Faith Freedom International :: View topic - Muslim Scientists Prepare for Battle With Creationists !?

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Muslim Scientists Prepare for Battle With Creationists !?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> Breaking News On Islam

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

dolphinocean

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 401
Location: USA

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Show me an ape turning into human.

Apes are not currently turning into humans, so there is nothing to show along those lines. Just as Napoleon is not currently invading Russia, so I cannot show you that either.

And yet, Napoleon's invasion of Russia actually happened.

Now... back to the question. Since you did not answer it, I will ask it again...

What would lead you to believe that evolution cannot be observed directly?

"Napoleon is not currently invading Russia, so I cannot show you that either"? Something here just ain't right.

Here's what's wrong:

Even if there existed in our time a person who behaved like Napoleon and who is currently invading Russia, that human character is still a member of the same specie as the original Napoleon, ie. homo sapiens. Evolution is a theory about a process in which a physical transformation from one specie to another new specie occurred that somehow gave rise to all other species in the world. It is not about a change or invariable in personality or behavior within the progeny of the same specie while the specie remains unchanged. Yet, the new Napoleon who supposedly is currently invading Russia demonstrated a process of no change in specie nor behavior but merely repeating history in the exact same old mold.

So, how does the state of constancy rebut against the question of why apes are not currently evolved into humans? Instead of proving point A you are merely making an argument for point B. It is a false logic. Thus, instead of proving evolution you are only making an argument for reincarnation.

infidel_01

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject:

pr126 wrote:

This thread is very entertaining.

Especially the guy who says "I am an Engineering Major and have a Masters in Physics."

Calls himself Brains of Titanium. Or something like it.

Balls_of_Titinium_1?
What is Titinium? A new element has been discovered?
Name: Titinium
Symbol :Tit
Number: 2
Atomic Weight: quite a handful

Masters in Physics!

Pull the other one.

Can't stop laughing on such clowns' posts.
_________________
It is NOT IMMORAL for muslims to have non-muslims as slaves and sex slaves; But it is definitely IMMORAL for non-Muslims to own Muslim slaves -- Allah Diya, MTD & NAV;
WHY? None could answer

Psycho Bunny

Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 7620
Location: Apologies to Ali but to everyone else: I'M BACK!!!!

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject:

dolphinocean wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Show me an ape turning into human.

Having stripped Hux's very accurate statement from its original context, you have now added layers of bullcrap that were never there in his first argument, to create a hypothesis (dare Ii call it that?) which certainly merits the comment "Something here just ain't right."

In fact there is so much that ain't right it is pointless to address each spurious assumption.

There is certainly no argument for reincarnation, apart from in your own mind.

As Hux was referring to the fact that apes in the past evolved into humans, he mentioned Napoleon. Only you in your la-la land conjecture assumes he meant that Napoleon is still invading Russia.

Humans, evolutionary theory asserts, with plenty of evidence, evolved from an Australopithecine family of apes. In the past. The Australopithecines died out. In the past. But that did not mean humans and Australopithecines did not exist.

And after splitting from their Australopithecine ancestors and other intermediary incarnations of humanity (Homo erectus etc) along the way, modern humans themselves (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved "racial" characteristics that helped them to adapt to their different environments. These adaptations are very recent, but are not enough to separate the races of humanity - only when human races cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring can it be said that racial strains of human have become separate species.
_________________
The Pagaal Chamar Bhangi Khargosh rules!!

Love, bunny-style
________________

Sally

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 438

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject:

dolphinocean wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Show me an ape turning into human.

Dolphinocean, you have missed the whole point of that analogy. THHuxley was making the point that, just because you cannot see something which happened centuries ago, does not mean that it didn't take place.

Napoleon did exist, evolution did take place from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. We can't show a movie of either, because real science, just like real history, does not always take place in the here and now, in front of our eyes

But that does not mean that it didn't happen.
_________________
"

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:12 am Post subject:

dolphinocean wrote:

How spectacularly you missed the point. So I will spell it out for you in splendid detail.

