Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

Listen, I've been saying it for the last 4 pages in this thread, but the argument for evolution does not fall just because you can't explain the process with which it occurred!

Moving the goal post again!
What is the purpose of a theory?
TO EXPLAIN what is observed.
What is then a theory of biology suppose to do if not explain the process? Biology is about the process, the chronology, the stages, the steps of the mechanism. The Kreb cycle is also a theory! But it is based on substantiated facts, and proven hypothesis. If you are negating the axioms of Evolutionary theory - natural selection which is based on random mutations that confers advantageous traits to the species survival - then you are negating the WHOLE THEORY.

The fact of evolution is defined very simply as thus: "the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them".

This statement is FALSE. This is NOT OBSERVED!!!
Why are you so dense, goat?
Have you observed this?
Have you seen one species developing from another species?
You show how ill informed, uneducated and ignorant you are on the subject by making such a bold statement!
Do you know the definition of "Species"?
One species, cannot mate with another species, from a biomolecular level! the chromosomes of one set must match the chromosome set of another! This is what is meant by "reproduction". GET IT!? Do you UNDERSTAND the meaning of the word "reproduction"? In essence it means to "copy". Even though there is variation, it is unsubstantiated, unproven, and baseless to say that such variation leads to speciation. This phenomena is NOT OBSERVED. The function of a theory is to explain OBSERVED phenomena!

When you go to the core of the matter, it doesn't matter about mutations, or Darwin, or Darwinists or transitional fossils, or if people who believe in evolution are a crazy bunch of racists.

Oh great!
Your lamarkian view of life matters simply because you chose to believe it. Despite it having no SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY.
Thus it is no more than a mythology that you insist on making a science of.

Some of those things have bearing on the theory of evolution, but not on the fact of evolution.

The fact of evolution is very easily defended by evidence which is not at all complex or hard to understand. I've been laying out that evidence for the last 4 pages or so, but since you've glossed over all that, I'll lay it out again:

1. all living creatures must have a living parent
2. living creatures are different from each other
3. simpler forms were around before the more complex forms (e.g. invertebrates before vertebrates, single celled organisms before humans)

Facts?
Living creatures are "not different" from their parents! You use the words of biology equivocally and misuse them for perpetuating your own delusions! living creatures are replicas of their parents. Meaning, you get 50% of your genes from one mother, 50% from one father, in total you are 100% of half of each parent! Thus the same as your "parents"!

Point no.3 is bogus!
The earliest vertebrate found is 530 million years old...

The only way to deal reasonably with that evidence, when explaining scientifically how humans came to be on this earth, is to conclude that complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).Or to put it another way, that humans came from those simple, single celled organisms 3.8 billion years ago.

Nope!
As a scientist, I cannot make such a huge leap of faith. This statement of yours is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE! Proteins cannot spontaneously fold into the sophisticated and complicated structures that they have, we cannot even synthesis such complex proteins even in our labortarious despite "our copious growth in knowledge" lol...

This is a water tight argument. Unless you can dispute one of the three claims I laid out, then the argument holds. It doesn't matter about Darwin or natural selection, how else are you going to explain, scientifically that human beings came to be? Did they appear by magic? Did a rock make them? Did aliens from outer space come along and plant vertebrates on the earth 600 million years ago?

Thank you.
You just proved your self wrong.
Evolution, as espoused by darwin is wrong. Natural selection is not a valid hypothesis.
Instead, we have Mountain-goat Theory, whose beliefs are based on Lamarkian fantasies.
Lamarckism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you come back to the 21st century. Come talk to me.

Those things might very well have happened but we don't have any evidence of it and thus it is not a scientific explanation.

That's why evolution is described in biology books, because it is the only reasonable scientific explanation of how human beings came to be based on the evidence we have.

Yes, thank you for saying it out loud. Finally! someone admits that they are confident in evolution theory because they were taught of it in highschool and they mugged it wholeheartedly and their own puny brains couldn't think of any other alternative or even doubt it. Zombies!

Now please, try to wrap your head around the argument I've just made for a few minutes. It really shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I'd be happy to hear any objections to the claims of that argument. Any objections to Darwin or natural selection or transitional fossils are irrelevant to the argument for the fact of evolution, which you disagree on.

If this is the case. Then you and I have no arguments. You can persist to believe whatever you want.
Our discussion centres around the scientific validity of the Darwinist theory and it's proposed mechanism. Since you have no ground to debate on...you have no place here. You can go and write your own theories.

As is evident on this thread. Many ignorant people seem to think they have a good grasp of the subject, but because evolution as a theory is so full of holes and loop sided, any fool can get up here and try to defend it without even reading what Darwin or any other scientist has had to say. Rather they can see the similarities, not observe (for which a more critical and keener eye is required), and then heuristically and haphazardly conclude that life originated from each other ..one big blob of life that differentiated it self, as a blastosome would, and all life is as similar as fetuses of different mammals are in their early stages..and that they orginiated in water, as babies have a type of gills in their mother placenta. This is the mythology of olden days. Go study the myths of the ancient polytheists. They too believed the same thing. It is not science. It is mythology. And Mountain Goat has proved me correct by calling darwin and his proposed mechanisms of change irrelevant! Thank you Goat!

And I suppose you are a muslim. So to the question that you asked me in regards to the origin of life, I will leave you with this ponder on...

" Did they witness their creation"?

[faye]

[QUOTE=Alchemist;383975]^

"There is no death"...LOL

Everything dies and decays.
This universe is set to die. The Sun will die in 5 billion years. This universe will stretch and dissipate into nothingness. Yes, faye, there is NOTHINGNESS. Stop fooling yourself into thinking that you are going to be born a goat or a cow in your next life. Nothing but conjectures.

ah, so you agree that the sun and the earth are alive. nothingness? been there, done that

[roadrunner]

Alchemist, I've not been reading your posts because you post so much trash, it's not worth reading.

If you have specific queries about what I type, address the points to me sensibly/maturely, and not like a 5 year old chimp from the Zanbisi.

[طالب]

Moving the goal post again!
What is the purpose of a theory?
TO EXPLAIN what is observed.
What is then a theory of biology suppose to do if not explain the process?
Biology is about the process, the chronology, the stages, the steps of the mechanism. The Kreb cycle is also a theory! But it is based on substantiated facts, and proven hypothesis. If you are negating the axioms of Evolutionary theory - natural selection which is based on random mutations that confers advantageous traits to the species survival - then you are negating the WHOLE THEORY.

You fail to realise the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. The fact of evolution (the observation that life has changed greatly over time) is explained by the theory of evolution. But you don't need to go into the theory of evolution (i.e. how the process of evolution occurs) to provide evidence for the fact of evolution.

This statement is FALSE. This is NOT OBSERVED!!!

You disagree with the fact of evolution. I know.

Have you observed this?

I have observed the evidence that backs up the fact of evolution. The evidence of the fact of evolution is this:

1. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. This should be elementary to anyone. If in doubt, turn on Animal Planet and watch how living creatures procreate. Living things, however, can not be born out of non-living things. There is no evidence whatsoever that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures.

2. Some living creatures are very different from some others. This is also evident by observing the natural world. For example there exist vertebrates and invertebrates.

3. Simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones. This is observed in the fossil record.

If you remember, the fact of evolution is the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them. Well if you put the three facts together from above, then the more complex organisms must have come from the simple organisms. Because we've only observed living things coming from living things, and we know that less complex organisms existed before more complex ones.

Have you seen one species developing from another species?

