JapanForum.com

JapanForum.com (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/)
-   General Discussion (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/)
-   -   Missing link revealed. (http://www.japanforum.com/forum/general-discussion/25280-missing-link-revealed.html)

RegPaq 05-23-2009 11:34 PM

but isn't the theory of evolution that we all came from a single cell or something?

iPhantom 05-24-2009 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegPaq (Post 721485)
but isn't the theory of evolution that we all came from a single cell or something?

Hmm, never heard of that but I know for sure that evolution doesn't happen magically. It has its own factors, like adaptation on environment. It happens very slowly through years.

ozkai 05-24-2009 01:22 AM

Getting back tothe original OP, all quite amazing stuff.

I wonder if the climate had anything to do with the preservation process.

superheel 05-24-2009 04:45 AM

I don't think that is enough evidence to prove evolution. I mean, that is just a skeleton, that could be anything. But a great discovery though.

MMM 05-24-2009 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegPaq (Post 721479)
Oh I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous statement. But if they were all over the place that means they weren't in one small area. Linear as in ape->missing link->to human. and its strange how only human intelligence improved drastically among every other specie, huh?

There are many connections called "missing links" and over time a lot have been discovered. There is a culture looking for "THE missing link" which connects apes to humans, but that isn't the only link not yet discovered. Not every "missing link" is ape to human.

And keep in mind, when we say "missing link" it isn't like there is a black hole in the theory.

What it means is we have found 1, found 2, found 3, found 4, found 5, found, 6, can't find 7, found 8. found 9, found 10, found 11, found 12, found 13...

MMM 05-24-2009 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superheel (Post 721534)
I don't think that is enough evidence to prove evolution. I mean, that is just a skeleton, that could be anything. But a great discovery though.

No one said it was enough evidence to "prove" evolution. It is simply another piece of the puzzle.

FeyOberon 05-26-2009 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720724)
Also the fact that man did not exist when the dinosaurs did means that man had to come from somewhere AFTER the dinosaurs went extinct. Since you agree all life comes from life, where did man come from then?

Radiocarbon dating is only one way of determining a fossil's age, and indeed it is not perfect, but not nearly as inaccurate as certain factions would like you to believe.

I still hold that fossil dating methods are inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating has the flaws I mentioned earlier. Geological stratum dating relies on carbon dating and the estimated age of fossils found in the strata. The age of those same fossils is determined by the estimated age of the stratum where they were found and carbon dating. The methods employ circular reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720724)
As a biology student you are surely familiar with homology. This is the similarity between different creatures due to shared ancestry. Homology explains things like why certain modern whales have hip bones when they don't have any purpose for a creature that doesn't walk.

The reason modern whales have hipbones is because their ancestor was a creature called Pakicetus who had more developed rear legs, and probably was a land-dweller. Why can't whales breathe underwater when other fish can? That's the line of ancestry that they came from.

The "hip bones" or "pelvises" of whales differ in males and females and play a role in mating as well as carrying and birthing calves. Whales are mammals, not fish. One of the characteristics of all mammals is that they have lungs. Therefore, whales cannot breathe under water, whereas fish -- which are characterized by gills -- can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720724)
My example of viral evolution absolutely is an example of evolution on a small scale. And no, creature do not change into other creatures, it's a much slower process than that. So slow it's impossible to visualize without seeming fantastic.

Yet evolution is one creature changing into another. No matter how slowly the process occurrs, or how much time must elapse during the process, or how many "transitional forms" exist between steps, evolution is Creaure A becoming Creature B.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720724)
There is no evidence to suggest that every individual species existing on the planet today came straight through history each on an individual straight line, untouched by other creatures. They must have COME from somewhere. And that somewhere is a simple organism. You have to squeeze your eyes shut pretty tight not to see the connections.

The Law of Entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) demonstrates that order in nature always tends toward disorder. Also, the more simple an organism is, the easier it is for it to survive in nature. For example, the only creatures indigenous to the extreme climate of Earth's poles are simple lichens and bacteria. Single celled organisms would have no reason to change into anything more complex, which would have more difficulty surviving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 720724)
The theory of evolution will never be proven as absolute fact. This is true of most things in science. But it also hasn't been disproved, despite legitimate and continuing efforts.