The facts of evolution are explicitly historical facts. While the process of evolution is ongoing, the specific historical details are contingent and do not repeat. We cannot observe specific past events of human evolutionary history. But the fact that humans evolved from apelike ancestors is one of those facts, attested to in detail by the "documentary record" of the event. This record is found in the fossil record, in our genetic code, and in the shared anatomical remnants of the event.

Likewise, while the process of human history is ongoing, the specific historical details are contingent and do not repeat. We cannot observe specific past events of Napoleonic history. But the fact that Napoleon invaded Russia is one of those facts, attested to in detail by the "documentary record" of the event. This record is found in the archeological record, in the contemporary accounts of people who witnessed it, and in the shared cultural remnants of the event.

So... to assert that since we don't see humans evolving into apes evolution cannot be observed is like saying that since we don't see Napoleon invading Russia history cannot be observed.

But we observe history every day... just as we observe evolution every day.

Hopefully you understand the argument better and can leave discussions of reincarnation to other, less serious threads.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Balls_of_Titanium_1

Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 104

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:21 am Post subject:

Rat_bytes wrote:

BOT, perhaps you could explain to us how you would convince someone of the truth who had a deep conviction that gravity was actually the result of ghost hands pulling objects towards a central mass?

I am not talking about convincing anyone of anything. My purpose of posting in this thread is refuting Funk's claim which questioned the existence of gravity. II am simply saying that Gravity is a fact; call it a force or affect of something else, but it is a fact.

Quote:

All that stuff about space-time warping is just scientific jargon, I would like you to show me observable evidence that the gravitational effect is not the result of ghost hands pulling things towards earth. You drop something, the ghost hands pull it down. Simple as that.

Believe away. Who cares?

Quote:

In the same vein, do you understand how asking to directly observe a theory itself is illogical, as in "Show me an ape turning into a human"?

I never asked to directly observe any theory. I asked to observe something which someone here called "fact" and compared it to the observable phenomenon of gravity. If you admit that evolution is just a theory, then I would not make the same demand. Call evolution a fact, comparable to gravity, I take objection.

Quote:

of Your criteria for proof is unrealistic, unless you were able to extend your lifespan by millions of years there is no way you could observe speciation happening in front of your eyes.

Then give us other evidence.

Quote:

There are mountains of supporting evidence that we can study and glean logical conclusions from, but we can never prove that god wasn't the cause of it all and left the evidence there to confuse us, just like we can't prove that gravity isn't really the result of invisible ghost hands.

How does fossils establish evolution as a fact?

Balls_of_Titanium_1

Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 104

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:29 am Post subject:

Thuxley, Here lies your misunderstanding. I am asking: is the story about ape like creatures turning into human, a fact comparable to gravity? No it is not. You can put aside microevolution because it cannot be used as an undisputed evidence to establsih evolution on such a vast scale.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Here lies your misunderstanding. I am asking: is the story about ape like creatures turning into human, a fact comparable to gravity?

Here lies your misunderstanding. You still do not seem to grasp the difference between facts and theories. Remember... theories explain facts. They never become facts.

The "story" of which you speak is a single historical event... a "fact" if you will. Is it "a fact comparable to gravity?" No, because "gravity" is a theory. Is it a fact comparable to a single historical event (i.e. fact) of gravitation (say, the fall of the Canton Diablo Meteor)? Yes.

Is natural selection (a theory of evolution) comparable to general relativity (a theory of gravity)? Absolutely.

BoT1 wrote:

No it is not. You can put aside microevolution because it cannot be used as an undisputed evidence to establsih evolution on such a vast scale.

That is a breathtakingly silly comment. Macroevolution and microevolution are the identical process, separated by an arbitrary boundary established for rhetorical and not intellectual effect. You cannot set aside one or the other because they are the same thing.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

But you do not appear to be very clear regarding what you mean by "fact." This is certainly because you are confused on the issue.

Gravity is a theory that explains the readily observed facts of gravitation. Each planet orbiting in its courses, each pen falling to the floor is a single observable fact. They are each events of gravitation... and we explain them with a theory of gravity.