No, but that is not a requirement for the fact of evolution to be true. I bring you the same explanation that was posted a few pages ago:

"Others reject the notion of evolution outright (without reference to the argument) with the simple claim that it cannot be true because no one has ever seen a complete transformation of one distinct species into another (e.g., fish to reptiles). There may have been all sorts of minor developments of one species into another distinct but closely related species (an established scientific finding), but without such visual experience of a major transformation, so they say, evolution is just a "theory."

Well, of course evolution is a theory, just as atomic structures, black holes, electricity, relativity, DNA, magnetism, and so on are "just theories." But so what? We do not have direct visual evidence of these things with our own eyes (who has ever seen an electron or a molecule or a gene with the naked eye?). What we do observe, often with the aid of very sophisticated machines, are larger events which we explain as effects of those theoretical components. Most scientific theories involve natural elements that we cannot see. Those who seriously believe that this objection carries any weight need to become more familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry and the meaning of a scientific "proof.""

Thus, the observation of the process is not required for it to be true.

Do you know the definition of "Species"?
One species, cannot mate with another species, from a biomolecular level! the chromosomes of one set must match the chromosome set of another! This is what is meant by "reproduction". GET IT!? Do you UNDERSTAND the meaning of the word "reproduction"? In essence it means to "copy". Even though there is variation, it is unsubstantiated, unproven, and baseless to say that such variation leads to speciation. This phenomena is NOT OBSERVED. The function of a theory is to explain OBSERVED phenomena!

Again, the process is irrelevant in the argument for the fact of evolution. We know that living things come from living things. How those living things changed into other living things over time is another discussion, the knowledge of which is not required for the fact of evolution to be correct.

If there are problems with the theory of how the process occured or even if it is discredited, that does not disprove the existence of evolution. Just because we have problems agreeing how something works, that does not entitle us to claim that the phenomenon does not exist. If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

As stated elsewhere:

"A number of objectors make a case that goes something like this: Here's a problem that evolution has not yet explained in detail to my satisfaction (e.g., origin of life, evolution of a particular animal species or organ). Therefore, the whole theory is clearly wrong or invalid or "merely" a hypothesis. But no rational mind rejects an entire theory just because it is not complete. Physics is just as incomplete as biology (in the sense that there are many basic problems left to explain), yet no one objecting to evolution on these grounds makes similar complaints about Newton's Laws. In fact, every time people drive their cars or ride in a plane they are demonstrating their absolute faith in those laws. To object that because a scientific theory cannot explain everything, it therefore explains nothing makes as much sense as claiming that because someone does not know every word in the English language, nothing he says in English is worth attending to.

What seems clear in such cases is that the thinking process which produces such objections has nothing to do with a reasonable analysis of a scientific argument; it stems from an absolute refusal to accept that argument's conclusions and from a search (often rather desperate) for anything that looks like an apparent justification for such a refusal. One is perfectly free to reject the conclusion of a scientific argument, of course--after all, it is a free country--but to pretend that the incompleteness of some of the explanations offered by the theory is an adequate scientific reason for doing so is erroneous."

Oh great!
Your lamarkian view of life matters simply because you chose to believe it. Despite it having no SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY.
Thus it is no more than a mythology that you insist on making a science of.

That was not what I meant. What I was trying to explain was that the fact of evolution does not depend on the theory of evolution to be correct. The issues related to the process of evolution (Darwin, Darwinists, natural selection etc.) are irrelevant when arguing the case for the fact of evolution.

Again, if we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

Facts?
Living creatures are "not different" from their parents!

You're talking about the process. I'm not trying to provide evidence for how the process of evolution (the theory of evolution = ToE) took place, so this is irrelevant. I'm trying to explain where complex organisms (e.g. humans) came from. Now the only objects that we know of that can reproduce and create living objects are other living objects. Thus we, as living things must come from other living things. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. For example if you have evidence that complex organisms are created out of thin air. Or are born from a rock. If you have such evidence then it would destroy the fact of evolution.

Nobody has ever observed that though, we have only observed living things coming from living things, and thus, based on those observations, we must conclude that human beings came from simple living organisms.

You use the words of biology equivocally and misuse them for perpetuating your own delusions!

Please point out exactly which words I've misused.

living creatures are replicas of their parents. Meaning, you get 50% of your genes from one mother, 50% from one father, in total you are 100% of half of each parent! Thus the same as your "parents"!

I've never even talked about this. All I stated was that living things must have a living parent. Do you disagree with this? If you disagree, on which basis do you disagree? Have you ever seen a living creature come from anything else than a living creature?

Point no.3 is bogus!
The earliest vertebrate found is 530 million years old...

The third point is not bogus just because you say so. Please provide evidence (a source) to the contrary. Do you have evidence of a vertebrate fossil dated to before 600 million years ago? Or, more importantly, do you have evidence of a fossil of a vertebrate dated before the earliest fossil of an invertebrate (which have been dated as far back as 3.5 billion years).

The only way you can claim that point three is bogus, is if you provide evidence of a fossil vertebrate dated older than 3.5 billion years. One case is all that is needed. If you find just one case then the fact of evolution will be in shambles.

Unfortunately not a single example has been found thus far, but I (and the scientific community) will be happy to look at any you can provide.

Nope!
As a scientist, I cannot make such a huge leap of faith. This statement of yours is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE! Proteins cannot spontaneously fold into the sophisticated and complicated structures that they have, we cannot even synthesis such complex proteins even in our labortarious despite "our copious growth in knowledge" lol...

So how do you explain where vertebrates came from? 3.8 billion years ago there were no vertebrates, only invertebrates. The earliest vertebrate is dated to around 600 million years ago. Where did they come from? Remember you have to use a scientific explanation based on observations.

The fact remains that living things come from living things. Scientists look at facts. If there were no invertebrates 3.8 billion years ago, but only invertebrates. And vertebrates appeared around 600 million years ago. Then scientists have to conclude that those vertebrates came from the less complex invertebrates, because we've only ever observed living things coming from living things.

How that process came about (proteins folding and whatnot) is irrelevant.

Thank you.
You just proved your self wrong.
Evolution, as espoused by darwin is wrong. Natural selection is not a valid hypothesis.

The fact of evolution stands on its own, regardless of Darwin or natural selection. Darwin and natural selection is part of the ToE.

You keep confusing the fact of evolution and the ToE. Again, the fact of evolution is a very limited theory, defined as "the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them"

The ToE, on the other hand, is a much more vast and complex theory, explaining the fact of evolution.

But the fact of evolution can stand on its own, all you need is the evidence I outlined in the three points above.

Yes, thank you for saying it out loud. Finally! someone admits that they are confident in evolution theory because they were taught of it in highschool and they mugged it wholeheartedly and their own puny brains couldn't think of any other alternative or even doubt it. Zombies!

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that the reason the fact of evolution is used in biology books is because it's the only scientific explanation that we have of where complex organisms came from.

You can't write that God created vertebrates 600 million years ago out of thin air in a biology book. Why? Because it's not science. It has no evidence to support it, it has never been observed. They day that such a phenomenon is observed, it will be taken into account by the scientific community. Untill then...

If you have a better, scientific, explanation of where complex organisms on earth came from, please provide it here.

If this is the case. Then you and I have no arguments. You can persist to believe whatever you want.
Our discussion centres around the scientific validity of the Darwinist theory and it's proposed mechanism.

So you do not disagree that complex organisms came from simple organisms? That is what the fact of evolution states. It doesn't talk about Darwin or the mechanism.

My point is this: you are drawing a thousand things into the discussion which in reality have no bearing on whether or not the fact of evolution stands. You disagree on the fact of evolution, so lets take it from there. The case for the fact of evolution is very, very simple and it does not include anything about Darwin or natural selection. It only includes the three points I've laid out. So let's debate those.

