Evolution is boring, What does it mean to you ?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Just the genetic evidence alone

genetics is the field of science that is disproving evolution, Maybe you did miss that in another thread ?

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


No discovery found in genetics disproves evolution. In fact genetics could only prove Evolution. For instance if you have a child chances are that child has different genetics from you and the person you had a child with, those genetic changes are Evolution. That's all Evolution is, gradual genetic change, those small changes compound until a few million years later you might have something that looks totally different than what you started with.

Please post a link with why genetics disproves Evolution if you think it will help.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
There's also fossils

Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research continues to add to our knowledge. While we don’t know everything about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity

When scientist learn to speed up time and show me proof of their experiment in a lab dish then I will concede... I am willing to wait around a billion years to see the proof.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Irreducible Complexity

for some info, check the dates (2005) Vs. (1854)
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

When scientist learn to speed up time and show me proof of their experiment in a lab dish then I will concede... I am willing to wait around a billion years to see the proof.

Well you know there are instances of observed speciation. We've witnessed, both in the lab and in the wild, one species becoming another. Usually this is done with an animal that reproduces quickly and the most well known experiments had to do with fruit flies.

Now you're not likely to ever get to see something grand and incredible in the lab, you won't be able to see a bird turn back into a dinosaur, but speciation is direct proof of Evolution and that you can get in a lab.

Speciation

Edit to Add: Irreducible Complexity was debunked. It isn't considered valid by the scientific community and is, at its root, an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

In fact irreducible complexity has been debunked since the Kitzmiller v Dover trial of 2005.

Evolution is simply the change and adaptation of life over time. It is not a religion and is a theory. When new facts and evidence are found the theory is able to change and include the new facts or evidence. Creationism is religion and for most is based off the Bible. It is not able to change or adapt to evidence or facts. The Bible contradicts itself and disproves a Bible based Creationism. It can not be taught in school or any academia because of all the contradictions and myths.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Irreducible complexity, we meet again!

It's been a while since someone brought this up, feels like ages.

1: Please demonstrate to me an irreducibly complex biological system
2: Please demonstrate to me that all biological systems must be functional
3: Please demonstrate to me an instance of a system that doesn't have precursors throughout the biological world

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Since you have broken your own rule. Here is a link that talks about why there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Edit to Add: Irreducible Complexity was debunked. It isn't considered valid by the scientific community and is, at its root, an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

edit on 14-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

of course thats what you are picking up from Wiki lol think about it... Wiki is a user entered and peer-reviewed source. type Irreducible Complexity into your browser and find some .edu sites to browse.

Irreducible Complexity states that life would have been gone by now because of genetic coding.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Or you could just watch Ken Miller demolish it. Or read the transcript of his demolishing of irreducible complexity in open court in the Kitzmiller case. Or you could just read what Michael Behe (the creator of the ridiculous idea) said.

Or you could just respond to my challenges regarding irreducible complexity.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Since you have broken your own rule. Here is a link that talks about why there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

can you point this out for me ? I must have missed breaking my own rule.

As you can tell I am not a supreme dictator, my mind is always open to proof... so I would like to see that to.

Now if you ask me to have "faith" in the proof, I will tell you I already have a religion.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Wikipedia isn't always a trustworthy source, its advantage is that it has a page on almost every subject imaginable. The disadvantage is that anyone can edit it.

Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. It states that certain things are so complex that they could not have evolved naturally because each of the pieces don't have a specific function. It proposes no mechanism for how these things could have come into existence without evolution which is why Creationists like it because they can use that tiny gap in knowledge to throw their magic man in to wave his wand.

The main example offered by proponents used to be the Bacterial flagellum but that was defeated. Watch the video I put in my response just after you replied. Irreducible Complexity has been dead in the water since the Kitzmiller V. Dover case of 2005.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
[In fact irreducible complexity has been debunked since the Kitzmiller v Dover trial of 2005.

gawd I should have never posted that wiki link...

but this is reverse psychology, we don't really want the scientist to accept irreducible complexity because that would almost put an end to everything. And I like the gadgets we get from science too.

I stick with my original statement, Evolution is boring and out of date... Why aren't you guys using the LHC to disprove creation ?

maybe because the LHC is looking too for the G-d particle.

ironic yes...

Evolution is tiny compared to newer questions.

