe come from?"

Where the universe is either there or not, the amount of space that exists is either positive or 0, there seem to be no other constraints. Therefore, the chances of it being 0 are 1/(infinite). So there has to be something. How big or small it is is rather irrelevant, being based on perception.

"Where did matter come from?"

Again, where the universe is either there or not, the amount of mass that exists is either positive or 0, there seem to be no other constraints. Therefore, the chances of it being 0 are 1/(infinite). So there has to be something. How big or small it is is rather irrelevant, being based on perception..

"Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?"

I personally don't know, though I know there are ideas.

How did matter get so perfectly organized? "

Organised? Aside from gravity accumulating and concentrating matter in small areas (galaxies), what makes you think it's so organised?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

"When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? "

In some primordal soup on earth, sheer luck (chaos theory - it was bound to happen somewhere, sometime), and via simple enzymes that could reproduce themselves with what surrounded them.

"When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? "

It did not 'learn' to, the definition of life from how it started was the ability to make copies of itself.

"With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?"

Cells are not capable of sexual reproduction.

"Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?) "

"How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)"

Recombine english letters by removing everything that looks least chinese (and eventually refining the method) will produce chinese books after a long time. But really, evolution works PERFECTLY in languages, trust me.

This is very simple... where 'improved' means 'most able to procreate stably', what is unable to survive 'till procreation by being too weak will, on average dies out from the gene pool, and the.

"Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?"

No. This in no way a proof of a common creator. It might be used as evidence for a common creator, but is pretty poor evidence, as it suggests more strongly a common ancestor.

[nemafakei]

"yes. they are abnormalities and do not result in benefits to the organism"

Here is the root of the problem. I have no time to explain this to you now, but suffice to say that you appear to have almost no idea what I mean by mutations. If others could explain to empr what this is about?

[sneezer3]

Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

no, it has not been proven to be true. All species stay within their species. they do not migrate out. have you seen this happen?"

Sorry i din't go into much detail on what i said with this, I only agree with the one that is changes within kinds. it has been observerd. the other however are all faith. and it takes more faith to belive you came out of nothing then out of something.

"Do you agree with the principles of evolution within a species?

no, it has not been proven to be true. All species stay within their species. they do not migrate out. have you seen this happen?"

Sorry i din't go into much detail on what i said with this, I only agree with the one that is changes within kinds. it has been observerd. the other however are all faith. and it takes more faith to belive you came out of nothing then out of something.

"huh? Are there any examples of this? I've seen a lot of "mutts" before. Those are basically dogs of differeing species getting together for a little...."

Thats how baseic evolution works. the strongest lives. then the next Generation only the stronger lives, etc, etc, etc. untill finely you got the strongest. This is called micro-evolution which means changes within kinds. now kinds do change. the only thing i would agree with is that there is change between kinds. the other stuff however is belived by faith. and i might add. i takes more faith to belive in it then Christanty, if you want to know why. then just ask and i'l tell you.

[emprworm]

I know what mutations are. They are random abnormalities that occur in an organism, which result in a harmful effect.

Well, say for some reason a species was geographicallt split for many millenia, and each group evolved in different ways to account for the diffeent conditions on their own 'islands', to the extent that group A cannot breed with group B to produce fertile children. Do you agree that the above can occur?

#1. you have to prove that they were once an identical species. You have to prove common ancestry.

#2. No, I do not agree that it can occur. Perfect example: human beings. yet any race of human can mate with any other. Do you have some evidence on the contrary?

"Where did matter come from?"

Again, where the universe is either there or not, the amount of mass that exists is either positive or 0, there seem to be no other constraints. Therefore, the chances of it being 0 are 1/(infinite). So there has to be something. How big or small it is is rather irrelevant, being based on perception..

but that is not the question. The question is how did this matter which you correctly stated must exist, come into existence? Are there any natural laws that could account for something from nothing? note: turning water into wine is something from something...not nearly as wild as something from nothing.

"When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter? "

In some primordal soup on earth, sheer luck (chaos theory - it was bound to happen somewhere, sometime), and via simple enzymes that could reproduce themselves with what surrounded them.

1. "God created the heavens and the earth."

2. "In some primordal soup on earth, sheer luck (chaos theory - it was bound to happen somewhere, sometime), and via simple enzymes that could reproduce themselves with what surrounded them."

Take your pick. Which statement of faith will you believe?

[sneezer3]

"I'll answer some of your questions, but I cannot peronally explain the details of every species this person has cared to name."

np. i'l just ask a few i'd like answerd.

*How did thought evolve?

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body

[Acriku]

Perhaps we need a lesson in mutation?

New alleles originate only by mutation. A mutation affecting any gene locus is an accident that is rare and random. Most mutations occur in somatic cells and die with the individual. Only mutations that occur in cell lines that produce gametes can be passed along to offspring. For humans there is one mutation, for ever 100,000-200,000 gene replications. And since humans have about 100,000 gene loci (diploid number of 200,000) each human contains one or two mutant alleles present in either parent. It is a shot in the dark, and chance determines where it will strike and how it will alter a gene. Most point mutations (affecting a single base) are relatively harmless. Redundancy can also make mutations have little or no effect, which is why mutations are most of the time neither harmful nor beneficial.

Therefore, a mutation is not harmful to the organism by definition, but it does happen, but not as much as one with little to no effect.

[nemafakei]

Again, not much time...

"#1. you have to prove that they were once an identical species. You have to prove common ancestry."

Read what I said again - take a species which was once single. Theredfore it is single, whether proven or not.

"#2. No, I do not agree that it can occur. Perfect example: human beings. yet any race of human can mate with any other. Do you have some evidence on the contrary?"

Humans are an example where we are not too genettically diddimilar to breed with each other. They are not proof that it cannot happen...

Why can't things develop so much genetically over time that it is impossible for them to breed? I don't quite understand your problem with this idea.

[Anathema]

-Do you agree with the principles of evolution to the extent that it can split species up into other species?

No. not really. just change there kind. like animals. Dog turning into a hound dog and being able to smell will strong. just a diffrace. stuff like this is all that has been observed.

Dogs are a good example. They were bred by man. They tamed wolves, and then selected specimens on certain traits and continued breeding those. Eventually you got dogs, wich are now radicly different from wolves.

-Do you agree that when this happens over long periods of time, more and more genetically complex species can arise?

No. well some. the weeker don't live. and it goes on and on and on. and in the end you only got the strong ones. Example. Wild birds. they are highly aggresive. why? cause past hunters have been shooting at them. and they learned to run when they see someone comeing.

That's evolution. Only the adepted survive. Eventually a group of animals has changed so radicly they can no longer reproduce with the original species (if that's still left)

I know what mutations are. They are random abnormalities that occur in an organism, which result in a harmful effect.

You claim you believe adaptation within a species is true. Adaptation (or micro evolution) are the result of random mutations wich happen to be beneficial. If you think it is a controlled system, then why did the mammoth die out, and the dinosaurs? They died out because they did not have variants that were adapted to the new situation.

Do you agree that overdiversification can lead to reproductive incompatibility within a species?

huh? Are there any examples of this? I've seen a lot of "mutts" before. Those are basically dogs of differeing species getting together for a little....

See my comment on dogs earlier. Breeding on specific traits is actually a rapid form of evolution.

#2. No, I do not agree that it can occur. Perfect example: human beings. yet any race of human can mate with any other. Do you have some evidence on the contrary?

Human races differ from eachother like dogs from other kinds of dogs. The separation of the ancestors of the human races was to short ago to allow evolution into radicly different human species.

If you look at feline species, like lions and tigers, you'll notice they can reproduce together, but their offspring are infertile. They are similar to such a degree that they can have children, yet are not the same species, but the next generation will be flawed. But a squirel can't reproduce with a mouse. Why's that?

[emprworm]

Humans are an example where we are not too genettically diddimilar to breed with each other. They are not proof that it cannot happen...

and no proof remains that it can happen. its just a faith based assumption. nothing wrong with that.

God not physically appearing to your face is not proof that he does not exist (same logic).

"Dogs are a good example. They were bred by man. They tamed wolves, and then selected specimens on certain traits and continued breeding those."

That is not a good example. The purposeful, intentional breeding of one animal is not evolution which requiers random mutations guided by chance. Humans create new differences in species all the time- plant gene splicing has been around for 2 thousand years. But that is not random mutation, it is deterministic breeding. A human could force breed a dog and a cat, and something would pop out...something monstrous. but that is not evolution.

You cannot use such examples. Besides, there is no proof that dogs came from wolves anyway. How do you know that wolves didn't come from dogs? And maybe neither came from each other.

[Anathema]

You honestly doubt that dogs are decendent from domesticated wolves? Lol. And there's no way you could cross a dog with a cat.

What I meant is that a species can change to such a degree that they become a different species- either by breeding (quick) or evolution (sloooooow).

[emprworm]

i dont know about dog and a cat (for sure,) but I do know that scientists have crossed different animal speceis. you could cross anything. some wierd scientist probably has crossed a dog and a cat...who knows.

and there is simply no proof of a new species coming from an existing one...only variances of the same species.

and directed expirimental breeding, btw, is not evolution.

[Acriku]

Emprworm, but it shows it can happen, and thus shows that it is possible for random mutations (which I explained before, please read!) to do the same, which they do.

[emprworm]

it doesn't show a thing

it cannot happen without intelligent intervention. THAT is what it shows. That doesn't say a whole lot about random chaos, now does it?