The problem is that you have not realised the difference between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution (ToE). The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory.

Since you have no ground to debate on...you have no place here. You can go and write your own theories.

You have yet to disprove any of the three points I've laid out. That is ground enough for me to argue the case for the fact of evolution.

So to the question that you asked me in regards to the origin of life

I never asked you any question about the origin of life. I asked you to give a scientic explanation of where human beings came from. Creation is not a scientific explanation because it has never been observed.

The discussion of the origin of life is utterly irrelevant to the case for the fact of evolution, so why would I ever ask you about it?

By the way I will from now on refer to the fact of evolution as FoE and the theory of evolution as ToE, in order not to confuse people.

[Alchemist]

ah, so you agree that the sun and the earth are alive. nothingness? been there, done that

[/QUOTE]

I agree that the earth is alive, since on a macroscale it acts as a living organism. Examples of self regulation to maintain homeostasis- The currents of the ocean and water circulations systsms with formation of clouds, petals of daffodails in mass reflect light to regulate temperature, the ozone layer which shields the surface from the sun's deadly UV rays and believe it or not, the earth has been growing, which results in earth quacks, and the mountains that peg it, like desmosomes of epithilium..etc etc etc. However such phenomena is not observed about the sun.
Rather a nuclear plant could be said to be more alive than the sun.
faye, you have the mentality of a child, always vying to have the last word in an argument and stubbornly sticking to your own guesswork. You are in the science fora, so if you can't contribute anything scientific, keep your mystical mumbo jumbo to your self and stop trolling here.
You keep proving to me that you have no sense of logic or reason by taking my word out of context, and cutting and pasting only what gives credence to your fantasy. You are pathetic in this respect...that you are 64 years old, but still haven't matured enough to admit you are wrong. What folly "been there done that" to say with such certainity what comes after death..as if you have died already and already experienced the after life...it wont be long before you understand the meaning of the word death.

[Alchemist]

What we have here is a bunch of failures, C- students of biology, trying to teach me.
What lunacy!

Now mountain goat has confused himself so much that he no longer whiches to argue what evolution is but takes it as a granted matter that cannot even be question. So it is no longer a science, but a matter of religious conviction. And just like how christains are at a loss to explain the trinity in a rational manner, so is he at a loss to explain evolution. So to give weight to his delusion, he is divorcing evolution from it is self by calling the religious version "FOF" and the scientific version TOF.
Look mountain goat.. this fof, is not really factual. It's like mcdonald's naming it's processed D grade burgers "Real burger" and copy right the name, so that from a legal perspective, they can call it real A grade, but in actual it isn't. You are applying the same sophistry by changing titles and not questioning the axioms of evolution.

There is no credibility to the belief that simple organisms predated complex organism. The Cambian Explosion flies contrary to his third proposition. ALL CLASSES of living organisms were presented all together in a short amount of time. Out of the 3 points he made, the third is the only axiom for the theory. Points 1 and 2 prove NOTHING. A simpelton like mountain goat is trying to rewrite science and the rules of logic.

Look at this fool argument style:

If you remember, the fact of evolution is the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alchemist
Have you seen one species developing from another species?

No...

*face palm. Please leave the science section. We will talk about your religious views of life somewhere else


And troll runner...it's not that you CAN read my post. Even if you wanted to, you couldn't. My posts will psychologically break you down. For the safety of your fragile ego, and the thin bubble that protects it, you must avoid them like you avoid the plague.

It goes to show how fradulent and debunked the theory of evolution is since every troll on this forum is taking a jab at rewriting darwins original theory. One midnight lunatic is redefining the meaning of intermediate forms by assuming that the arrows in her cartoony diagrams represent them and this other mountain goat is just stubbornly believing that chronology equates to causation. These are logical fallacies. They cannot argue with logic...so leave aside the theory of evolution together.

Anyone else out there with real scientifice background to discuss this with me?
no more trolling ...please.

[Midnight_Sun]

In the vast ocean of knowledge, we prick a needle on the surface, and the pull it out. The water that it holds, is all the knowledge we have.
Not copious, not exponential, not anything. The day you realize this, is the day you have shed your ego.

Stop with this existential crap. Our knowledge has grown exponentially since we started collecting human knowledge 200,000 years ago. You actually strengthened my argument by claiming that human knowledge has attributed to the construction of computers; which you claim amount to 80% of that knowledge! As a matter of fact, computer technology has also grown exponentially. Thanks for proving my point.

And this is all what it is about for you - your ego. Not that you care to learn something new from our exchange. For I have given you enough evidence to the contrary in this thread and you have acknowledge not even one bit of it.

You're the one calling other members idiots and outright rejecting evidence as 'lies." If you are so intimidated by my ego, maybe you should go join the discussion on " Dont u luvv Cookieez?? ="

Here's a link for you: http://www.pashtunforums.com/enterta...eez-%3D-15745/

Mmm cookies.

You showed me a picture of Tarkana Boy and incorrectly claimed it was a Homo Sapiens who had been living for over a million years. You would be laughed at by almost every scientist alive today other than Creationist Christians.

When you were caught doing something that stupid, you quickly went on google trying to find scientists who reject it being human, but FAILED miserably. Your audacity to lie to people by showing quotes of major scientists you claimed rejected cladistics when in fact they support it and are also in support of the evolutionary theory. Then you go on a rant about infinite knowledge, dialectical materialism, and making circular arguments so you can argue with yourself and derail the conversation away from your incompetence as an 'expert' on debunking evolution.

In fact, I think isntead of proving me wrong, you've actually proved to me that you DO believe in evolution because you use quotes from people who actually believe in evolution. Since you like to jump to conclusions, ofcourse.

universal truth is not measured by mass appeal.

There you go on again with existential mumbo jumbo.

Knowledge is infinite.
You cannot dare to make the claim that knowledge is finite or infinite because...

And there you go on arguing with yourself over a claim YOU stated, not me.

Evolution entails that information is being added over time to life.

Incorrect, you have already given at least three incorrect definitions of evolution. Let me break it down for you:

Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. If you actually read my previous replies to you, and the video I sent to Graveyard of Empires, evolution doesn't add anything, it just changes the inherited traits incrementally. Cladistically, a new branch is added at every new node. The systematic taxonomy that you see in those diagrams I posted earlier show a series of superficial changes slowly compiled atop compounded tiers of substrata similarities. This is what we consistently see in nature and the fossil record. Comprende?

Why do we have consciousness?

Stop trying to derail the debate on existential arguments again. Stick to the point. First find me some reputable scientists, or as you put it, "ELITE EXPERTS" who are against evolution?

Why would I argue with myself?

That is a great question. You created the argument of 'infinite knowledge' and went on a rant. You started a rant on materialism and its errors. You just started a rant on consciousness with verses from Quran. I'm not here to debate the consciousness issue, I'm here to see you defend an outlandish claim that Homo Sapiens have been around for 1.5 Million years and that Tarkana boy is actually a Homo Sapiens. I'm here to see you talk about your attempts to falsify phylogeny and cladistics, which you have also failed. You asked me to show you examples of transitional species, which I have. You didn't even acknowledge it because you REJECTed before I even typed a single word. So the real quesiton is why am I still debating with someone who is trying to derail the conversation YET again.

GREAT!
How neat is this.
Whenever it is convenient for you, you separate the same species into different species - homo erectus/homo sapian for humans. And whenever it suits your fallacious arguments, you combine different species into the same one - Pakicetus, Ambulocetus (land walking creatures) into whales. And then you mock me?

I never claimed that Pakicetus was a WHALE. Do you NOT know what transition means? Again, stop putting words in my mouth. Your buddy Graveyard of Empires asked for common transitional species. Which I showed him a picture diagram,( because he doesn't like reading big words) that led to the whale.

YOU showed a picture of Homo Erectus and claimed it was a Human. See the difference? The only one who can't seem to tell the difference between transitional species and the taxonomy of today's species is you.

Yes, anything goes, apparently evolution has a mind of its own, and animals can change their mind

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER claimed they could just 'change their mind.'

So you blasted a few hundred dollars on a b.s evolution course

How much money did you spend at the Creationist museum to see Jesus ride a Dinosaur?

I quoted you major scientists,

That believe in Evolution.

a whole conference of scientists, who said that there are no differences between the two,

Let me get this straight, if a bunch of scientists (all of which who believed in evolution) have a constructive dialogue, this is evidence ENOUGH for you that it must be fake?

One conference (of people who believe in evolution) does not negate the majority of scientists who believe Tarkana Boy is Homo erectus. Including all world re-known paleontologists and archaeologists. In fact, the only argument they have is whether he is Homo ergaster OR Homo erectus. Either which, are NOT Homo Sapiens.

It just baffles my mind how you can believe one argument so readily over one debate by evolutionary scientists and then totally negate cladistics with absolutely NO argument.

And this case about the mammoth, it doesn't serve your argument, so why bring up the irrelevant? To admit that species may become extinct for whatever reason, goes to show that "evolution" is not necessarily the driving force for specialization,

You can't even define evolution correctly so stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about, because you obviously don't.

The Cockroach has been in the fossil record for 350 million years, why hasn't it gone extinct then?

Well if you can survive a nuclear holocaust and withstand 15 times the lethal dose of radiation, burrow underground, continue living even if you don't have a head, and survive a month without food, and even hold your breath for 45 minutes under water, get back to me.

Even if he is pro evolution like you say he is

He does believe in evolution. It's not an 'if.'

the fact remains that he disagrees with you on the there being differences between homo sapians and homo erectus etc. So if you hold him in esteem then believe him and the conference of scientists.

Oh please, STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. If that's the case, then you also believe in evolution. Right?

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould (Natural History, 86:12-16)

Again, he's an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST. He believes in punctuated evolutionary equilibria. Another branch of evolutionary biology. No where does he reject evolution, nor Homo Erectus. I'll give you that he is opposed to cladistics, but he is NOT against evolution. So find me where the 'majority' of those "ELITE EXPERTS" are against it all? When will it take for you to realize that the majority of biologists, scientists, teachers, believe in Evolution.

But you fail to realize that the crux of the evolutionary argument lies on the fact that mutation DOES NOT ADD NEW INFORMATION!

Another of your now patented circular arguments. Why are you arguing with yourself here? You created that incorrect evolutionary definition that you continue to perpetuate. Now get over it and stop arguing with yourself.

So basically, you are trying to give evidence that land mammals devolved into sea mammals.

Again you still THINK that Evolution means SUPERIORITY. It doesn't at all. Come back when you actually understand the true definition of evolution.

This is not science, this is speculation - guess work - fantasy.

If you think everything regarding evolution is fantasy, then WHY even ask for examples? Why are you wasting everybody's time??

]

The only reason they suspect it to be a manatee is because it's nostrils are a little bit towards it's crown...dolphines and whales have their nostrils on their crown. The set back of the nostrils, and the missing parasinuses, excited the fantasy of the evolutionist, and had him conclude that this is an ancestor of the manatee. However, if you look manatees, their nostrils are located at the front, not the crown! And this is why their nostrils do not open upwards (like hippos).

That's because their NOT dolphins or hippos genius! Seriously, how do you just come up with such nonsense in your head? You must have help.

If you want to show proof, show the mechanism how feet change to flippers. Hippos spend a lot of time in water, so does that mean that years from now they will lose their feet and get flippers instead?

Just living in water doesn't mean you will magically transform into a fish. Evolution takes into account mutations, environment, and other factors. That's why you'll never see a horse with wings, or a human being with wings. It's just not possible. The second you do, I will gladly say you are 100% right and refrain from speaking to you about it EVER again.

Where is your proof for such a bold statement? There are similarities between cars and bicycles too, but does that mean that cars will lose their wheels and turn into bicycles eventually?

What kind of argument is that? You obviously STILL don't know the difference between analogous and homologous. So please look that up and then come back to me when you have more knowledge.

When one thing is homologous and when it is analogous is decided by what is convenient to your delusions!

No, it's decided by biologists. Why get upset that you can't understand the differences? Do you need a pop up book or a picture to explain the differences? Fine, here are some pictures for you:

...even though both the tasmanian and the north american wolves are called WOLVES!? Keep in mind my dear, that when the continent of Australia split, there were NO SPECIES OF WOLVES ALIVE!!

Again stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the Tasmanian wolf was a REAL WOLF. It has many names, Thylacene, Tasmanian TIGER (but it's not a tiger). Just like a hamburger does not really contain ham. Are you really that childish? Really???

In fact, the labels homologous and analogous are decided upon arbiterarly there is no scientific method to it.

Wrong again. It does have a scientific method. It was developed in the 19th century by Sir Richard Owens. Instead of jumping to conclusions all the time, you should actually think before you type.

The mammals became divided into two different categories, marsupials and placentals.

Wrong again. There are actually three different categories. You forgot monotremes. Honestly, quit already, it's embarrassing.

It doesn't matter that he is or not.

Yes, yes it does matter a lot actually. If they believe in evolution, then they believe in the evolutionary biology of Hominids, including the ESTABLISHED species of Homo Erectus. Something you have failed to mention. They had a debate, and NONE of them are against evolution.

The quote I provided to you proves that homo erectus and homo sapian are not two different species but of the same species. Adam was the father of us and Turkana boy. Yes, Richard classes Turkana as homo erectus, I never denied this. But homo erectus is a race of people, like Richard says,

That was a quote from a dialogue of evolutionary biologists, taken out of context to meet your narrow views. They are still evolutionary biologists, who admire Darwin.

just like how you are from the race of mongoloids, as oppposed to negroids, or Caucasians!

Congratulations on becoming a racist!

You are your own worst enemy. There is only one race, the human race. Stop injecting your bigoted views of supremacy on me.

I just wanted you to know who he is... But I gave you the source. If you have access to Journals through your university, you can find it and verify it. Good luck.

Well since it was YOUR source and now you can't find the source. Then we can discount it as any evidence. You are very successful at failing, anything else you want to add?

Irrelevant. The point is that homo erectus, homo sapians are the same species. You have no proof otherwise.

LOL Really? You want to go there?? I don't feel like going through all the differences, so I just looked up a few online for you:



These two are both Homo sapien skulls? Are you that blind?



See the

Time range:
erectus : 2 million to 30,000 years BP
sapiens : 250,000 years BP to the present

Geography
erectus : Old World only
sapiens : Old World and New World

Physique
erectus : 1.8 m
sapiens : 1.4 - 1.9 m

Body mass
erectus : max 60 kg
sapiens : 55 - 80 kg

Brain volume
erectus : 850 - 1,100 cc
sapeins : 1,000 - 1.850 cc

Here's a full listing of the differences between different Hominid species:

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it and weep.

If you want to believe that random mutation is the force behind life,

No that's what you CLAIM I believe. I gave you what I believe evolution is. Stop derailing the conversation to "Meaning of Life." I don't care to discuss topics like this with someone who is a known racist.

Amazon.com: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (9780684834931): Michael J. Behe: Books
Amazon.com: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (9780917561528): Michael Denton: Books
Amazon.com: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (9780061472794): Stephen C. Meyer: Books
Amazon.com: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (9780465019373): David Berlinski: Books
Amazon.com: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (9780979014123): David Berlinski Ph.D.: Books

I wonder how many of those were from actual reputable scientists? I'll look at your list later.

[طالب]

So to give weight to his delusion, he is divorcing evolution from it is self by calling the religious version "FOF" and the scientific version TOF.

The reason I'm calling FoE and ToE different things, is because they are different things. They're both theories, but one is substantiated by so much evidence, and is so selfevident, that the scientific community has decided to call it a fact, i.e. the fact of evolution. The ToE on the other hand still has issues within it which are being debated. Therefore it is called the theory of evolution. In the strict sense they are both theories though.

But so is gravity, yet you don't see people questioning the theory of gravity. In fact the theory of gravity is good theory to compare with the FoE, because they're both theories that are so overwhelmingly established that they are considered fact by the scientific community.

Look mountain goat.. this fof, is not really factual. It's like mcdonald's naming it's processed D grade burgers "Real burger" and copy right the name, so that from a legal perspective, they can call it real A grade, but in actual it isn't. You are applying the same sophistry by changing titles and not questioning the axioms of evolution.

You are utterly confused about the terms FoE and ToE. The reason why one is called a "fact" is because it is so overwhelmingly substantiated and agreed upon by the scientific community. And it is not I who have invented these terms, they have been invented by other people in the scientific community. You can read further on the subject of fact vs theory on these pages:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434"

There is no credibility to the belief that simple organisms predated complex organism.

Yes there is, the fossil record is evidence of it. The fossil record shows invertebrates dating to 3.5 billion years ago, and no vertebrates dating to before 600 million years ago. Do you deny this? Since invertebrates are less complex organisms than vertebrates, and they appeared on earth billion of years before vertebrates did, simple organisms must therefore predate complex organisms.

If you deny this, then I ask you to bring foreward evidence of a vertebrate fossil dated to before 600 million years ago.

The Cambian Explosion flies contrary to his third proposition.

My third proposition was that simple organisms existed on earth long before more complex ones. I used the example of invertebrates which according to the fossil record have been found billions of years before vertebrates. Now you state that the Cambrian explosion, the relatively rapid appearance of most Phyla 530 million years ago, is contrary to this proposition.

How is the rapid appearance of Phyla contrary to the fact that invertebrates existed long before vertebrates? Actually it refers to exactly that phenomenon! It supports the third proposition, because if the third proposition wasn't true, then there would be no Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion refers to the fact that before ca. 600 million years ago, organisms were simple, and then they turned complex. That's exactly what I said in the third proposition! I said simple organisms existed before complex ones.

ALL CLASSES of living organisms were presented all together in a short amount of time.

So? Before the Cambrian explosion there were only simple organisms. After that, there were both simple and complex ones. My third proposition still stands, because the complex organisms still came after the simple ones.

I didn't say that complex organisms eliminated simple ones. Today both simple and complex organisms exist. 3.5 billion years ago only simple organisms existed.

Out of the 3 points he made, the third is the only axiom for the theory.

1. You say that it's not a generally accepted truth that living things come from living things. Please provide any evidence whatsoever that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures. I'm waiting.

2. You say it's not a generally accepted truth that some living creatures are very different from others. Do you deny the existence of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms? If you do, I ask you to look up the internal structure of an elephant and then compare it with the internal structure of a ringed worm. If you can not see the difference, you must be blind.

Points 1 and 2 prove NOTHING. A simpelton like mountain goat is trying to rewrite science and the rules of logic.

On their own, they do not prove the FoE, but together with point 3 they provide an airtight argument for it. If living things come from living things, and simple organisms were on earth before more complex ones, then the complex ones must have come from the simple ones. Nothing else has ever been observed. For example, we have never observed a complex organism born out of a rock or suddenly appear by magic. Nor do we have any evidence that aliens have come at opportune periods in history to drop off vertebrates.

Now you have challenged point 1 and 2. That is the right way forward. If point 1, 2 or 3 is not correct, then the case for the FoE falls.

I have given my response and await your answer.

Look at this fool argument style:

You fail to argue why that statement is incorrect. That is the definition of the FoE, I don't see what's wrong with it. I've laid out that proposition in order to argue the case for it. You disagree with it. It is thus the perfect problem in a nutshell

It goes to show how fradulent and debunked the theory of evolution is since every troll on this forum is taking a jab at rewriting darwins original theory.

I've yet to see anyone rewrite Darwin's original theory. All I've said is that Darwin's theory is not needed to argue the case for the FoE. In fact the FoE was recognized even before Darwin's theory.

stubbornly believing that chronology equates to causation.

I never stated that, nor do I believe it. I only provided chronology to substantiate the FoE. Remember, chronology (I assume you refer to the the fossil record) is only one point of the argument.

If you believe otherwise, please point out where I stated that chronology equates causation.

These are logical fallacies.

They are logical fallacies and thus it is to my favor that I never uttered them.

They cannot argue with logic...so leave aside the theory of evolution together.

The reason why I leave aside the ToE is because it is not needed in order to argue the case for the FoE. The FoE is a very simple matter, one which you disagree with. Why bring in a thousand things from the ToE, when the crux of the matter can be solved just debating the FoE? If the FoE isn't true, then the ToE certainly isn't true either. But even if some parts of the ToE aren't true, the FoE might still be very much so.

[faye]

alchemist...

I agree that the earth is alive, since on a macroscale it acts as a living organism. Examples of self regulation to maintain homeostasis- The currents of the ocean and water circulations systsms with formation of clouds, petals of daffodails in mass reflect light to regulate temperature, the ozone layer which shields the surface from the sun's deadly UV rays and believe it or not, the earth has been growing, which results in earth quacks, and the mountains that peg it, like desmosomes of epithilium..etc etc etc. However such phenomena is not observed about the sun.
Rather a nuclear plant could be said to be more alive than the sun.
faye, you have the mentality of a child, always vying to have the last word in an argument and stubbornly sticking to your own guesswork. You are in the science fora, so if you can't contribute anything scientific, keep your mystical mumbo jumbo to your self and stop trolling here.
You keep proving to me that you have no sense of logic or reason by taking my word out of context, and cutting and pasting only what gives credence to your fantasy. You are pathetic in this respect...that you are 64 years old, but still haven't matured enough to admit you are wrong. What folly "been there done that" to say with such certainity what comes after death..as if you have died already and already experienced the after life...it wont be long before you understand the meaning of the word death.[/QUOTE]

i did not see any sign that only scientific input was allowed in this thread and i am noe the only one who has put forward questions.
if you have a look, i was debating with mountain goat and you entered to TRY and belittle my opinion and TRY to make me look a fool.
i have been googling and learning from being involved in this subject and gained more respect for science during the process.
if this is how you have learned to debate, in america or wherever you are, by calling someone with a different point of view, 'pathetic' then it is a very poor style of debating. expect to be treated the same.
all of out views are equal and that is why i never ask you, why you are muslim or believe what you do. it is your right as my view is mine.
like everyone else on this forum, i also have the right to defend my view and myself against those who attack me.
the sun cannot die if it is not alive to begin with, surely.
the nuclear power plant would be at a loss without the energy from the sun, no??
not all knowledge comes from books, some people have experiences which you are not able to judge. if there is an afterLIFE, how is that NO THING?
you can pm if you wish to keep debating and insulting me.