The facts do not change even when theories do. Early last century, the most widely accepted theory of gravity (Newton's) was replaced by the now reigning theory of gravity (Einstein's). And yet planets did not stop orbiting and pens did not suspend themselves in mid-air while awaiting the outcome of the debate.

Darwin and Wallace proposed a theory (natural selection) to explain the facts of descent with modification. They were probably right, but even were natural selection to be replaced by a different better theory, the facts it explains will not change.

The Canyon Diablo Meteor fell to earth regardless of whether Newton, Einstein or neither is right. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether natural selection is correct, or some other theory that we do not even know yet.

BoT1 wrote:

Then give us other evidence.

1. Endogenous retroviruses demonstrate that all living chimpanzees and all living humans share a common ancestor. There is no other explanation for them.

2. Mutations called "gene duplications" add complexity and innovation to the genome and can be demonstrated to create entirely new capacities in organisms that did not previously exist.

3. Intermediate forms (both fossil and living) have been found that document the stepwise incremental transition of major groups into other major groups across all taxonomic boundaries from species to class.

4. Speciation events have been directly observed both in the laboratory and in nature.

BoT1 wrote:

How does fossils establish evolution as a fact?

The same way my collection of ancient coins establish the Roman Empire as a fact. They are the documentary and artifactual evidence of historical events.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

crazy canuck

Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Khaled wrote:

Lets not get carried away, there is only one FACT in all this, that every scientist agrees with -- Evolution is still a theory and not a fact.

How many times must we slay this old canard? How many times must we be confronted with people who insist on using terms that they do not understand?

Yes, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. This is because facts and theories are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty from guess to hypothesis to theory to fact.

Theories explain facts. They never become facts. A theory can be just as "proven" as any fact. Evolution would be included in that group of theories.

So... the theory of evolution (Natural Selection) explains the fact of evolution (descent with modification). And there is not a theory in science in which we have more confidence... not the germ theory of disease, not the relativity theory of gravity... not any other theory in science.

Gravity is a fact as it can be observed directly. Not so evolution.

Dear B.T.,

Do you believe Big Bang is fact?

No one has observed big bang either. Its inferred by astronomic observations like receding galaxis from center of universe. Still 99% of astrophysicist belive in big bang.

C.C.

dolphinocean

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 401
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject:

Psycho Bunny wrote:

dolphinocean wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Show me an ape turning into human.

What original context?

The context was derived from BOT's challenge: "Show me an ape turning into human."

And THHuxley's answer to that was: "Apes are not currently turning into humans, so there is nothing to show along those lines. Just as Napoleon is not currently invading Russia, so I cannot show you that either".

By using the relative term "Just as" in his argument, THHuxley made a comparison between the evolution process of apes not currently turning into humans to that of Napoleon not currently invading Russia. In rebuttal, I merely proposed a converse theorem by saying, "Even if..." in the reverse action. So, where's my "la-la land conjecture "? To say I assume he meant that Napoleon is still invading Russia is clearly a total lack of understand of logic on your part.

Reincarnation wasn't the point. It was sort of tongue in cheek expression. The point is that instead of addressing BOT's challenge to show him "an ape turning into human" which THHuxley admitted that "Apes are not currently turning into humans" he went further to equate Napoloen not currently invading Russia as an explanation for why "there is nothing to show along those lines". Clearly, even if there is currently a person like Napoleon and is currently invading Russia, do you think THHuxley can use that as evidence of evolution?

Certainly not. The most such history-in-repeat will tantamount to is for a case in reincarnation and not evolution. That was the gist of my argument in retort and not about "reincarnation" per se.

My previous rebuttal was merely about THHuxley's flaw in logical argument and had not yet hinged on the merit of evolution theory itself. Your discourse on evolution theory regarding the split of homo sapiens from Australopithecine that died out is another argument all by itself. It would be futile to go any further if we can't even clear the hurdle of basic logic at this point.

