religion

[capco]

I'll take that as a no.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty colors!

This explains perfectly slow change over time and speciation.
But in order to prove the transition into a different kind of color green would have to become an entirely new and in seen color, not one that is in the same color spectrum as itself.

No idea what you are trying to say here. Please clarify. I will try to explain what I think you were getting at but could be wrong about your question.

You are stating that the green symbol would have to become a entirely new color itself, correct? As I tried to explain there are hundreds or thousands of generations between each symbol that arent shown in the picture. Each generation slowly progresses to the next symbol. There is no need for a large influx of new traits or for a blue symbol to give birth to a purple star.

Let's say the blue symbol represents a wolf's closest ancestor and the green square represents a wolf. Over the course of thousands of generations the wolf ancestor would have many small mutations that slowly progressed toward the end result...a wolf. For instance, the ancestor may have developed thicker hair, grown taller, etc until it finally displayed all the characteristics of a wolf. The name wolf is just what we call the animal at a stage in time. In essence, it is still the ancestor...with a lot of traits that have been added and subtracted over the millennia.

The wolf ancestor doesnt have to give birth to a wolf. It gives birth to something that is .0001% more like a wolf and it proves to be an advantage so nature selects for it. That .0001% wolf ancestor gives birth to an animal which is .0001% closer to a wolf too (not immediately but eventually a generation will produce the mutations needed) so now you have an animal which is .0002% closer to being a wolf. It carries on like this for many, many, many, many generations until a few hundred thousand or millions years have passed and the end result is the ancestor is no longer a wolf ancestor but it is in fact what we label as a wolf.

Hope that answers your question.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Once upon a time..........

Good story really it is.

Ok so that sounds simple enough I can imagine that happening honestly I can.
Now all we have to do is gather some of those cell colonies that still exhibit those properties and Boom! We have the proof.

You should ask oxford for a grant.

Why do you think those EXACT same colonies would still be around today? As I pointed out, we do have examples of colonies that form like this today. Note, these are not the same colony as the one in my hypothetical but they are a great example that colonies can display these traits.

[Whirled]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

PvP religion?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do you think those EXACT same colonies would still be around today? As I pointed out, we do have examples of colonies that form like this today. Note, these are not the same colony as the one in my hypothetical but they are a great example that colonies can display these traits.

Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, p. 8. Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do you think those EXACT same colonies would still be around today? As I pointed out, we do have examples of colonies that form like this today. Note, these are not the same colony as the one in my hypothetical but they are a great example that colonies can display these traits.

So the hypothesis just failed the test of science.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No idea what you are trying to say here. Please clarify. I will try to explain what I think you were getting at but could be wrong about your question.

You are stating that the green symbol would have to become a entirely new color itself, correct? As I tried to explain there are hundreds or thousands of generations between each symbol that arent shown in the picture. Each generation slowly progresses to the next symbol. There is no need for a large influx of new traits or for a blue symbol to give birth to a purple star.

Let's say the blue symbol represents a wolf's closest ancestor and the green square represents a wolf. Over the course of thousands of generations the wolf ancestor would have many small mutations that slowly progressed toward the end result...a wolf. For instance, the ancestor may have developed thicker hair, grown taller, etc until it finally displayed all the characteristics of a wolf. The name wolf is just what we call the animal at a stage in time. In essence, it is still the ancestor...with a lot of traits that have been added and subtracted over the millennia.

The wolf ancestor doesnt have to give birth to a wolf. It gives birth to something that is .0001% more like a wolf and it proves to be an advantage so nature selects for it. That .0001% wolf ancestor gives birth to an animal which is .0001% closer to a wolf too (not immediately but eventually a generation will produce the mutations needed) so now you have an animal which is .0002% closer to being a wolf. It carries on like this for many, many, many, many generations until a few hundred thousand or millions years have passed and the end result is the ancestor is no longer a wolf ancestor but it is in fact what we label as a wolf.

Hope that answers your question.

Ok so a wolf ancestor(?) becomes a wolf. Slowly over time. Starting with something that is not a wolf and ending with what we currently( and always have) called a wolf.

So the too could not interbreed. They are separated by millions/billions of years and thousands of generations.

They are distinctly different kinds or classes.

Green is in the same spectrum as blue, yellow, red , orange and all other colors.

They can mix (interbreed).

So we need an example that shows slow change over time (skip the gaps I don't care) that shows green becoming a color it cannot mix with.

That is evolution.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do you think those EXACT same colonies would still be around today? As I pointed out, we do have examples of colonies that form like this today. Note, these are not the same colony as the one in my hypothetical but they are a great example that colonies can display these traits.

Exhibit the same properties.

Exact.

Not the same thing.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by capco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can you even begin to fathom the immensity of time that is 5 BILLION years?

I can fathom that if time was the only real roadblock to observing evolution, that this would essentially be a cop out excuse. If all of these random and unguided mutations occurred millions and billions of years ago, then great. It take millions and billions of years for biological change from one species to another. The thing is, we are further along in the evolutionary timeline than any of those organisms. If all it takes is time, shouldn't we be seeing at least some observable evidence of one kind of anything living changing into another kind of thing?
Not bacteria that's resistant to certain antibiotics. I'm talking about real change. Alligators or sharks, some of the oldest known living things. Shouldn't they be changing in some observable way after all this time? Its been millions of years for them.

[G13]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, wrong thread. Why don't you bump the thread where I had provided all of the necessary information? Information you hadn't addressed which is why I disregard you so easily.

Has nothing to do with the thread. Has everything to do with you. You fucking lied and you're still lying about it. You provided jack shit besides a school name when all you need to do is provide the names which are public record. Provide the names and prove your claims you lying POS or come clean. No more games.