That is basically what I was driving at. Evolution has never been, and never will be, indisputably proven as fact. Regardless of how likely any person (or the scientific community) thinks evolution is, there will always be room for doubt. A person can be both itelligent and educated while still believing that evolution is not the answer.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that evolution should be disregarded only because it cannot be proven. I'm saying that if someone disagrees with evolution, it does not necessarily follow that the person is ignorant or uninformed (an assumption that the vast majority of evolutionists make).

alanX 05-26-2009 04:13 AM

I have a question...
According to the Evolution Theory. We came from small organisms? Where did these small organisms come from? From dust? Where did the dust come from? From rocks? Where did the rocks come from? Or whatever the case may be.. evolution says we come from a parent...

So if EVERYTHING has a parent....how did the very very very very very very first living thing come to be? Who's his parent?

MMM 05-26-2009 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RegPaq (Post 721485)
but isn't the theory of evolution that we all came from a single cell or something?

Don't mix up Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

We will probably never know 100% how life was created on Earth. On the other hand, knowing that there are 100s of Milliions of galaxies with 100s of millions of star systems, the chances of life happening somewhere exist. The fact that we exist in one of those places in validated in the fact that we are alive.

The theory of evolution does not give evidence to how life was created on Earth, only how it has progressed. Generally all life came from simple organisms that advanced to more complex organisms to the state where we are today.

This is generally accepted as true among scientists as well as most of the modern world.

iPhantom 05-26-2009 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanX (Post 722354)
I have a question...
According to the Evolution Theory. We came from small organisms? Where did these small organisms come from? From dust? Where did the dust come from? From rocks? Where did the rocks come from? Or whatever the case may be.. evolution says we come from a parent...

So if EVERYTHING has a parent....how did the very very very very very very first living thing come to be? Who's his parent?

It existed. Humans have never witnessed creation, only transformation.

The matter law explains it all: 'Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed'

The universe was always there, 'Bing Bang' might have been a transformation. Evolution is a transformation.

This is a theory too, but it works so far... nobody has ever created a new chemical element or an atom for that matter. They just mix atoms and such.

solemnclockwork 05-26-2009 10:30 AM

Taken from Official Evolution Topic

YES! I knew "Ida" would come up here. (Pulls out big guns and a sledgehammer to use on the "evolutionary coffin.") [BigGrin]

If Ida is indeed a "missing link" then what are these guys thinking? READ ON:

Jørn Hurum, at the University of Oslo, the scientist who assembled the international team of researchers to study Ida is relaxed about using the phrase [“missing link” to describe Ida]. “Why not? I think we could use that phrase for this kind of specimen,” he said. “[People] have a feeling that if something is important it is a missing link.”

[i]n the paper published in PLoS ONE from the Public Library of Science on the fossil [the author] is more circumspect. “Darwinius masillae is important in being exceptionally well-preserved and providing a much more complete understanding of the paleobiology of an Eocene primate than was available in the past,” the authors wrote.

“[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans], but we are not advocating this here.”

The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.
One of those reviewers, Professor John Fleagle at Stony Brook University in New York state said that would be a judgment for the scientific community. “That will be sorted out or at least debated extensively in the coming years once the paper is published,” he said.

“Is Fossil Ida a Missing Link in Evolution?”
James Randerson, The Guardian, May 19, 2009


[D]espite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. An article to be published on Tuesday in PLoS ONE, a scientific journal, will report more prosaically that the scientists involved said the fossil could be a “stem group” that was a precursor to higher primates, with the caveat, “but we are not advocating this.”
All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may.

“Seeking a Missing Link, and a Mass Audience”
Tim Arango, The New York Times, May 19, 2009


University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown remains skeptical. He pointed to a story in the Weekend Australian in which one of [coauthor Jørn] Hurum’s coauthors, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, said the team would have preferred to publish in a more rigorous journal such as Science or Nature.
Dr. Gingerich told the Wall Street Journal: “There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We’ve been pushed to finish the study. It’s not how I like to do science.”