Certainly, if you'd like to know what I stand on the issue of evolution, I wouldn't mind to share it here with you. For what I have gathered thus far, there is no hard evidence whatsoever to support the theory of evolution. Even beginning from the so-called earliest cretacious and Jurassic periods, which are mostly speculative, there is no sign of evolution taking place. What fossil records you have beginning from the Archean period to thus far, all forms point to diversity with discrete design in each specie and they are all in symbiotic co-existence. There is absolutely no evidence of linear transformation from one specie to another. No intermediary fossil whatsoever evidencing evolution exists.

There is no concrete evidence pointing to the so-called "split" between the Australopithecine ancestors and homo sapiens. If it's a sudden split, then it defies the time factor of evolution that required changes to occur ever so slowly over millions of years. If it occurs over the period of millions of years, then surely there must be at least some evidence of intermediaries to suggest there is a transformation in various steps going on throughout the evoluting period. Thus far there is no chimera remains of a quasi specie with a human head, chimpanzee body, turtle arms, kangaroo legs, and a crocodile tail.

To create a theory out of a detached and incomplete partial remains of a few skulls here and some isolated bones there is not a direct observation. The best you could say is that it is an inference based on loose circumstantial evidence. In reality, it is mere speculation to fit a ready made theory. You have no evidence to support your evolution theory, neither from the dead nor from the living. Even among the living you have no evidence of transformation going on from one specie to another.

To claim that "adaptations are very recent, but are not enough to separate the races of humanity" is convenient excuse. Why not wait till you have the factual evidence at hand and then make the claim about evolution.

dolphinocean

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 401
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject:

THHuxley wrote:

I missed nothing.

Evolution theory is neither explicit fact nor historical fact. It's mere speculation without any supporting evidence whatsoever. As you said, we cannot observe "specific past events of human evolutionary history" and "there is nothing to show along those lines", what makes you think evolution is a fact without any intermediaries existed as fossil remains to connect the dots or currently living quasi species for direct observation? Since evolution is a process and by your own admission the process is not currently evident, what then makes you believe that evolution can be observed directly?

If the process of evolution is ongoing, and since the most primitive living thing on earth are the single cell bacteria and paramecium why are they still here as single cell organisms? Why aren't they died out like most victims of the "survival of the fittest"?

If they somehow managed to survive from the beginning of biogenesis, why aren't we seeing some transformation for some of the bacteria and paramecium such as a multi-cellular bacteria or paramecium organism and/or some with protruding eyes and legs of an insect such as an ant? Certainly, grass and other plants are most primitive than all insects and animals since they provide foods for their sustenance, shouldn't there be some grass or other plants by now sprouting some legs or wings to get away from insects and animals harvesting their hard earned fruits and vegetation? Why aren't we observing any change in plants since the dawn of time to their advantage?

Whether Napoleon existed or not is not the issue here. Neither does the question of whether or not history repeat itself. The question by BOT is : Can you "Show me an ape turning into human"? To say that "the specific historical details are contingent and do not repeat" is meaningless except to convey the explicit admission that you can't show cause.

To claim that "humans evolved from apelike ancestors is one of those facts, attested to in detail by the 'documentary record' of the event" is clearly a falsehood. The idea that "humans evolved from apelike ancestors" is neither a fact nor an attested "'documentary record' of the event". There were some isolated skulls and bones found, but no intermediate fossil remains of quasi species that linked them together in the chain of transformations that is supposedly taken ever so slowly over a period of millions of years for that complete change to occur.

To claim that the record of evolution process is found in our genetic code is also a falsehood. What the changes you see from micro-organisms to insects and animals, including human beings are the manifestation of genetic variations that are inherent to the genes of each specie. The genetic vartiations, often referred to as micro-evolution, which is a misnomer, allow for adaptation to changes in environment.

Bacteria that develop resistance to drugs, insects that change color or shape as protection, various sizes and shapes of dogs and cats and various build and races of humanity, all that are simply the manifestation of genetic variation inherent in each specie. No matter how much the bacteria, the insects, or the animals changes, including us, we are still what we are according to our own specie at the end of the change.

