Only because you're afraid of the truth I speak.

I've put doubts in your mind.

Yay. That's what I wanted.

Most likely yeah. People like lulu seem to have this built in "defence" mechanism. Whenever someone actually starts cracking shell of circular logic hidden beneath their beliefs they leave the discussion while they go find some spackle(they call it "faith") to seal themselves back in.

For the record, I don't mind people believing in stuff with no logical basis for doing so, as long as they are honest with themselves and others about that fact...and don't try forcing those beliefs to be treated as equal to objectively verifiable facts and/or reasonable inductions.

That's the exact reason I don't believe in Macro-Evolution, Setarcos.

The beliefs being used as objective evidence.

*sigh*

Your note required to _believe_ in Macro-Evolution. It's a proven scientific theory.

Before you go on to say otherwise, let me ask you whether or not you 'believe' (heh) in Micro-Evolution? If the answer to that is yes, then you must, as a consquence of time and micro-evolution, 'believe' in Macro-Evolution.

If you refute Micro-Evolution (which is observed very easily, in the space of a few days in the cases of some species as thats how long it takes for a generations to come and go), then we have entered the realm of you ignoring scientific facts and as such any reasonable debate stops here.

Micro evolution and macro evolution are completely two different things

Micro E. is change or variation within "kind" or species...Micro E. is a fact of science and is not what is in question in the Origins debate.

Macro Evolution is the unproven idea that one kind or species evolved into a completly different one..as in reptile into a bird...or ape into a human.

lulapilgrim wrote:

 

 

Let's use the example of the fruit fly experiemnt that you've mentioned yourself in other topics (i think it was you, i've debated this with several people over the past few days so forgive me if it wasn't). Information of which you can find out about Here.

 Thomas Hunt Morgan (who carried out the experiment) was a revolutionary and I admire his work fully, he observed mutations (the most obvious being the flies getting different coloured eyes). This concludes that micro evolution is a fact.

 One of the major contributing factors of natural selection being sexual selection. You take one of your laboratory flies and see if it mates with a normal fruit fly. It can’t, it won’t, their incompatible like me and a pink pokadotted elephant, despite me wanting to mate with it, at the genetic level it just isn't going to work!  

This is usually happens in nature after micro evolution has reached the scale where the species in question has now split to the point were the number of copies of chromosomes is different and as such they are unable to mate. At this point the two branches of species only mate with themselves and the genetic differences of the two become more and more observable over time until we (eventually) have a new type of species.

 That’s my understanding of it. We could find out that Darwin was wrong and I’d be just as excited about the prospect as anyone. I’m no Darwinionite, the very notion of standing behind a cause so staunchly and refuting others straight off sort of reminds me too much of religion and as such I try to distance myself from it.

I do believe however that it is the most plausible answer so far (and as such should be teached in schools), just like our current understanding of gravity is plausible (but we know for sure it isn’t 100% correct!), yet should we not teach it in schools?

Goodness, haven't we passed this stage already a few times?

As was mentioned many times before, the evolution of one species into two can be observed in the lab. I believe they usually use fruitflies.

The theory of evolution says that what works in the lab explains what happened in the real world as well. There is no reason to assume that fruitflies (or any animal) stop reproducing just before two populations stop being compatible enough to interbreed (definition of species).

There can never be "proof" for a theory because that's not how the real world works. Empirically, every single change we observe could be explained by evolution, but perhaps there was one event where a new speciec was created in a different way. We cannot disprove that. And doing so is not what science is about.

Now, Creationism and ID claim that some creator created all the species. That claim may or may not be as valid as the claim of evolution.

But there is no evidence for a creator in the real world and there have been no lab experiments that demonstrate how "creation" or "intelligent design" work.

So until ID proponents can create two different species in a lab, it's not a scientific theory to state that ID explains how it happened in the real world.

 

Let's use a different example, with a real world and a lab. We are trying to find an explanation (a "theory", if you will) for the facts we observe.

Our fact: In our real world in this thought experiment we observe that the smurfs are born in the basement of the house (there is only this one house in our thought experiment real world) but that some of them live in the first and second floors of the building.