“That rings all sorts of warning bells,” Professor Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.
“It’s nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates . . . but they’ve cherry-picked particular character[istics] and they’ve been criticized (by other scientists) for doing that.”

“Scientists Divided on Ida as the Missing Link”
Leigh Dayton, The Australian, May 21, 2009


“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing.” . . .

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

Most experts agree that the find is significant, if only for its impressive degree of completeness, but some were put off by the bells and whistles that went along with the publicity campaign around Ida. . . .

“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” [Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris] Beard said.

“Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor"
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience, May 20, 2009


Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich’s analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper.

“There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked,” says paleontologist Richard Kay . . . of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”

Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as “somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth,” the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. “It’s like going back to 1994,” says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. “They’ve ignored 15 years of literature.”

"‘Revolutionary’ Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists”
Ann Gibbons, ScienceNOW, May 19, 2009


Science is supposed to be methodical, and usually it is, sometimes to the point of being dull. But there are times when a little hoopla is called for. Major discoveries that rewrite the textbooks deserve big headlines and ubiquitous media coverage and lots of scientific slaps on the back and all that.

The discovery of the “Ida” fossil, announced this week as though the 47-million-year-old lemur-like female were a rock star, seemed at first like one to celebrate.

Today we know better. . . . [T]here are doubts about whether [humans are] really descended from Ida. Problem is, most of the coverage is done, and the public could be left with the impression that Ida is a rock-solid missing link in the human evolutionary chain. . . .
“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. . . .

The debacle started to unfold when the finding, cloaked in secrecy while a media engine was being primed, leaked out in The Wall Street Journal, and then in London’s Daily Mail. Then The New York Times wrote about the media circus that was to ensue. All this was published before anyone but the research team (and its tightly controlled media team) knew the details of the finding. . . .

Ida’s unveiling was highly scripted (with some “Barnum and Bailey aspects,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University). More important, it can now be said the findings may well have been significantly overstated. We won’t know for sure until further research is done. But if this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed.

“Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far”
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, May 20, 2009


Dr Chris Beard, curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and author of The Hunt for the Dawn Monkey, said he was "awestruck" by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil. . . .
But he added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."

"Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil”
Christine McGourty, BBC News, May 19, 2009


Ok. I know I said I had "washed my hands of this topic" but I knew Ida would come up and I wanted to balance the playing field. I applaud all the scientists who are skeptical. Skepticism is what makes science what it is.

Be sure to look at the titles/authors of these pieces (in bold.) You can even look them up for yourself. These aren't whacko creationists. These are evolutionist scientists.

(Puts down sledgehammer, goes to get a backhoe. Evolution deserves to be six feet under.) Sorry. [Smile] Just a little of my bias shining through. He he he.

MMM,
Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Doesn't show the majority of Americans believe evolution to be true.

One of the problems with these "missing links" is that it never ends. To find "one" you have to find the one to go before it, and the one after it, and you have to repeat the process for those too.

AAAS - Evolution Resources

This articles has several read flags about it. One they say Theories are based on fact obtained thought observation and experiment. Question is when have they tested and observed evolution? Then they go on to say there is no evidence against the theory. Ok what then about the second law of Thermodynamics? Last they say they will not debate an "certain" group, which I would let you decide on what that spells.

Is Carbon Dating Reliable? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Yeah the site has an bias, but that shouldn't matter if what they present is true (people who testify in an court usually have an bias that doesn't stop there testimony from being accepted). It deals with the whole carbon dating issue.

alanX 05-26-2009 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom (Post 722396)
It existed. Humans have never witnessed creation, only transformation.

The matter law explains it all: 'Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed'

The universe was always there, 'Bing Bang' might have been a transformation. Evolution is a transformation.

This is a theory too, but it works so far... nobody has ever created a new chemical element or an atom for that matter. They just mix atoms and such.

Exactly. You answered my question with my own question....
You said "the universe was always there"
But how do you believe it got there? Evolved from more rocks? Then how did those get there?

It had to start from somewhere... something had to literally make something. If you say... "well, the universe evolved from X" then X had to get here somehow. "well, X evolved from Y" then Y had to get here somehow. "well it evolved from....."

