Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution is Argument Form

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:39:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Microevolution, which is not the evolution presented by atheists, states that more desirable traits survive, but these traits are all within the construct of variation withinthat species.

Picture a video game where you can make your own avatar. You have 100 sets of lips, 100 sets of eyes, etc etc. You put two together with the traits you choose. One survives the virtual world. One dies. So the one you made that survives reproduces. His offspring go on. But this not some "magic" evolution. This is variation in a species. There are still only so many eyes, lips, etc combinations your avatars can have. That's not the magic of macroevolution. Macroevolution magically poofs traits into existance from nowhere. Notice, a girl is born without a hand. We have a new breed right? Nope. She reproduces, and her kid has 2 hands. What about a midget? New breed right? A change of kind! Nope. They wind up with normal offspring on and down the line. DNA begats DNA begats DNA begats DNA. It doesn't begat new hybrid DNA that carries on to its grandchildren's children etc...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:42:01 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
So what do atheists do? They take microevolution and macroevolution and simply call it "evolution". No intellectual dishonesty there. Ahem...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:43:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
Where do the new desirable traits come from? Are they already in the dna?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:51:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:39:34 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Microevolution, which is not the evolution presented by atheists, states that more desirable traits survive, but these traits are all within the construct of variation withinthat species.

I'll stop you right there. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Atheism denies the existence of a deity, evolution does not have relevence to that. So you are objectively wrong in the first sentence. But I agree with your definition of microevolution.

Picture a video game where you can make your own avatar. You have 100 sets of lips, 100 sets of eyes, etc etc. You put two together with the traits you choose. One survives the virtual world. One dies. So the one you made that survives reproduces. His offspring go on. But this not some "magic" evolution. This is variation in a species. There are still only so many eyes, lips, etc combinations your avatars can have. That's not the magic of macroevolution. Macroevolution magically poofs traits into existance from nowhere. Notice, a girl is born without a hand. We have a new breed right? Nope. She reproduces, and her kid has 2 hands. What about a midget? New breed right? A change of kind! Nope. They wind up with normal offspring on and down the line. DNA begats DNA begats DNA begats DNA. It doesn't begat new hybrid DNA that carries on to its grandchildren's children etc...

This is false because you assume species are rigid. Yet the existence of a species is entirely grounded in characteristics. Its only when two organisms are so different in their characteristics that they are defined as different species. So, for a hypothetical: there are a handful of birds in the same species. Some of them migrate to an island (a different environment), and start reproducing there. The nuts are slightly larger, the trees are darker, the temperature is hotter, etc. When these birds start reproducing the ones with larger beaks to crack the larger nuts, are more effective at it, and thus have more food. The ones with smaller beaks, are limited to the scarce small nuts, and are less likely to survive. Over time, the birds develop larger beaks, different colors to blend into the trees, etc. All this take 10,000 years. So generation begets another generation which begets another generation, ten thousand more times. You have a entirly different speices of bird. Now make it twice that, 20.000 years later, maybe even 3 times that, or 4, or 100 times that. hundreds of millions of years of successive generations, you would ahve a species entirely different than a bird. You might have a fish for gods sake. Macroevolution isn't a complex idea. If you are to accept microevolution, you logically have to accept macro.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:52:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:43:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
Where do the new desirable traits come from? Are they already in the dna?

This is so dumb. Physical characteristics come from DNA. When you reproduce, your offspring has the same fundamental characteristics, but slightly different.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 10:12:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:51:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:39:34 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Microevolution, which is not the evolution presented by atheists, states that more desirable traits survive, but these traits are all within the construct of variation withinthat species.

I'll stop you right there. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Atheism denies the existence of a deity, evolution does not have relevence to that. So you are objectively wrong in the first sentence. But I agree with your definition of microevolution.

Picture a video game where you can make your own avatar. You have 100 sets of lips, 100 sets of eyes, etc etc. You put two together with the traits you choose. One survives the virtual world. One dies. So the one you made that survives reproduces. His offspring go on. But this not some "magic" evolution. This is variation in a species. There are still only so many eyes, lips, etc combinations your avatars can have. That's not the magic of macroevolution. Macroevolution magically poofs traits into existance from nowhere. Notice, a girl is born without a hand. We have a new breed right? Nope. She reproduces, and her kid has 2 hands. What about a midget? New breed right? A change of kind! Nope. They wind up with normal offspring on and down the line. DNA begats DNA begats DNA begats DNA. It doesn't begat new hybrid DNA that carries on to its grandchildren's children etc...