In fact, a point mutation, i.e. a single mutation in a letter code in a single gene often times leads to a fatal result. As such, most mutations are seriously disruptive in the biochemical pathways that in most cases it results in non-functional proteins and malformation of enzymes. These lead to abnormal development or serious toxic chemicals build-up in the body that eventually killed the organisms or their unborns.

The shared anatomical remnants of the event you refered to in your argument does not mean evolution. Evolution refers to change for the best fit. Therefore, it can equally be argued that shared anatomical remnants simply reflects a common motif that points to a single designer. In either case, your evolution theory is just as faith based as the creation or ID theory. In fact reality supports more towards ID theory if not the creationism.

You asserted that "since we don't see humans evolving into apes evolution cannot be observed is like saying that since we don't see Napoleon invading Russia history cannot be observed". Certainly both cannot be directly observed, but their past can be shown by conclusive circumstantial evidence to have existed. Surely, there are some who claim that Napoleon is a mythological figure. There were claims of private correspondents pertaining to Napoleon, claims of eyewitnesses and articles written about him, which had been challenged. At the end of the day we can't say for certain whether he really existed or not.

Since evolution is a process we certainly cannot go back in time to observe the process unfolding in the millions of years it took to unfold. And since we have not seen evolution unfolding in our present time, we must then depend on circumstatial evidence. So far, the circumstantial evidence we have is very, very weak to say the least.

You said, "we observe history every day... just as we observe evolution every day". No, we don't observe history everyday. What we do observe is history in the making. But, we certainly don't observe evolution anywhere nor anytime, let alone everyday. If the process of evolution is ongoing, then we should be able to see some grass sprouting an ear or some trees growing a leg. We should at least be able to see some plants producing some animal or human organic compound such as a skin cell or brain cell. We should see some insects partially transforming into another species, such as a quasi betterfly and quasi hummingbirds.

Ex-muslimah

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 909
Location: Scotland somewhere

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject:

Psycho Bunny wrote:

dolphinocean wrote:

THHuxley_redux wrote:

Balls_of_Titinium_1 wrote:

Show me an ape turning into human.

Excellent explanation dear bunny
_________________
The Borg is si-fi's Islam. The "Collective" is the Ummah and they assimilate the kaffir.

*http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/* - For if you are in a forced marriage in the UK

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject:

dolphinocean wrote:

I missed nothing.

Actually.. that is the last sentence in the post where you do not explicitly demonstrate that you missed everything.

dolphinocean wrote:

Evolution theory is neither explicit fact nor historical fact.

No. It is not. As I have repeatedly been saying in almost every post this thread, evolutionary theory is a theory. And theories never become facts. Theories explain facts. Among the facts (both explicit and historical) that evolutionary theory explains is the descent of humans from apelike ancestors.

dolphinocean wrote:

It's mere speculation without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Nonsense. It is among the best supported theories is human history and the supporting evidence is overwhelming. You lose all credibility when you resort to the big lie. It can not seriously be believed by anyone who has made any effort to study the subject.

dolphinocean wrote:

what makes you think evolution is a fact without any intermediaries existed as fossil remains to connect the dots or currently living quasi species for direct observation?

Since we do have both fossil intermediaries and living intermediaries that "connect the dots" between different species, orders, families and classes the question is moot.

dolphinocean wrote:

Since evolution is a process and by your own admission the process is not currently evident, what then makes you believe that evolution can be observed directly?

DO not put words into your opponent's mouth. It is very bad form.

The process of evolution is absolutely currently evident and directly observable. Scientists observe its procession every single day and publish monthly.

dolphinocean wrote:

If the process of evolution is ongoing, and since the most primitive living thing on earth are the single cell bacteria and paramecium why are they still here as single cell organisms? Why aren't they died out like most victims of the "survival of the fittest"?