All religious talk aside, evolution and the BB theory are very half-baked theories in my eyes.

iPhantom 05-26-2009 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanX (Post 722577)
It had to start from somewhere... something had to literally make something. If you say... "well, the universe evolved from X" then X had to get here somehow.

If it had to start from somewhere it had a primary state... so I guess you're asking for the primary state of the universe, which I cannot answer.

MMM 05-26-2009 06:05 PM

I think I have said all I can on this one. Just remember, think about the motives of the person who gives you information.

A scientist has no vested interest in having you believe in evolution. Is the same true of the person who tells you not to believe in evolution.

solemnclockwork 05-26-2009 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 722661)
I think I have said all I can on this one. Just remember, think about the motives of the person who gives you information.

A scientist has no vested interest in having you believe in evolution. Is the same true of the person who tells you not to believe in evolution.

What?!

What type of statement is that? Scientists have motives for asking you to believe, same can be said for others. Even then if the information and evidence is there what good does it do to have an "motive"?

I do believe everyone does something for an reason, this I don't see what your trying to say here.

Like for me, I present the case against evolution because I clearly believe that the "theory" is not what the scientists would have you believe. My motive would be for people to ask and look at both sides.

I believe the main point here I'm trying to make regardless of bias, motive, whatnots etc. you look at the information provided then judge if it's worthy.

Nyororin 05-26-2009 11:34 PM

This is really nothing but a religious debate...
Come on. I`ve already given one warning. Remember the rule policy about religious threads? That applies here too. It doesn`t seem like there can be any truly civil discussions involving religion on here. *sigh*

If it can`t stop the thread WILL be closed.

ivi0nk3y 05-27-2009 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom (Post 721288)
Science is based on evidence. Like I said before, if anyone makes studies regarding evolution they will come up with the same conclusion.

Faith on religion is blind because you don't have verifiable evidence. You can't examine it further.

On the contrary, faith in Evolution is blind. :)

I'm not gonna argue with you about religion simply because the thread will be closed. Wish I could though.
As for the Big Bang, there was evidence for it, thus I believe it. (It is also mentioned in the Quran.)

iPhantom 05-27-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y (Post 723095)
On the contrary, faith in Evolution is blind. :)

I'm not gonna argue with you about religion simply because the thread will be closed. Wish I could though.
As for the Big Bang, there was evidence for it, thus I believe it. (It is also mentioned in the Quran.)

You can give the reasons why 'faith' in evolution is blind? That is not against the rules, as long as you don't mention religion. I'm really interested in how you call it faith anyway... evolution has evidence so it is in no way faith.

solemnclockwork 05-27-2009 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyororin (Post 722885)
This is really nothing but a religious debate...
Come on. I`ve already given one warning. Remember the rule policy about religious threads? That applies here too. It doesn`t seem like there can be any truly civil discussions involving religion on here. *sigh*

If it can`t stop the thread WILL be closed.

Where the sites I used be considered adding to the religious part of this? I ask mainly because I was very much trying to stay focused in Ida and evolution. While the third site I gave is part of an religious site I wanted it only for the information it provided on that page. Would it have been better to post the info, then gave the credit?

ivi0nk3y 05-27-2009 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 721225)
Haha... I'm no scientist.

But bacterial evolution shows change at a cellular level, and since we are all made up of cells... go figure.

Yea but all cells don't share this trait.
As for Bacteria, there are mutations in them but these have been shown not to be adaptive. For instance, the bacteria wasn't introduced to an anti-biotic for the mutation to occur. There were studies done that showed how mutations already existed in Bacteria for certain anti-biotics, 100 years before those bacteria were exposed to them.
There are a few processes other than Mutation, which Bacteria perform to get resistant to an anti-biotic.
There are things called 'Plasmids' inside bacteria. These carry codes for the bacterias survival. (Some of the enzymes in this assist in the breakdown of antibiotics and so you have at least one process by which bacteria grow immune to them.)
Any other process does not further the cause of "Macro Evolution" and so you can't use this mutation process to justify Evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 721225)
How so? If science is self correcting... then obviously the individual that "believes" in science is self correcting too.