This is false because you assume species are rigid. Yet the existence of a species is entirely grounded in characteristics. Its only when two organisms are so different in their characteristics that they are defined as different species. So, for a hypothetical: there are a handful of birds in the same species. Some of them migrate to an island (a different environment), and start reproducing there. The nuts are slightly larger, the trees are darker, the temperature is hotter, etc. When these birds start reproducing the ones with larger beaks to crack the larger nuts, are more effective at it, and thus have more food. The ones with smaller beaks, are limited to the scarce small nuts, and are less likely to survive. Over time, the birds develop larger beaks, different colors to blend into the trees, etc. All this take 10,000 years. So generation begets another generation which begets another generation, ten thousand more times. You have a entirly different speices of bird. Now make it twice that, 20.000 years later, maybe even 3 times that, or 4, or 100 times that. hundreds of millions of years of successive generations, you would ahve a species entirely different than a bird. You might have a fish for gods sake. Macroevolution isn't a complex idea. If you are to accept microevolution, you logically have to accept macro.

The bigger more useful beak is already programmed into their species. That trait survives but it does not create a new species. If having a smaller beak is useful for survival, the small beak becomes popular again, but still the same species. Picture a circle that contains all of the traits of that particular bird. Survival of the fittest keeps happening, but never outside of that circle. Sure the birds change appearance some, but still within the boundries of that circle. If given enough time and enough environment shifts, the bird will survival of the fittest back to the bird you saw in the very beginning. But it all is within the programming of that circle. The Atheist concept of evolution is that the traits leap outside of the circle. A small bird beak becomes a more skin-like beak, which becomes a snout, which becomes a human nose. This is not reality, nor is there any proof or any example to show it even exists.

Take bacteria. The fittest of that environment survive, but all within their programming circle. They are now a tougher bacteria to kill. Then we get the meds to kill THEM. The fittest to that drug survive. They become tough to kill. We figure out meds to kill THEM. The fittest survive. And so on and so on. Given enough survival of the fittest episodes and environment changes eventually you cycle back to the same bacteria you killed in this first place. And this is proven in reality. Ever heard the term,"Well that particular strand is back. We thought we'd killed it back in the 70's!" Or whatever.

Well, of course. Within the circle of the programming of that species it simply got pushed back to the same set of eyes, lips, etc that you had in the beginning. But there is never a new species. Just variations of the same exact species within that circle. And if there is a mutation, it's tempting to say "look! A new trait outside of the circle to be passed down!" But it doesn't get passed down. The person might not have grown an arm, but the offspring do. The proccess just keeps conttinuing within that same circle of data. The Atheist model has animals jumping outside of the circle, passing down the handless DNA, and creating the beginning of a new species. But this a fairytale. It's not science. It's an ideological pipedream 100% meant to be a confirmation bias to help atheism.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 11:24:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Survival of the fittest doesn"t require evolutionary theory to understand it. He who is the smartest and strongest is most likely to win wars and dominate the political landscape and gain control of the earth"s resources, for one"s own prosperity while the losers die out, so what.

When Darwin first wrote his book I am sure it includes what you"ve said, but today"s understanding of evolution is more than just survival of the fittest (like man is of monkey for example) How abilities are passed from one to another generation isn"t some scientific greatness of revelation, farmers and the like have been dealing with manipulating such for thousands of years, and evolution wasn't required to understand it, was it? And one can see without scientific journals to confirm it, that it could be true that the week are taken out by the predators and their environment first.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 11:44:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Evolution makes a great deal of sense, but I'm not convinced entirely of the evidence they use to try to support it. It seems like intellectual vanity.

The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy...

"neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm'"

Evolution would fall into that category of "endless genealogies".

The Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun formulated the concept of abiogenesis and biological evolution 500 years before Darwin..

"One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.

The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends."
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:06:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 10:12:14 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Well, of course. Within the circle of the programming of that species it simply got pushed back to the same set of eyes, lips, etc that you had in the beginning. But there is never a new species. Just variations of the same exact species within that circle. And if there is a mutation, it's tempting to say "look! A new trait outside of the circle to be passed down!" But it doesn't get passed down. The person might not have grown an arm, but the offspring do. The proccess just keeps conttinuing within that same circle of data. The Atheist model has animals jumping outside of the circle, passing down the handless DNA, and creating the beginning of a new species. But this a fairytale. It's not science. It's an ideological pipedream 100% meant to be a confirmation bias to help atheism.

Tell me more about this "circle of programming" encoded into species. I have never heard this before. What regulates it, and what scientific evidence has been uncovered to suggest that species are confined to particular sets of traits even as they gradually change over a practically unlimited amount of time?