Because evolution is not directional or progressive. There are many ways of making a living, and single celled bacteria are the most successful organisms on the planet. They are much better at being bacteria than we would be. And that is the criterion by which evolution
selects between the fittest and the less fit.

dolphinocean wrote:

If they somehow managed to survive from the beginning of biogenesis, why aren't we seeing some transformation for some of the bacteria and paramecium such as a multi-cellular bacteria or paramecium organism and/or some with protruding eyes and legs of an insect such as an ant?

Because those niches are already taken by more fit organisms. That particular evolutionary direction is currently foreclosed by the competition.

Another asteroid, though, and all bets are off.

dolphinocean wrote:

Certainly, grass and other plants are most primitive than all insects and animals since they provide foods for their sustenance, shouldn't there be some grass or other plants by now sprouting some legs or wings to get away from insects and animals harvesting their hard earned fruits and vegetation? Why aren't we observing any change in plants since the dawn of time to their advantage?

There have been vast changes in plants since the dawn of time to their advantage. You must not be a very good botanist. Modern plants are just as advanced and evolved as modern animals.

In fact, modern humans are no more biologically advanced or evolved than any other living thing on the planet. We simply evolved in a different direction.

dolphinocean wrote:

Whether Napoleon existed or not is not the issue here. Neither does the question of whether or not history repeat itself. The question by BOT is : Can you "Show me an ape turning into human"? To say that "the specific historical details are contingent and do not repeat" is meaningless except to convey the explicit admission that you can't show cause.

Who said it was the issue? The issue is the observability of evolution, and conceptual error in BoT1's question. Napoleon simply demonstrates the error in a non controversial way, exposing the underlying error in BoT1's reasoning.

dolphinocean wrote:

To claim that "humans evolved from apelike ancestors is one of those facts, attested to in detail by the 'documentary record' of the event" is clearly a falsehood. The idea that "humans evolved from apelike ancestors" is neither a fact nor an attested "'documentary record' of the event". There were some isolated skulls and bones found, but no intermediate fossil remains of quasi species that linked them together in the chain of transformations that is supposedly taken ever so slowly over a period of millions of years for that complete change to occur.

Nothing in that paragraph is true. There are more than a score of fossil hominid species that provide detailed, comprehensive and unassailable documentation of the transition. Denial will not make those fossils go away.

dolphinocean wrote:

To claim that the record of evolution process is found in our genetic code is also a falsehood. What the changes you see from micro-organisms to insects and animals, including human beings are the manifestation of genetic variations that are inherent to the genes of each specie. The genetic vartiations, often referred to as micro-evolution, which is a misnomer, allow for adaptation to changes in environment.

Again, almost nothing in that paragraph is true. It betrays both an ignorance of the genetic mechanism and the specific details of the genome itself.

The one thing you got right is the last sentence. Adaptation to changes in the environment is all of evolution in a nutshell.

dolphinocean wrote:

Bacteria that develop resistance to drugs, insects that change color or shape as protection, various sizes and shapes of dogs and cats and various build and races of humanity, all that are simply the manifestation of genetic variation inherent in each specie. No matter how much the bacteria, the insects, or the animals changes, including us, we are still what we are according to our own specie at the end of the change.

You are more than a half century behind the state of the research in species and speciation. We have directly observe one species change into another both in the laboratory and in nature, and we have observed it multiple times. Not even the creationists of the ICR claim that speciation does not occur anymore.

dolphinocean wrote:

In fact, a point mutation, i.e. a single mutation in a letter code in a single gene often times leads to a fatal result. As such, most mutations are seriously disruptive in the biochemical pathways that in most cases it results in non-functional proteins and malformation of enzymes. These lead to abnormal development or serious toxic chemicals build-up in the body that eventually killed the organisms or their unborns.

You are wrong yet again. About 40% of all point mutations make no change whatsoever because the genetic code is redundant. Almost all the rest change a single amino acid in a single protein, increasing the genetic variation which is the raw material of natural selection. It is macromutations of the chromosomal type that are more likely to be fatal... and except in the case of gene duplications, they have almost nothing to do with evolution.