[Alchemist]

Well that was a long read. But I think the three of you need to organize yourselves a little more. And maybe some other readers should join into because this is too easy for me.

Midnight Sun.

Here is a challenge for you
A:



B:

One of these is the skeleton of a Tasmanian "Tiger" and the other is the skeleton of a North American Wolf.
Which is which?
Try not to cheat by googling for the originals. And I swear to you that I am not tricking you here, one of them is tasmanian, the other north American. Please tell me which is which.


Secondly, you seem to confuse culture and biology. Let's leave biology aside and delve into culture.

Homo Erectus was a race of people. Here is an Article Published in New Scientific Magazine on March 14 1998 where it shows that Homo erectus were Ship builders, 700,000 years ago.
Sign in to read: Ancient mariners - Early humans were much smarter than we suspected - 14 March 1998 - New Scientist
I posted another article on this forum a month ago. And here there is more evidence shown that early humans, as far back as 100,000+ years ago where sea goers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html?_r=1

Now since you have already provided information that says that modern humans only date to 50,000 years ago, then it means that these "Homo erectus" who lived prior to modern men, where no different in us, in terms of culture. They were conscious people. And not as depicted on television, cartoons and out dated science books - "primates".
Since the evidence is there that Neanderthals, Cro Magnon, Homo Sapians and Homo Erectus were a people of culture, thinking and living, why would you want to class them as a different Species? Which brings me to my original question - Define the word Species!
I have asked you and mountain goat to define this word in your own words, but you still have not. Rather you would split hair and grasp for straws by saying why I didn't mention the monotremes - the platypus and spiny anteaters which only exist in the down under. Boo hoo.

Thirdly, you keep mentioning to me the credibility of the scientists and say that because they are evolutionist, that they validate evolution. Perhaps you should watch Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled" and see why no Scientist that opposes evolution can get to keep their job, title (and the prestige you drool for) . In other words, these people have to support the dogma otherwise they get expelled. Still I will quote you evolutionists here with references. I have you references every time below the quotes. This is simply my habit. The onus is on you to go and find the books, the journals and verify it for your own sake.

Pierre Paul Grassé is the former president of the French Academy of Sciences and author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms. As he writes:


Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . .The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs

Pierre Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 8

Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea):

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked

Derek Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record.” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132

Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell:

Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution. . . . I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.

Lewis Thomas, “On the Uncertainty of Science,” Key Reporter, Vol. 46 (Autumn 1980), p. 2.

Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist:


The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove

SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, April 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland, URL:http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/ sites/sbs777/vital/evolutio.htm

Dr. Colin Patterson is an evolutionist paleontologist and curator of London’s Natural History Museum, editor of the museum’s journal and author of the book Evolution:
Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view—well, let’s callt non-evolutionary—was [that] last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years, I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long. . . So for the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
The question is this: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ I tried this question on the geology staff at 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— a very prestigious body of evolutionists—and all I got there was silence for a long time. But eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.

Dr. Colin Patterson, “Evolution and Creationism: Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution?

W. R. Thompson is Head of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control in - Ottawa:

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unableto define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.

Evolution

Stephen Jay Gould:


You don't make new species by mutating the species. . . . A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change



But what did you say?

Evolution takes into account mutations..

The list goes on...

So now that I have quoted you elite experts, who confess the weaknesses of this theory, what do you have to say?
Even Darwin himself confessed that the fossil record discredits his own theory. Gould and other major scientists have said the same. Yet you were the one who said:

Look at the whale for example. First evolved like all land dwelling mammals and then re-entered the open waters and became sea-dwelling. If they have a reason to specialize near coasts and then re-enter land, they will.

So whales had feet at one point? Can you show me a walking whale's fossil? An Amphibian whale? How asinine is your statement? Please provide proof, not speculation.

Fourthly, you keep insisting that "knowledge has grown exponentially" but so has our population grown exponentially. What significance does your statement have to our discussion? Did the growth in our knowledge lead to the growth in our population or vice versa? Then again... if you look at the fossil record, what we see are signs of Extinction. If evolution is the mechanism for producing life...excuse me .."Speciation", why is the contrary happening?
And this leads me to ...

Mountain Goat:

Invertebrates make up 95% of all animal species. What does the record show us? That there were more invertebrates before, than there are now. The majority have gone extinct. If evolution leads to speciation, then over the 3.5 billion years why haven't we seen an increase in speciation, rather than a decline? And why is that after 350 million years, a turtle is still a turtle, after 450 million a crabshell still a crab shell and a cockroach still the same. Why haven't all the species evolved to the other? And why did they evolve to begin with? If you mean to say that species evolve because they have an advantage over another...then why didn't the species of the same habitat and region evolve? For example, pre cambrian explosion, there were more triliboits than there are now. At one point Evolutionsts claimed that coelacanth were an example of fish that walked on earth. They believed them to be the ancestors of land walking animals and proposed that it had lungs, a digestive system and a functional brain and lived only 450 million years ago. Until some fisherman caught a living coelecanth and sunk the hypothesis. Evolution proposes that all animals have a common ancestor but you said it your self, that such links do not exist..links between fish that turned to reptiles and reptiles to birds are just fictitous. How do you propose prokaryotes turned eukaryotes? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. Oh ..that's right. You refuse to explain the how. Rather you believe this without questioning that insects turned into bats. Bats were bats even 50 million years ago. Sharks were sharks even 400 million years ago. Rather, you do yourself a disservice by believing such nonsense without an ounce of doubt. I should have clarified to you that my question was in regards to Chordates - animals with a nervous system which date back to early Cambrian times. Thus there are no evidence of animals with nervous system before the Cambrian era.
You say that you are sticking to evolution because it is the only explanation? There are other theories. Do you know who Francis Crick is? He discovered the double helix structure of the DNA and won a Nobel Prize for it. Bare in mind that he is a staunch atheist. He proposes a different theory called Panspermia. Why? because...

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle


And since you admit that there is no link between vertebrates and invertebrates...meaning there is no evidence of a species having features of both vertebrates, spine and bones, and features of invertebrates, shells..then how do you propose that one was transformed into the other? Which brings us to the next point that your raised.

Gravity is an observed phenomena. Evolution is not observed. Gravity posses a dilemma for physicists. Newton couldn't explain it but he could measure it and calculate it. Einstein racked his brain trying to make it fit into the universal equation but died feeling a failure at it. Gravity is not a theory. It is an observed phenomena. Since you admit that Evolution is not an observed phenomena, it is therefore not a fact, but a speculation. This analogy of yours goes to show that you do not understand what science is. Therefore your opinions on the issues are based upon your beliefs.

Next up

Faye.

I don't wish to make you look like a fool but in all honesty...only a fool would say this:

the nuclear power plant would be at a loss without the energy from the sun, no??

LOL.

Do you even know what a "nuclear plant" is faye?

[Alchemist]

Ahh...

I forgot, Point 5 for Miss Midnight Sun:

The punctuated Equilibria...and Cladogenesis. As I have stated previously. There is a war between evolutionists. And gradualism and punctuated equilibria are two camps at war ...of many many camps.

You can read all about it here:

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, there is no proof for this theory. Having come to grips with the fact that there are no intermediary forms, the theory of evolution was given a face lift by scientist ...now they say that species evolved suddenly! Which is the same as saying Allah made them so, as He willed. It is just a way of describing creation. Meaning that all of a sudden a bird could have popped out a reptiles egg! This basically contradicts the theory of evolution proposed by darwin who insisted on gradual change. So now they call it neo-darwinism. Having come to grips with the reality that mutations do not confer advantages, and that complex structures such as the eye, could in no way be made gradually ..they decided to say it happens "suddenly".