Two explanations for how they get from the basement to floors 1 and 2 come to mind:

1. They use the stairs.

2. They are moved from the basement to the first and second floors by a creator or some such person.

 

Our lab: We have a much smaller building with mini-smurfs (mini-smurfs are very very small smurfs) that we observe. It has a basement and an upper floor and stairs.

What we observe in the lab: Mini-smurfs use the stairs to get from the basement to the first floor without our doing.

What we don't observe: A creator takes mini-smurfs and moves them around without our doing.

Our theory: In the real world smurfs ALSO use the stairs to get from the basement to other floors.

We cannot prove it. Perhaps they do. It seems likely that they do. Perhaps they use the stairs so rarely that we cannot observe it in our short lifetimes.

The point is that the _theory_ explains HOW it might work and we have evidence (the stairs) and can demonstrate in the lab that the method DOES work.

 

That's the difference between a scientific theory and a fairy tale.

Plus we don't have to have an explanation for why the creator exists or moves smurfs around.

 

 

I have said it before, and I'll say it again.

There is NO evidence at all that G-d is running around the world stopping fruitflies from reproducing just before two fruitfly populations become two species of fruitflies.

 

I'm almost tempted to save this in a text file.

That paragraph, and that paragraph alone in the whole comment, I totally and absolutely agree with.

I often find myself writing things that people then tell me are worth quoting or saving. It's a good feeling.

Micro evolution is small change within species..these experiments with fruit flies didn't produce a different species...in the end the basic kind remained....it was still a fruit fly.

The evidence is the DNA itself (which imo only God could design)..which has its own inherent speificiations that ensures that the basic kind of fruit fly remains unique. It prevents new, higher species from arising because its DNA resists extreme changes with a tendency to revert back toward the basic type. In short harmful mutations are overcome by healthy ones.

This fact puts Evolution Theory up against immense odds and vast periods of time are of no help. For starters mutations occur rarely in nature and in order to be inheritable must occur in the genes of the germ cells which are very well protected. The mathematical problem arises for a series of related mutations to occur. The odds of getting 2 mutations is the product of separate probablilities of something like 10 to the 14th power. If that happened it would still be just another fruit fly with some variation...which is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organisim.

And you have observed that where exactly?

The fact is that fruitfly populations indeed grow into different species.



It is a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. But it is a different species of fruitfly.

I don't know your definition of "some new kind of organism", but give the fruitflies time.

A frog changes from one organism into a completely new kind of organism within his lifetime. How can you claim that something like that cannot happen over an even longer period of time?

Oh dear Gods!!!! I'm amazed how long these debates go on for and their cyclical nature. I would like to put forth the assertion that Scotteh, Setarcos and Leauki have "won" the thread. I will pray to the flying spaghetti monster for your souls!!!

Point is....after all the time and all the experimentation, it's still a fruitfly.




No, it's not about time....given what we now know about DNA and it's barriers, the fruitflies will always be fruitflies.

This is not macro-evolution or Darwinism.



The frog changing is not an example of macro evolution...it's change within the species...

The same can be said of the acorn growing over time into the oak tree...

or you and I were once embryonic stem cells in the womb who when allowed to grow through all our stages are in the adult human stage today.

All these are examples of growth to maturity or normal patterns of growth within a species and this is not an example of evolution.

I will concede as soon as any one of them or you can provide one scintilla of evidence that shows Darwinism to be true that one creature evolved into a new, different one..as in reptiles to birds, ape into mankind.

In the meantime, I shall dwell on Psalm 32:6-9,

"By the world of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the spirit of His mouth; gathering together the waters of the sea, as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord, and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of Him. For He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created."   

What would that be good for? Darwinism does not claim that (animals that are today's) reptiles evolve into birds or (today's) apes into mankind.

Darwinism claims that reptiles and birds have a common ancestor, as do apes and men; and that both those ancestors had a common ancestor as well.

You claimed that DNA would somehow make it impossible for one species to evolve into two. The fruit fly experiment shows that that is not true. Fruit flies regularly evolve into different species.