You really need to get more familiar with the science before you start commenting.

dolphinocean wrote:

The shared anatomical remnants of the event you refered to in your argument does not mean evolution. Evolution refers to change for the best fit. Therefore, it can equally be argued that shared anatomical remnants simply reflects a common motif that points to a single designer. In either case, your evolution theory is just as faith based as the creation or ID theory. In fact reality supports more towards ID theory if not the creationism.

I'm sorry.... but as an engineer by training I must point out that these homologous structures contradict intelligent design rather than support it. What engineer in his or her right mind would use the same structure for a fin, a hand and a wing while using in other instances very different (and far superior) structures for all those same devices?

Sorry, my friend, but the pattern of design in nature is contradicted by the product of the only intelligent designer we actually know exists: human beings.

dolphinocean wrote:

You asserted that "since we don't see humans evolving into apes evolution cannot be observed is like saying that since we don't see Napoleon invading Russia history cannot be observed". Certainly both cannot be directly observed, but their past can be shown by conclusive circumstantial evidence to have existed. Surely, there are some who claim that Napoleon is a mythological figure. There were claims of private correspondents pertaining to Napoleon, claims of eyewitnesses and articles written about him, which had been challenged. At the end of the day we can't say for certain whether he really existed or not.

So that's your position? That there was no such thing as Napoleon?

You feel that is a good argument... why exactly?

dolphinocean wrote:

Since evolution is a process we certainly cannot go back in time to observe the process unfolding in the millions of years it took to unfold. And since we have not seen evolution unfolding in our present time, we must then depend on circumstatial evidence. So far, the circumstantial evidence we have is very, very weak to say the least.

Too bad we do see evolution unfolding in our present time. So this reasoning runs aground on the rocks of a falsehood in your second sentence in that paragraph.

dolphinocean wrote:

You said, "we observe history every day... just as we observe evolution every day". No, we don't observe history everyday. What we do observe is history in the making. But, we certainly don't observe evolution anywhere nor anytime, let alone everyday. If the process of evolution is ongoing, then we should be able to see some grass sprouting an ear or some trees growing a leg. We should at least be able to see some plants producing some animal or human organic compound such as a skin cell or brain cell. We should see some insects partially transforming into another species, such as a quasi betterfly and quasi hummingbirds.

What you describe here is not evolution... and that is why you do not observe it. As to intermediates.... how would you recognize an intermediate without precognition of what the organism is transitioning to? Every living organism is potentially a transitional form, the sole exceptions being those at the end of genetic lines about to go extinct.

Even you.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Ex-muslimah

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 909
Location: Scotland somewhere

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject:

infidel_01 wrote:

pr126 wrote:

This thread is very entertaining.

Especially the guy who says "I am an Engineering Major and have a Masters in Physics."

Calls himself Brains of Titanium. Or something like it.

Balls_of_Titinium_1?
What is Titinium? A new element has been discovered?
Name: Titinium
Symbol :Tit
Number: 2
Atomic Weight: quite a handful

Masters in Physics!

Pull the other one.

Can't stop laughing on such clowns' posts.

When I first seen the bold I laughed and how can you have a masters when you are doing an hons in engineering? huh

E-M's guide to Titnium:

Elemental No: 119
The elemental symbol is XX
It is a actinide compound which comes from the collision of the following materials:
Bull, poo and uranus
It can be said to be a compound which is highly reactive when placed in a western global environment and in the ME compound is said to be stable. It is also highly radioactive and should NOT be touched at all costs and it frazzles the brain and causes irreversible cerebral injury unless inoculated against using the bible and western literature.

The toxicologies:

Man 0.001 per koran
Animal show no effect to the element

When exposed to the element, symptoms of expsure include:

Growing beards, shouting "Allahu Ahkbar", wearing odd clothing, Singing like they are in pain, foaming at the mouth, wife beating
The element
_________________
The Borg is si-fi's Islam. The "Collective" is the Ummah and they assimilate the kaffir.

*http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/* - For if you are in a forced marriage in the UK

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> Breaking News On Islam	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 3 of 10

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum