Evil Atheist Conspiracy

Reading on natural selection, I cannot help but disagree with the postulate that if given enough time isolated from a set group that one group broke off from with certain traits, said replication of traits will end with a new species created. For instance, fruit flies. I'm sure you've heard this often. But we can create thousands of generations of fruit flies in a relatively short time...and yet, evolution doesn't happen with them. They just...are flies. Fruit flies. Maybe with crossed-wings, straight wings, no wings, blue eyes, red eyes, but they're STILL fruit flies. Humans take longer to breed like that, so if we were to isolate two fertile human beings in an area and they were allowed to breed in quarantine until they expired, and their descendants as well in said quarantine, their bad traits will outshine their healthy genetic traits, and the end result shall be the horrific genetic maladies that accompany in-breeding...hemophilia, for instance. Common in England because of the marriage of first cousins where the hemophiliac genes would have a higher chance of being present...and in the male descenant, hemophilia is there.

Mutations, I am afraid, still do not equal evolution.
 
Read all of them before saying what qualifies as evolution, you are mistaking what evolution is.

Evolution: A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

If you breed two groups of fruit flies in seperate situations for an extended period of time (letting them breed over and over again), and than reconcile the group breeding between the two groups becomes impossible. This means they are seperate species.
 
Not quite...multiple mutations have ruined and separated the two groups by then, but that does not prove that the two are two separate and incompatible species. For instance, a genetically barren woman cannot breed with a genetically fruitful man. It just doesn't work. They're the same species, and they can have union, but there is no product out of it. That doesn't necessarily add to the fact that they are different species.
The flies breed (correct me if I am wrong but never have I heard of fruit fly families refusing to breed as is possible) but they may not be, pardon the pun, fruitful.
 
I understand your point, I should have explained with more clarity.

Both groups were fertile, they could mate and reproduce with their own group. By definition anyone who is the same species as another (assuming both are fertile) are able to mate successfully.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Medjai @ Sep. 14 2003,10:31)]I understand your point, I should have explained with more clarity.

Both groups were fertile, they could mate and reproduce with their own group. By definition anyone who is the same species as another (assuming both are fertile) are able to mate successfully.
Click to expand...
Breading a variant of an existing family, phyla, etc... does not prove goo to you theories.

Actually, these variants within kinds are stronger arguements for how life multiplied after the flood. And are extremely weak arguements for non-living matter to living matter theories.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Medjai @ Sep. 14 2003,8:44)]Some things you should read...

Five major misconceptions about evolution READ!

Go here to see how evolution is both a fact and a theory.

An example of evolution.

Much of human evolution is well documented by the fossil record. This set of articles covers the fossil evidence for such human ancestors as Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Creationist arguments about these fossils are also confronted.

Transitional fossils among vertebraes.

Evolution and chance?

Please don't bother responding unless you actually read this stuff.

I made this same post in another thread, we are talking about the same thing.

I will add some 'flood facts' though.

Key problems with a global flood.

In regards to your whole tid bit on 20,000 cultures recording the flood.

On what you said about geological strata finds in regards to fossils.

Dinosaur foot prints in coal

When you have read all of these, feel free to respond, otherwise you are just ignoring the facts.
Click to expand...
Hi, I know you don't know me, I've taken a few weeks and gone to England and France. As if anybody noticed...


Anyway, I have studied Evolution, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated Evolution, Dawkins, Intellegent Designer and Creationism (through Christianity and to a lessor extent other creationist religions) and a whole whack of other goodies related to all this.

I've read many books and texts on the subject. Including a good chunk of the links you have provided.

Unfortunatly, there are two great barriers for me to overcome to intellagently engage you in any kind of arguement on these subjects:

1. I am still in England and have a very limited time.
2. I am only alloted 78,000 characters to a post, thus I would need many numorous posts to do so at this time. I highly doubt you would read all of it anyway.

I won't be back home for another three days. If you wish to gnaw your teeth...pick any topic in the whole evolution vs creation scheme of things. Only rule is, stay on topic. No round abouts, no beating around the bush, no bringing up other topics. Oh, and proper posting of sources as well.

----

And to everybody, I am having a blast in England and France. Architecturally stunning. Historically interesting. I just got back from France today via the chunnel on the EuroStar. I spent all day yesterday at the Louvre after a stop at Notre-Dame. I also walked from the Louvre to the Arc de Triumph via the Champs d'elysees. Wow, what a hike indeed.

----

Medjai, it would have been appreciated, polite and appropriate in your original post to mention that you were just joking. You see, the board system is based strickly on text. It is impossible to determine the tone of your text. I suppose this is a mere slip of manners and I think it can be overlooked.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CndBacon @ Sep. 15 2003,2:47)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Medjai @ Sep. 14 2003,10:31)]I understand your point, I should have explained with more clarity.