You claimed that one organism cannot change into another, but the development of a normal frog during his lifetime proves that wrong.

Now you want to observe both together in a process that Darwinism claims takes a very long time?

No, my friend, it's enough. Darwinism can offer an explanation and experiments that result in what Darwinism predicts. Evolution is a fact. Whether evolution is the true (and only) explanation for why we have so many different species now is a question (and the claim is hence a theory). And that is what is taught in science class.

The point is that neither Creationism or ID operate at that level.

Even if you can show in an experiment that a god can create two species from scratch (or, in the case of ID, that any creator, maybe an Alien or a Smurf, can), Creationism and ID would become theories, IF you can explain how the experiment could scale to the real world AND find a way to incorporate evidence like the fruit fly experiment into the new theory.

But at the moment we are waiting for the ID experiment.

Let's do it. Get a god, tell him to create two animals of different species. Then write an essay about how that same god (or another) did the same thing on Earth. If you do that I have no problem with teaching Creationism in science class.

But if you cannot get your god to do that, Creationism is useless as a science and belongs in religious schools (in bad such).

Name one and show it's picture if possible.

the only thing that has happened with all the fly experiments that I'm aware of it that these flies deveoped more wings, etc. but in essence the end result was they are still flies.

Leauki,

This is stupid as well as a temptation to blasphemy.

Yes, this is true and besides claiming a common primeavial common ancestor, Darwinism claims that over a vast amount of time ape-like creatures evolved into mankind.

Of course it is. That was my point.

Some people demand that Creationism be taught in science class, I pointed out what would be necessary to do so. But it's blasphemy. It cannot be done legally.

But you will note that it wasn't my idea to do it and nor did I ever support doing it.

In fact, and I thought I made that very clear, I am completely and utterly opposed to the idea of reducing my G-d to a part of an experiment. And I was and am offended by the idea that His work be taught in science class among other subjects that are verified in the lab.

It is, to my knowledge, not allowed to test G-d but science is about testing. You can test creation but you cannot (legally) test the Creator. To you understand the difference now?




A different species of flies... You are forgetting, perhaps conveniently, that the claim was that no new species would develop. But it did. The two species still look very similar, but that is consistent with the theory.

It takes a LONG time for the two species to start looking differently. But we have seen, in the frog and other animals, that animals CAN change from one body into quite another without some guy redesigning them.

The theory is that the two (evolving into two new species and change of form) explain why there are so many different types of plants and animals today.



Well, no. It's really a race of ape-like creatures evolving into the race of mankind. It's not about individuals.

But the point is that we can see how one species can evolve into two and how an organism can change into something really different.
All that supports the theory of evolution.

If Creationism and ID want to keep up, they need some evidence too.

Incidentally, testing ID is not blasphemy. You can happily experiment with the assumption that it was not necessarily G-d but some random designer who is responsible for it all.

I.e. modify the experiment and replace the god or gods with an alien or two, or a magic Smurf, or even the Spaghetti monster. It doesn't matter. Once you demonstrate how a designer or creator can create life and/or new species, we can start teaching the idea in science class.

(But for me to believe that it was G-d, you better come up with a good explanation for why a perfect being would create animals with shoddy eye design and built-in death traps like Diabetes or Cancer.)

I think you have a problem with deep time. If a species of fly can evolve from another and have more wings within a day, can you even imagine how many changes there can be when that species continues to evolve (and split up into more species that do) over a period of several hundred thousands years.

You are correct teaching Creationism or mentioning God in schools is illegal....in the USA ever since 1963, God and morality has been kicked out of all government education aka public schools.

We've been reaping the worldwind ever since.

That sounds like the name of a rockin' metal album.

"And coming out this Tuesday, the new Ascension Aire album:

"REAPING THE WORLDWIND! On sale for 9.99 at all Graywhale locations!"








PS you can't reap a worldwind, because there's no such thing as a worldwind. You can't reap a whirlwind, either, which is the only conceivable thing you were actually attempting to say.