And also, I would like to learn more about this atheist model you speak of where DNA creates "the beginning" of a new species. I didn't know species were said to begin like this. How does that work in the atheist world?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:11:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:06:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/13/2016 10:12:14 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Well, of course. Within the circle of the programming of that species it simply got pushed back to the same set of eyes, lips, etc that you had in the beginning. But there is never a new species. Just variations of the same exact species within that circle. And if there is a mutation, it's tempting to say "look! A new trait outside of the circle to be passed down!" But it doesn't get passed down. The person might not have grown an arm, but the offspring do. The proccess just keeps conttinuing within that same circle of data. The Atheist model has animals jumping outside of the circle, passing down the handless DNA, and creating the beginning of a new species. But this a fairytale. It's not science. It's an ideological pipedream 100% meant to be a confirmation bias to help atheism.

Tell me more about this "circle of programming" encoded into species. I have never heard this before. What regulates it, and what scientific evidence has been uncovered to suggest that species are confined to particular sets of traits even as they gradually change over a practically unlimited amount of time?

And also, I would like to learn more about this atheist model you speak of where DNA creates "the beginning" of a new species. I didn't know species were said to begin like this. How does that work in the atheist world?

DNA and RNA codons regulate it within the constructs of the genetic code.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:19:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:11:04 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:06:32 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/13/2016 10:12:14 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Well, of course. Within the circle of the programming of that species it simply got pushed back to the same set of eyes, lips, etc that you had in the beginning. But there is never a new species. Just variations of the same exact species within that circle. And if there is a mutation, it's tempting to say "look! A new trait outside of the circle to be passed down!" But it doesn't get passed down. The person might not have grown an arm, but the offspring do. The proccess just keeps conttinuing within that same circle of data. The Atheist model has animals jumping outside of the circle, passing down the handless DNA, and creating the beginning of a new species. But this a fairytale. It's not science. It's an ideological pipedream 100% meant to be a confirmation bias to help atheism.

Tell me more about this "circle of programming" encoded into species. I have never heard this before. What regulates it, and what scientific evidence has been uncovered to suggest that species are confined to particular sets of traits even as they gradually change over a practically unlimited amount of time?

And also, I would like to learn more about this atheist model you speak of where DNA creates "the beginning" of a new species. I didn't know species were said to begin like this. How does that work in the atheist world?

DNA and RNA codons regulate it within the constructs of the genetic code.

Care to elaborate?

How do DNA and RNA regulate this? Where in the genetic code are these limitations you speak of? How do we find them? What evidence of this is there? And why is the scientific community seemingly unaware of this?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:38:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Atheist view of evolution is based on ignorance of...evolution.

http://youtu.be...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:02:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Regulation of gene expression includes a vast range of mechanisms that are used by cells to increase or decrease the production of specific gene products (protein or RNA), and is"referred to as"gene regulation. Complex programs of gene expression are observed in biology. They start developmental pathways, respond to stimuli in a given environment, or adapt to different foods available. Any part of gene expression can be modulated, from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, and to the after translational modification of proteins. Much of the time, 1 gene regulator controls another one, etc etc, in a gene regulatory network. There is an encoded programming that begats the same kind over and over and over and over and...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Canuck
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:42:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:02:17 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
Regulation of gene expression includes a vast range of mechanisms that are used by cells to increase or decrease the production of specific gene products (protein or RNA), and is"referred to as"gene regulation. Complex programs of gene expression are observed in biology. They start developmental pathways, respond to stimuli in a given environment, or adapt to different foods available. Any part of gene expression can be modulated, from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, and to the after translational modification of proteins. Much of the time, 1 gene regulator controls another one, etc etc, in a gene regulatory network. There is an encoded programming that begats the same kind over and over and over and over and...

So you believe no animal can ever evolve into a new species? Which means every species in existence today must have been created at the beginning. So why are we not finding fossils of modern day species that date back tens or hundreds of millions of years ago?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:59:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:42:40 AM, Canuck wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:02:17 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
Regulation of gene expression includes a vast range of mechanisms that are used by cells to increase or decrease the production of specific gene products (protein or RNA), and is"referred to as"gene regulation. Complex programs of gene expression are observed in biology. They start developmental pathways, respond to stimuli in a given environment, or adapt to different foods available. Any part of gene expression can be modulated, from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, and to the after translational modification of proteins. Much of the time, 1 gene regulator controls another one, etc etc, in a gene regulatory network. There is an encoded programming that begats the same kind over and over and over and over and...

So you believe no animal can ever evolve into a new species? Which means every species in existence today must have been created at the beginning. So why are we not finding fossils of modern day species that date back tens or hundreds of millions of years ago?

Rabbits have been found in the precambrian era.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:00:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The Cambrian Explosion shows an explosion of complex creatures all at one time.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Canuck
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:16:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:00:33 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion shows an explosion of complex creatures all at one time.

So does the bible explain how and when god caused the Cambrian Explosion? And was that when Adam and Eve were created?
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:48:05 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:43:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
Where do the new desirable traits come from? Are they already in the dna?

In general terms, of course not. We know that in DNA replication, copying errors can occur. Sometimes a gene can be deleted (on one copy of the chromosome) and sometimes a gene can be duplicated. In the latter case, when having an extra copy of a gene, it doesn't take too much imagination to see that one of them could later mutate to serve a different purpose entirely. That is how the genome can grow over time, eventually leading to additional chromosomes, and new information be encoded within DNA. More detail here:

http://scienceblogs.com...
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:55:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:00:33 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Cambrian Explosion shows an explosion of complex creatures all at one time.

The Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of 20 million years. Plenty of time for evolution to work. Also there were no modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.

Oops! You still need evolution. Lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:08:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitur), then the conclusion must be true.

The strongest arguments for evolution aren't actually deductive, Hayd; they're actually abductive, in that:
1) The required mechanisms for adaptation have been observed (along with some extra ones biologists didn't know about);
2) Common ancestry predicts exactly what we find in the genes across clades, while separate ancestry predicts something very different;
3) Tens of thousands of scientists from hundreds of cultures in thousands of institutions working on a score of independent disciplines for 150 years have corroborated the model;
4) Despite prolonged attempts there is no other specific, significant, predictive, falsifiable model predicting what we see, nothing seen contradicts the model, and very little of what is seen remains unexplained.

People may still choose not to believe it, but they have no sound, systematic, best-practice evidentiary basis to assert that evolution is wrong, while their model is right.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:01:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:52:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:43:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
Where do the new desirable traits come from? Are they already in the dna?

This is so dumb. Physical characteristics come from DNA. When you reproduce, your offspring has the same fundamental characteristics, but slightly different.

It is not a dumb question. Either the novel feature comes from a mutation, or it is already in the DNA and not expressed.

If the novel feature is due to mutated dna, you have to prove that. It has never been proven in the lab. Only detrimental mutations have been proven in the lab.

Where did the mutation that gave nylon-eating bacteria the ability to digest nylon come from? Did it just accidentally mutate, in an environment where that particular mutation would be useful?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 8:09:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:59:30 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:42:40 AM, Canuck wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:02:17 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
Regulation of gene expression includes a vast range of mechanisms that are used by cells to increase or decrease the production of specific gene products (protein or RNA), and is"referred to as"gene regulation. Complex programs of gene expression are observed in biology. They start developmental pathways, respond to stimuli in a given environment, or adapt to different foods available. Any part of gene expression can be modulated, from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, and to the after translational modification of proteins. Much of the time, 1 gene regulator controls another one, etc etc, in a gene regulatory network. There is an encoded programming that begats the same kind over and over and over and over and...

So you believe no animal can ever evolve into a new species? Which means every species in existence today must have been created at the beginning. So why are we not finding fossils of modern day species that date back tens or hundreds of millions of years ago?

Rabbits have been found in the precambrian era.

Prove it.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:11:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

why don't we all have four long legs, we would be even faster runners thus survive, or why didn't humans develop wings that would get us away from pesky things and allow us to travel further for food.?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:54:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 8:01:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:52:38 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:43:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:38:01 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:29:32 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

Where do the desirable traits come from?

DNA, its constructs physical characteristics
Where do the new desirable traits come from? Are they already in the dna?

This is so dumb. Physical characteristics come from DNA. When you reproduce, your offspring has the same fundamental characteristics, but slightly different.

It is not a dumb question. Either the novel feature comes from a mutation, or it is already in the DNA and not expressed.

If the novel feature is due to mutated dna, you have to prove that. It has never been proven in the lab. Only detrimental mutations have been proven in the lab.

Where did the mutation that gave nylon-eating bacteria the ability to digest nylon come from? Did it just accidentally mutate, in an environment where that particular mutation would be useful?

That is a good question but I don't think it is a process we understand.