Exactly, so you'd have to be at the end of a certain discovery to be entirely sure of something. We can never be sure of this with science.
For instance, Newton thought his theory on gravity was all that was, as did people who believed in it. Einstein came and gave us relativity and hence Curved space theory, giving us another theory to do with the gravitational pull. As we advance, so undoubtedly will these theories.
So if an individual is self correcting, that is fine. They however can not use science to be the infallible entity that so many people take it as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhantom (Post 723097)
You can give the reasons why 'faith' in evolution is blind? That is not against the rules, as long as you don't mention religion. I'm really interested in how you call it faith anyway... evolution has evidence so it is in no way faith.

That is the thing, i've given these reasons already in the main Evolution thread and others.
Either way, it is hard not to mention religion when talking about Evolution, since it is the Crutch for most Atheists to use against most religions.
Lastly, it is faith in evolution because the so called evidence, is flawed.

Ronin4hire 05-28-2009 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by solemnclockwork (Post 722667)
What?!

What type of statement is that? Scientists have motives for asking you to believe, same can be said for others. Even then if the information and evidence is there what good does it do to have an "motive"?

I do believe everyone does something for an reason, this I don't see what your trying to say here.

Like for me, I present the case against evolution because I clearly believe that the "theory" is not what the scientists would have you believe. My motive would be for people to ask and look at both sides.

I believe the main point here I'm trying to make regardless of bias, motive, whatnots etc. you look at the information provided then judge if it's worthy.

Cool! I'll let you know that I still side with the scientific community.

The links you posted earlier only reveal some of the opinions held in the scientific community regarding Ida rather than an argument against evolution.

Oh and something about the reliability of carbon dating... Which was from a website which was completely biased.

Ronin4hire 05-28-2009 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y (Post 723103)
Yea but all cells don't share this trait.
As for Bacteria, there are mutations in them but these have been shown not to be adaptive. For instance, the bacteria wasn't introduced to an anti-biotic for the mutation to occur. There were studies done that showed how mutations already existed in Bacteria for certain anti-biotics, 100 years before those bacteria were exposed to them.
There are a few processes other than Mutation, which Bacteria perform to get resistant to an anti-biotic.
There are things called 'Plasmids' inside bacteria. These carry codes for the bacterias survival. (Some of the enzymes in this assist in the breakdown of antibiotics and so you have at least one process by which bacteria grow immune to them.)
Any other process does not further the cause of "Macro Evolution" and so you can't use this mutation process to justify Evolution.

As I said before... I'm not a scientist.

But because some bacteria showed a resistance to certain anti-biotics long before they were invented doesn't mean anything. All it means is some bacteria have been resistant to antibiotics before they were invented.

And when these bacteria become resistant via the process you describe... what do you think happens when the bacteria reproduces? The genetic code of the cell changes so that it is resistant does it not?

Is this not evolution? The evolving of genetic code? I mean I don't know how you can make a distinction between micro and macro evolution based on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y (Post 723103)
Exactly, so you'd have to be at the end of a certain discovery to be entirely sure of something. We can never be sure of this with science.
For instance, Newton thought his theory on gravity was all that was, as did people who believed in it. Einstein came and gave us relativity and hence Curved space theory, giving us another theory to do with the gravitational pull. As we advance, so undoubtedly will these theories.
So if an individual is self correcting, that is fine. They however can not use science to be the infallible entity that so many people take it as.

Science is not an entity it's a field of study and a process. It certainly is a more reliable process than say... I don't know... reciting a dubious thousand year old document and taking it's word as truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivi0nk3y (Post 723103)
That is the thing, i've given these reasons already in the main Evolution thread and others.
Either way, it is hard not to mention religion when talking about Evolution, since it is the Crutch for most Atheists to use against most religions.
Lastly, it is faith in evolution because the so called evidence, is flawed.

Evolution is not necessary for an atheist to attack religion. All an atheist needs to do is to scrutinize religion itself. If it were allowed on here I'd do so but I'm not.