However, if adaptive radiation is true, then how come humans are the only species to walk on two legs?

Simple question....


Anyway. In order to keep this post as long as the rest, I would like to clarify my own position here for the readers. As so far I have only been critiquing the other side. Do no quote me on what I am about to say. I won't argue you with you on the following.

Personally, I do not believe in evolution.i.e, speciation (one species evolving into another). I believe in Quran...

God has created every animal out of water; some of them walk on their belly, while others walk on two legs and still others walk on four. God creates anything He wishes; God is Able (to do) everything." 24:54

As such I hold no pretense on how He does so. Allah says "Suma Anzallnahuu Asfalal Safaleen". Anzal means lower. The heavens are "up" and earth is "below". I take it to mean different dimensions...this four dimensional world being the lowest. Thus, my belief is that man has been thrown on earth...how? I don't know. I certainly don't believe that man morphed from bacteria to lizards to monkeys to Mountain-Goat. However, we are made of clay!
Graham Cairns-Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So The Creator says that we are made of Clay and we were fashioned from this earth. Returned to it. Die and vanish. The atoms in my body change. I eat food. My system replaces every atom. So my entity exists by the will of The Sustainer. When I die. My body will decay back into dirt. As to what my soul is...I don't speculate. I don't know. I am not sure what will happen to me. I live only to die. And everything I do is so I die. When I sleep. I dream. And sometimes my dreams are so vivid they appear real. So I wonder if this is all real. So I am not a materialist! Time is an illusion. I do quote time scales. I might say this is so many million years old and that is that many years old. But I don't believe it. Carbon dating is a weak method. It assumes some factors to be constant. Such as the volume of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere. I find more evidence in the Earth Expansion theory than the platetectonics theory. Therefore, I do not ascribe to the time scale of evolutionists. Fossils of dinosaures with flesh have been found. It is impossible for it survive millions of years! I do not know the real time scale of earth and life and I make no pretense about it. You will probably find me saying many times in my debates "from an evolutionary perspective"...My thesis in university required that I learn and delve into evolutionary psychology. I hold Charles Darwin in high esteem. He was a genius..as most jews are apparently. There are many fields in biology that have been founded only because he made the observations first! Such as our uncanny ability to distinguish faces. I've read his book "Origin of Species". It attests to his genius that he himself saw the faults in his theories! He predicted exactly how it could be falsfied. But other people, atheists, which he wasn't, used his theory for their materialistic gains. He was just a victim of the times he was living in. Communism hijacked his theory to justify their philosophies on how societies ought to be. His theory has been proven wrong though. However, we have already adopted the language. The core of our brain, the hypothalamus is primitive, our neo cortex, advanced. We can fall for our carnal cravings, and become primitive, lower beings. We could raise our consciousness and become enlighten, elevated beings. The life giver is Allah. All biology falls as well under theology. When we are sick we turn to The Healer (Ashl Shafee). So in conclusion...unlike faye, mountain goat, and mid night sun...I hold no pretense. Which is why I can so easily critique them and disprove them. The knowledge of creation belongs to Allah. No mere mortal can create life. Frankenstein is only fiction. Not in a million years will they over come death...and even then the human condition won't change. My "existentialist crap" will make you dizzy...it makes me dizzy... I am still in the processing phase and have still a long way to go...

[طالب]

Invertebrates make up 95% of all animal species. What does the record show us? That there were more invertebrates before, than there are now. The majority have gone extinct.

Whether or not that is true, it has no bearing on my argument. My argument is simply that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates. Seing as how invertebrates are less complex than vertebrates, it is evidence that simple organisms existed on earth before more complex ones.

How many percent invertebrates make up of all organisms today and how many have gone extinct have no relation whatsoever with the fact that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates.

If you disagree that invertebrates existed on earth before vertebrates, please explain to me why there has not been found a vertebrate fossil dating before 600 million years, while there have been found invertebrate fossils dating up to 3.5 billion years ago. The fossil record is clear on this.

If evolution leads to speciation, then over the 3.5 billion years why haven't we seen an increase in speciation, rather than a decline?

Again, this has nothing to do with my argument. You're spewing out random questions that have no relation to the case for the FoE that I laid out.

Whether or not there are less species today than 3.5 billion years ago, the fact still remains that 3.5 billion years ago organisms were more simple than they are today. Even though there might be less species today than 3.5 billion years ago, the species today are still more complex, and that's the point I'm trying to make. 3.5 billion years ago there were no vertebrates, only invertebrates. So where did the vertebrates come from? The only reasonable explanation is that the vertebrates came from the invertebrates.

Please tell me how you would answer the question scientifically. I don't believe you can, and that's why evolution is described in biology books. Because it's the best scientific explanation for how more complex organisms came to be on earth, given the evidence we have.

And why is that after 350 million years, a turtle is still a turtle, after 450 million a crabshell still a crab shell and a cockroach still the same. Why haven't all the species evolved to the other?

Irrelevant to my argument. The answer to any of those questions have no bearing on my case. Even if a turtle or a cockroach are the same after a number of years, the fact still remains that 3.5 billion years ago there were no vertebrates, only invertebrates. So where did the vertebrates come from? I argue that more complex organisms (vertebrates) came from simple organisms (invertebrates). What do I base this on? The fact that all living creatures have a living parent, thus the living vertebrates must have come from the equally living invertebrates.

Even if some invertebrates have stayed the same million of years, it doesn't negate the fact that simple organisms existed on earth long before complex organisms did. Thus your objection is irrelevant to my argument.

And why did they evolve to begin with?

Why they evolved is also irrelevant. I never set out to try and explain why organisms evolved, only to argue the case that based on the evidence we have, they did evolve.

If we don't know why salmon swim to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

If you mean to say that species evolve because they have an advantage over another...then why didn't the species of the same habitat and region evolve?

I didn't mean to say anything like that. It wasn't even part of my argument and in fact I've never even mentioned it for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to my argument. Just because some species didn't evolve, it doesn't negate the fact that invertebrates existed before vertebrates and thus vertebrates must have come from the invertebrates.

I've never even talked about how or why the process comes about. The fact remains that invertebrates existed before vertebrates and living organisms come from living organisms. Thus the vertebrates must have come from the invertebrates. How it happened is another discussion. Really, unless you have an objection to those two facts, the argument is air tight.

For example, pre cambrian explosion, there were more triliboits than there are now. At one point Evolutionsts claimed that coelacanth were an example of fish that walked on earth. They believed them to be the ancestors of land walking animals and proposed that it had lungs, a digestive system and a functional brain and lived only 450 million years ago. Until some fisherman caught a living coelecanth and sunk the hypothesis.

I don't see how this has any bearing on my argument. It doesn't disprove that vertebrates didn't exist 3.5 billion years ago. It doesn't disprove that living organisms come from living organisms. It's irrelevant.

Evolution proposes that all animals have a common ancestor but you said it your self, that such links do not exist..

No, I never said that. All I said was that animal and plants species develop out of other species not at all like them. E.g. vertebrates came from invertebrates.

links between fish that turned to reptiles and reptiles to birds are just fictitous. How do you propose prokaryotes turned eukaryotes? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. Oh ..that's right. You refuse to explain the how.

As I've already told you numerous times before, I don't need to explain how in order for my case for the FoE to stand. Can't you understand that? We know that living organisms come from living organisms. How the process happened is another discussion.