Both groups were fertile, they could mate and reproduce with their own group. By definition anyone who is the same species as another (assuming both are fertile) are able to mate successfully.
Click to expand...
Breading a variant of an existing family, phyla, etc... does not prove goo to you theories.

Actually, these variants within kinds are stronger arguements for how life multiplied after the flood.  And are extremely weak arguements for non-living matter to living matter theories.
Click to expand...
Actually, evolution has nothing to do with life from non-life, at least in the aspect to which I have been discussing it. Thanks for building up a straw man though!

As for the breeding of a variant towards an existing family, via a fruit fly becoming unable to breed with other fruit flys that are in a seperate gene pool is empirical evidence for the idea of macro evolution.

The flood and evolution are two seperate areas, and the idea that speciation strengthens the argument of a flood is preposterous.

What happened to all that water?

Why are there no signs of global flood in so many places of the earth?

You are using wishful thinking and preaching to the choir, both being logical fallacies.
 
The water would have been thousands of feet deep, Everest would have been about 100 feet lower, but that still is about 27,000 feet up from the current sea level.

The idea of this much water (consider the size of the Earth) simply 'drying up' is absurd. It hasn't been too long, especially if you're a young earther.
 
there's such things, as the aquafier, there was a climatic shift, creating the polar regions after the flood, as well as the natural progression of rainfall cycles, that started after the floods.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Medjai @ Sep. 15 2003,4:09)]Actually, evolution has nothing to do with life from non-life, at least in the aspect to which I have been discussing it. Thanks for building up a straw man though!
Click to expand...
This is the foundation of evolution. It is the first step of evolution. Any further discussion without regards to how it (the first living cell) started is disrespectful to your own position.

Seeing as you demand people read your information before determining what evolution is, I am going to ask you to read a book by two evolutionary scientists before you simply quote a definition found in a dictionary.

The origins of life co-authored by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1999).

And so far, you have not been discussing evolution, you have simply been discussing the evidence of change as you understand it through your axiom of there being no God. And at that, you have been discussing mostly soft evidence, and very little hard evidence.

BTW, I have not set up any straw man yet. You are looking very foolish with your statement thanking me for setting one up. I simply pointed out:

Actually, these variants within kinds are stronger arguements for how life multiplied after the flood. And are extremely weak arguements for non-living matter to living matter theories.

I have not even begun building my case for that statement, so how can there be a straw man? I degress, and the question is rhetorical.
 
Your straw man is in taking a an argument to which is weak and not my own, and tearing it down (this is what a straw man is).

Actually, the first step of evolution would be that of an imperfect replicator (DNA). Many believe that God started life, and that it evolved from that starting point.

I have presented plenty of hard evidence (read the links).

I will read the book, yet I can't get to the book store for a few days and I am also limited financially, so I hope it isn't very expensive.
 
actually according to textbooks, the first step of evolution is

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves (i.e. the Big Bang)
 
hard evidence, sothey witnessed evolution first hand? they saw it happen and recorded it?

not saying that we have all seen the Bible happen first hand, but how can science be anything but a religion, when alot of the evolutionary "facts" are in facts beliefs, why do you think there are so many out there, its like a church that cant agree on a set doctrine
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Sep. 16 2003,4:01)]actually according to textbooks, the first step of evolution is

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves (i.e. the Big Bang)
Click to expand...
No, that is entirely a seperate issue, do you enjoy twisting science?

The Big Bang is thought to be that which initiated the universe, evolution could have came from a) natural causes
or b) supernatural causes started life and allowed nature to take its course.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (LionOfJudah @ Sep. 16 2003,6:47)]hard evidence, sothey witnessed evolution first hand? they saw it happen and recorded it?

not saying that we have all seen the Bible happen first hand, but how can science be anything but a religion, when alot of the evolutionary "facts" are in facts beliefs, why do you think there are so many out there, its like a church that cant agree on a set doctrine
Click to expand...
But like Medjai said, what they can't agree specifically on is how it works...the fact that is DOES happen is agreed upon...
 
no it is not twisting science. If one did not happen (i.e. the big bang/stellar evolution) why would the other have happened?
 
So you are saying that if Science is wrong in one area they are wrong in all areas?
 
I never said that.

What I said is that how can the theory of evolution hold true, if the start of that theory does not hold true.

According to evolution, we came from nothing. The big bang created the universe, stars and planets formed, then life rose up, and began it's track up the evolutionary track. How can the rest happen if the first doesn't?

How can you get a chicken if it's parent never lays an egg?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top