I'll say it again... if you applied just a fraction of the scrutiny which you apply to science in your lame attempt disprove the theory of evolution as you did to your own religion I'm quite confident that you'd be an atheist too. (Of course I expect you to deny this so no need to reply)

burkhartdesu 05-28-2009 04:50 PM

Why is it impossible for spirituality and science to coexist?

ivi0nk3y 05-29-2009 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 723666)
As I said before... I'm not a scientist.

But because some bacteria showed a resistance to certain anti-biotics long before they were invented doesn't mean anything. All it means is some bacteria have been resistant to antibiotics before they were invented.

And when these bacteria become resistant via the process you describe... what do you think happens when the bacteria reproduces? The genetic code of the cell changes so that it is resistant does it not?

Is this not evolution? The evolving of genetic code? I mean I don't know how you can make a distinction between micro and macro evolution based on this.

Um, genetic code didn't Evolve. It is transferred from one bacteria to the next.. without any cell needing to reproduce. This is a natural process of Bacteria. It is not a mutation as naieve people like to assume.
In Lamens terms.. (to be kind to your alleged unscientific nature), The bacteria did not alter itself because it saw a threat to itself, when faced with an anti-biotic.
Also.. reproduction is not a process of Evolution lol. Kids who have brown hair, haven't evolved from their parents who had brown and blonde hair. That is Natural Selection.. as I have outlined before. NS exists without the Theory of Evolution.
If you didn't yet read up on the Evolution, or more aptly, Neo-Darwinist Evolution.. I believe you should, because your understanding of it seems sorely lacking at the moment.
Since mutations are the backbone of Neo-Darwinism.. this process I just described is contrary to it.
I didn't think I needed to spell out the link between the two but its a pious/religious practice to be Chariatable. :)

Eitherway, you do like to contradict yourself don't you? I'm trying to tell you clearly how bacteria do not prove Evolution exists, so you tell me that you're not a scientist.
Cool.
Surely if you have the patience to explain something 'scientifically', you must also have the patience and virtue to listen to another persons scientific explanation, without needing to complain how you're not a scientist. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 723666)
Science is not an entity it's a field of study and a process. It certainly is a more reliable process than say... I don't know... reciting a dubious thousand year old document and taking it's word as truth.

Evolution is not necessary for an atheist to attack religion. All an atheist needs to do is to scrutinize religion itself. If it were allowed on here I'd do so but I'm not.

I'll say it again... if you applied just a fraction of the scrutiny which you apply to science in your lame attempt disprove the theory of evolution as you did to your own religion I'm quite confident that you'd be an atheist too. (Of course I expect you to deny this so no need to reply)

Science is a reliable process because you say so?
Lol.
For arguments sake, the hundreds of Muslim scientists that exist (and who existed to further science, years before any Westerner saw these disciplines), are all somehow blind because they follow a 'dubious' thousand year old 'document'.
You really think if it was so dubious, that these intelligent people would also be Atheist, as you say.
Nevermind the thousands of scholars and authors who it has taken to study these 'dubious' documents, who can only see how much logic and sense there is there. The millions of ordinary intelligent people who see sense in what they believe, everyday. Solutions to humanity, that neither Science nor those extremely academic Atheists (who have brightened up humanity so much in the past 20 years or so. Lol.), can ever provide.
Yea I guess your ever confident persona will like to assume that I will denounce my religious ways after my 'lame attempt' to disprove the theory of Evolution, if I spent as much time studying my religion. (which coincidentally, I have.)
Tell me please.. how is it that throughout the years, not a single Atheist has been able to successfully convert a counterpart Muslim (just as intelligent and schooled), to his/her way of thinking, or dent the religion in any way.
Indeed, such a failed attempt at attacking me shows your own immunity to any sort of sense.

Now, please demonstrate the arrogance I was talking about earlier on in this thread, some more. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu (Post 723807)
Why is it impossible for spirituality and science to coexist?

That's because Marxists hijacked the whole 'process' years ago, so it would suit their materialistic ways of thinking.

Nyororin 05-29-2009 11:26 AM

I`m sorry, this thread really seems to have nowhere to go other than religious debate.

I`m closing the thread.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 AM.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6