"To repeat the point: Darwin's theory is an account of how evolution works. If there are problems with that theory or even if it is discredited, that does not disprove the existence of evolution. Just because we have problems agreeing how something works, that does not entitle us to claim that the phenomenon does not exist. If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

Hence, any appeal to problems with, say, the mutation rate or to the probabilities of random changes producing complex structures or to what is going on at the microscopic level, however pertinent they may be to a discussion of natural selection, are irrelevant to the argument presented for evolution."

I should have clarified to you that my question was in regards to Chordates - animals with a nervous system which date back to early Cambrian times. Thus there are no evidence of animals with nervous system before the Cambrian era.

But that just further supports my 3. point, that simple organisms existed before complex ones. I don't see what your contention is.

You say that you are sticking to evolution because it is the only explanation? There are other theories. Do you know who Francis Crick is? He discovered the double helix structure of the DNA and won a Nobel Prize for it. Bare in mind that he is a staunch atheist. He proposes a different theory called Panspermia. Why? because...

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle

From wikipedia:

Panspermia proposes that life that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile bacteria, become trapped in debris that are ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on the new planets' surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins.

Thus, Panspermia is not a theory that explains where complex organisms, e.g. vertebrates, on earth came from. That is what you need to explain. You need to lay out a scientific explanation for where the complex organisms came from. We know that simple invertebrate organisms existed 3.5 billion years ago on earth. Around 600 million years ago more complex, vertebrate organisms appeared on earth. Where did they come from?

The funny things is that the Panspermia hypothesis actually supports evolution. It states that bacteria after colliding with other planets, and if met with ideal conditions, will become active after which the process of evolution begins!

You are trying to argue against the FoE using a hypothesis which supports the FoE!

And since you admit that there is no link between vertebrates and invertebrates...meaning there is no evidence of a species having features of both vertebrates, spine and bones, and features of invertebrates, shells..

You're putting words in my mouth, I've never admitted to that or stated anything to that effect. The reason I don't talk about transitional fossils is because they're utterly irrelevant to the case for the FoE.

What I said was that simple organisms existed on earth before more complex ones. As an example of that I use invertebrates and vertebrates. The fact remains that 3.5 billion years ago organisms were more simple, there were no vertebrates. Around 600 million years ago vertebrates started appearing. Whether transitional animals appeared or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that simple organisms existed on earth long before complex ones. That's the only evidence I need, in addition to point 1 and 2.

then how do you propose that one was transformed into the other?

How the process occured is irrelevant. If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

Let's say you leave your bike in the garage and go to work. When you come back the bike is suddenly standing next to your front door. Are you going to argue that the bike was not moved from the garage to your front door because you don't know how it happened?

Of course not, you might not know how it happened, but you still know that it happened, somehow.

Gravity is an observed phenomena. Evolution is not observed. Gravity posses a dilemma for physicists. Newton couldn't explain it but he could measure it and calculate it. Einstein racked his brain trying to make it fit into the universal equation but died feeling a failure at it. Gravity is not a theory. It is an observed phenomena. Since you admit that Evolution is not an observed phenomena, it is therefore not a fact, but a speculation.

1. You are confusing the scientific terms fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution and the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

2. The FoE is observed. Read the following and learn:

Critics also state that evolution is not a fact.[37] In science, a fact is a verified empirical observation; in colloquial contexts, however, a fact can simply refer to anything for which there is overwhelming evidence. For example, in common usage theories such as "the Earth revolves around the Sun" and "objects fall due to gravity" may be referred to as "facts", even though they are purely theoretical. From a scientific standpoint, therefore, evolution may be called a "fact" for the same reason that gravity can: under the scientific definition, evolution is an observable process that occurs whenever a population of organisms genetically changes over time. Under the colloquial definition, the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists.[38][39][40]

3. However, I was using the FoE under the colloquial definition, as described above. That is, "the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature". You fail to realise though, that the word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. Even though evolution is "just a theory", it doesn't make it any less true than gravity. As stated:

Well, of course evolution is a theory, just as atomic structures, black holes, electricity, relativity, DNA, magnetism, and so on are "just theories." But so what? We do not have direct visual evidence of these things with our own eyes (who has ever seen an electron or a molecule or a gene with the naked eye?). What we do observe, often with the aid of very sophisticated machines, are larger events which we explain as effects of those theoretical components. Most scientific theories involve natural elements that we cannot see. Those who seriously believe that this objection carries any weight need to become more familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry and the meaning of a scientific "proof."

4. You have not understood what a scientific theory is. You keep trying to label evolution as a theory, not because it is one in the scientific sense of the word, but because according to your definition a theory is mere "speculation" or a "myth".

When I say theory, I mean scientific theory and when I say the fact of evolution, I refer to its colloquial definition. I am still not talking about the ToE, which is an explanation of the FoE.

[faye]

nuclear power plant? isn't that the one with the small purple and orange flowers and the prickly leaves, alchemist?

[Alchemist]

Well mountain goat.

If Wikipedia says it is fact...then it must be. After all Wikipedia is an accredited scientific journal like talkorigins and nature magazine ...

Since you say the mechanism is irrelevant then we are no longer discussing a science.

So where did the vertebrates come from? The only reasonable explanation is that the vertebrates came from the invertebrates

.

This is a logical fallacy:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation
Fallacy of the single cause Occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Homunculus fallacy: Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.
Base Rate Fallacy. using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability
Begging the question where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
Regression fallacy ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)
Slippery slope: argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact

I don't believe you can, and that's why evolution is described in biology books.

Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so

What do I base this on? The fact that all living creatures have a living parent, thus the living vertebrates must have come from the equally living invertebrates.

Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.

You have a weak understanding of the complexity of living organisms, which is why you believe keep saying "invertebrates existed 3.5 billion years ago." The reason why I indicated to you that 95% of living animals are invertebrates is to allude to the fact that this taxonomy casts a wide net. What you mean to say is that prokaryotes existed 3.5 billion years. However, evidence suggests that prokaryotes also exist on Mars. And I wouldn't be surprised if they found some on the moons of Jupiter as well. If the statement holds true that simple life leads to complex life, then why not mars? Also eukaryotic life is not evident in the fossil record date to 1.2 billion years, red algae. Even the earliest prokaryotes dates to only 1.5 to 2 billion years ago...So I don't know why you religiously say 3.5. However, these numbers are not based on an exact science. As we begin to learn more and more about the earth, we find that previous assumptions, such as yours are wrong and misleading:

New Analysis Throws Age of Life on Earth Into Doubt

The onus is on you to support your statements with proofs.
Show me this 3.5 billion year old invertebrate evidence and how you have come to know that it is in fact 3.5 and not 2.1 or 1.5 or .5. Try not to be dogmatic about this. A real scientist is always a skeptic. Perhaps this is the reason why we haven't had any real scientific discoveries in the past 50 years...but I digress.
Show me a single protein that has formed spontaneously. Also keep in mind that for life to form, it requires at least 250 proteins. Which is mathematically improbable.

You keep saying that we don't know why Salmon fish upstream. You don't know. But they are genetically programmed to do so:
Physiological ecology of Pacific salmon - Google Books

Ay yes...but you are not interested in the how or why...Alas..

In conclusion, if you still don't understand the fallacies that I have pointed out to you...then it goes to show that you in fact just a goat and lack the ability to think logically.





[Allah is] the Originator of the heavens and earth. When He decides on something, He just says to it, “Be!” and it is. (Surat al-Baqara, 117)

You obviously deny this verse mountain goat...hence you are an atheist, materialist so I can understand your blind conviction in "evolution". You have nothing else left to fall on.
This is a good way of outing out all the fakes and flakes on this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Alchemist]

nuclear power plant? isn't that the one with the small purple and orange flowers and the prickly leaves, alchemist?

pathetic.