In a long term evolution experiment where populations of E Coli were segregated, each population evolved differently. One population evolved the ability to metabolize citrate in an oxygen rich environment, which is normally not possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The why and how is still in question but that is irrelevant to observed reality. It is not a question of whether it can happen because it is already observed.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:00:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 9:11:37 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 4/13/2016 9:26:51 PM, Hayd wrote:
I thought I would present it premise by premise to conclusion. By logical rules, if all premises are true, and each premise leads to the next (it is sequitar), then the conclusion must be true. Take a crack at it doubters

1) Offspring inherit traits from their parents. They are likely to have the same characteristics.
2) Certain characteristics make an organism more likely to survive in its environment. Longer legs would result in being able to run faster, and thus escape predators easily.
3) Organism with less desirable traits are more likely to die, than those with desirable traits.
4) Since organisms that are dead can"t reproduce, and because offspring inherit traits from their parents, organisms with the desirable characteristics dominate, while those with undesirable characteristics die out.
5) Over generations, the species develops desirable characteristics, and undesirable characteristics die out.
6) Premise five is exactly what evolution is, thus evolution is affirmed.

why don't we all have four long legs, we would be even faster runners thus survive, or why didn't humans develop wings that would get us away from pesky things and allow us to travel further for food.?

We have developed longer limbs than our ancestors. But longer limbs also comes with decreased coordination, etc.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:59:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 9:39:34 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Microevolution, which is not the evolution presented by atheists, states that more desirable traits survive, but these traits are all within the construct of variation withinthat species.

Picture a video game where you can make your own avatar. You have 100 sets of lips, 100 sets of eyes, etc etc. You put two together with the traits you choose. One survives the virtual world. One dies. So the one you made that survives reproduces. His offspring go on. But this not some "magic" evolution. This is variation in a species. There are still only so many eyes, lips, etc combinations your avatars can have. That's not the magic of macroevolution. Macroevolution magically poofs traits into existance from nowhere. Notice, a girl is born without a hand. We have a new breed right? Nope. She reproduces, and her kid has 2 hands. What about a midget? New breed right? A change of kind! Nope. They wind up with normal offspring on and down the line. DNA begats DNA begats DNA begats DNA. It doesn't begat new hybrid DNA that carries on to its grandchildren's children etc...

Microevolution becomes macroevolution with much more time. That is the reason micro has been observed and macro has not.

Each offspring has its own phenotypical traits. Many may deviate from the average genetic "baseline" of the species but each new phenotype is its own genetic "baseline" in which its offspring can deviate further.

There is no rule that a species can only deviate so far but somehow knows not to deviate any further than its remote ancestors. That is an unsubstantiated theory fueled by bias.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:02:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:42:40 AM, Canuck wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:02:17 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
Regulation of gene expression includes a vast range of mechanisms that are used by cells to increase or decrease the production of specific gene products (protein or RNA), and is"referred to as"gene regulation. Complex programs of gene expression are observed in biology. They start developmental pathways, respond to stimuli in a given environment, or adapt to different foods available. Any part of gene expression can be modulated, from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, and to the after translational modification of proteins. Much of the time, 1 gene regulator controls another one, etc etc, in a gene regulatory network. There is an encoded programming that begats the same kind over and over and over and over and...

So you believe no animal can ever evolve into a new species? Which means every species in existence today must have been created at the beginning. So why are we not finding fossils of modern day species that date back tens or hundreds of millions of years ago?
Your logic....
Why do we not find fossils of coelacanth anywhere between now and 80 million years ago? Because the fish left the planet for that period of time and didn't come back for 80 millions years, therefore none died in that time period and left fossils.
Or one could ask why you think that there aren't any fossils of the animals you say should have left some. 98% of the world's places where fossils should or could be found have yet to be surveyed and documented. What fossils are under the world's oceans? What fossils are found in all the places left to be examined?
Here's a question for you.
Finding the skull or head of animals is like finding a needle in a haystack. Why is this?
This is a common knowledge phrase among paleontologists. This is to say that the greatest majority of dinosaur skeletons found have no head attached to their bodies. There are actually only a dozen or so complete dinosaur skeletons in the entire world. Many more dinosaur skeletons than this have been found of course, but they are not complete. Often they are missing their heads. Why would a dinosaur loose its head if it died a simple death and just fell over on the ground to be buried? Even scientists admit openly that it appears like most dinosaurs were washed into their current locations by heavy currents.(2) A head is not as well attached to the rest of the body as other limbs. A catastrophic flood could be the reason that there are so many headless dinosaurs around.
2*National Geographic On Assignment, Lucy the T-rex, 2000.

Or you can read the whole article written by Sean Pitman, MD. The article includes more than 100 references to scientific publications and books and articles...etc.
http://www.detectingdesign.com...