Hi Cosmic artifact.

Evolution to me and to almost every other person that took the time to learn about evolution, and think about it using the massive amount of evidence, proof, observations, and predictions made by it that actually turned out to fact.... Evolution means nothing to me, but it explains so much more about the ever changing life on this planet since it first shown its face.

Although I must admit that I often wondered and sense an amazing and profound sense of luck when I see all the beauty out there and that I am here for such a limited time to actually experience it all together.

Nature truly is beautiful isn't it ?

There will never ever be a missing link found by the way... Basically because it doesn't exist.

Ever since life existed every single species of plant and animal has been a fully formed individual without freakish features that made them look have goat / half human or something.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Actually I've known about the Dover trial for more than a year now, posting that link didn't hurt your chances.

we don't really want the scientist to accept irreducible complexity because that would almost put an end to everything

No it wouldn't. Even if Irreducible Complexity were true it would just prove we have more to learn about Evolution. In other words it would be like a gap in our knowledge. That gap doesn't mean you start inserting gods, aliens or any other absurd hypotheses it merely means we would still have a mystery to solve as far as Evolution is concerned.

Sort of the way having one or two "missing links" in an evolutionary chain doesn't mean we didn't evolve and doesn't discount the other half a dozen links we might have. Creationists have a tendency, every time science finds a new transitional fossil, to claim that fossil just creates two more missing links.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Hi Cosmic artifact.

Evolution to me and to almost every other person that took the time to learn about evolution, and think about it using the massive amount of evidence, proof, observations, and predictions made by it that actually turned out to fact.... Evolution means nothing to me, but it explains so much more about the ever changing life on this planet since it first shown its face.

Although I must admit that I often wondered and sense an amazing and profound sense of luck when I see all the beauty out there and that I am here for such a limited time to actually experience it all together.

Nature truly is beautiful isn't it ?

There will never ever be a missing link found by the way... Basically because it doesn't exist.

Ever since life existed every single species of plant and animal has been a fully formed individual without freakish features that made them look have goat / half human or something.

I believe in Evolution, I never said I didn't I just accept it as part of a whole and it really does not describe much of anything... It is dated theory and we are well beyond all that now.

My main problem is the attacking and closed mindedness of the people who use it to attack religion. Evolution is boring simple as that.

I like newer science.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Actually I've known about the Dover trial for more than a year now, posting that link didn't hurt your chances.

we don't really want the scientist to accept irreducible complexity because that would almost put an end to everything

No it wouldn't. Even if Irreducible Complexity were true it would just prove we have more to learn about Evolution. In other words it would be like a gap in our knowledge. That gap doesn't mean you start inserting gods, aliens or any other absurd hypotheses it merely means we would still have a mystery to solve as far as Evolution is concerned.

agreed... and I can appreciate your posting style.

Evolution does not erase the bigger question, though the proponents would use it as a weapon, it's ridiculous.

it's just a tiny part, about the size of a pebble.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


we can't believe everything we read now can we ?

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..."[3] Currently, there are several theories of evolution.

www.conservapedia.com...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Evolution can only answer one thing - the source of bio-diversity. It doesn't answer the origins of life or the origins of the Universe. There are still genuine mysteries in science. The difference is that many Creationists arrogantly insert their God as the answer to questions that we just don't know yet. Like what came before the Big Bang.. We don't know and Creationists don't seem to understand that saying "God dun it" doesn't answer anything.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Maybe I misunderstood.

I was under the impression that you asked for my opinion about evolution.

I offer this thread for the Evolutionist to express what evolution means to you ?

So I did...

So did I misunderstood ?

The theory of evolution isn't outdated. Actually... it has changed a lot since it was first thought of.
That is why it is still around. It is continuously updated to include new discoveries or remove old mistakes from it.

It is also the reason why you don't have to believe in evolution. It is fact.

I do agree with you that it's silly that it's used to attack religious ideas... But... that is kind of a result of creationists that try to disprove evolution. More then a lot of arguments used by creationists immediately show if they know and understand what they are talking about...

Sadly enough they don't for the most time.

Personally I like to learn about Chaos theory and Quantum physics. Very thought provoking and the possibilities are endless.
That was what you meant with New science right ?

PS.
I don't think evolution is boring actually. I get even more fascinated after every new article I read.