They are malformed questions. Asking me how a fish became a bird or a horse becomes a squirrel aren't sensical within the context of which you ask your questions.
Let me give you an example. Would you think it silly of me if I were to ask a theologian to explain to me how the Virgin Mary saved us from our sins? It's a nonsensical question.

Laughable buffoonery. You just aren't very smart. Instead of deflecting how about answering the question? If evolution is "proven science" there should be thousands of examples you could cite that would prove it's true.

DNA is 4-bit 3 dimensional code. There is no junk code contained within it. It has to be EXACT for each type or kind of animal which are limited to their genetic kinds. Species can work with pre-existing code within their genetic types/kinds, nobody is disputing that, but a dog's genetic coding can only work within other breeds of dogs. It won't work in a cat. Just like EQ source code would never work in WOW. They are two entirely different packages of software.

There is no genetic code within a dog that can turn it into a cat. It's like claiming a virus/malware (mutation) rewrote EQ source code and turned it into WOW. Not only that, but this happened purely by random chaotic chance. How did that code come into existence from nothing? How did it write itself (for each type/kind) by chaotic and unpredictable random chance?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We're also losing code as time goes on because time = entropy. We're a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy over generation after generation. You're aware that we're losing species right? Probably at least 1k a year (mostly ocean life). DNA is weakening and degrading over time. If Evolution were true why aren't there any new species popping into existence? Why isn't there new and improved genetic code being written spontaneously from nothing?

The thing is, I know exactly what you are trying to ask, but I also know your troll persona so unless you ask the question correctly I'm not going to answer you and invite you to play your little word games in an attempt to get me to clarify myself needlessly because by the time I get to it I'll be at work on my phone and at that point it's just not worth it.

I've been on these forums FAR longer than you. You're not going to be able to weasel your way out of this by calling me a troll. The "it's my phone" excuse is absolutely pathetic and desperate. What a hilariously small and weak person you are and a fucking lying fraud to boot.

A malformed question as well since there's no way (currently) to determine if existing matter in the universe came from anywhere.

It's a malformed question if you don't know the answer? Hahaha I thought it was settled science? We gotta have faith right?

A better question to ask that scientists might actually bother entertaining would be "is there a way to determine if matter had a starting point?"
This is also a question that no scientist would currently be able to answer because human understanding of science has not progressed enough to answer it. It may never get to that point. The key difference is that Scientists don't cop out and insert their magical answer to everything to fill the gap (god) just because. There's a reason that supernatural is synonymous with magical because both are fictitious.

Pure gobbly****. Scientists already acknowledge that Matter/Time/Space was created with "The Big Bang".

You would of course only reach such a conclusion if you subscribe to logic. For all I know you think logic is some sort of hoax as well.

Hahahahahahahaha ...

This is also a malformed question similar to the one above, the difference is that it insists upon some creative force. They laws did not 'come from' anywhere, they simply are.

They simply are? You sound like a religious zealot. The laws of the universe created themselves? How did the laws of mathematics create something let alone itself? Go ahead Einstein, tell us all how it was done. Grabs popcorn.

As far as we can tell due to background radiation and a few other things that are way beyond me the laws have existed since the beginning of time. Before you say it, yes I'm taking Stephen Hawking's word for it, if you don't like it, spin on it.

Time/Space/Matter started with "The Big Bang" according to science. Where did the Matter and Energy to produce/power this Big Bang come from? Hawking is a human being just like anyone else. Flawed and corrupt. He doesn't know everything about everything. He wasn't there when it happened.

This "where.... come from" stuff, if I keep having to modify your questions to make them logical and you don't realize why I have to do so it's going to get pointless fast so after this one I'm going to skip any other "where.... come from" questions. I hope you don't think that's unfair.

You're trying to hide behind this pompous BS and the only thing you're accomplishing is looking like a total moron. You can't answer the questions. You're a religious zealot.

That said, the correct way to ask this question is to ask Where could the energy that was released during the big bang come from? Which would have a plethora of answers that honestly don't matter in the context of this discussion.

If there was "Nothing" before "The Big Bang" where did it come from? I thought you were logical?

Explain... what exactly? How it works? Where it came from? Is it bunk? It's relation to gravity? The question is simply too open ended (and I'm not evading, I would be happy to address a more specific question though I'd have to do some research since theoretical physics is less than a passing fancy to me)

Why don't you do some research and learn about what it is? Hint: Do you play guitar? Tune it. Each note is a specific frequency. The Universe is fine tuned this way so precise the odds that it's random chance are far beyond absurd.

This is a bad word and you know it. You get a ruler to the knuckle for that one.

Random Chance. Random Chance. Random Chance. Random Chance.

What word should be used? Creation? Design? Which one. Mutations are random chaotic chance. There is no Structure or Order to them. They are also 99.9999999999999999% harmful and destructive. Go sit in radiation for a few hours. See if you mutate into a superhero.

No. Stop with the random chance crap, the universe doesn't function that way. You just asked about cosmological constants and now you are talking about chance. Please understand how self-defeating this is.

Oh you mean Evolution is a BS theory? You finally coming around?

Regardless, I don't touch abiogenesis, like I had asked before "what's stopping a creator from creating life forms that are capable of evolution in order to survive and flourish on an ever-changing world?". Only one other poster even responded to the point seriously, you simply went on another "evolution is bunk" rant.

Wait ... hold the phones. You won't touch abiogenesis and are now floating a theory that a "Creator" created the process of Evolution (which is random chaotic chance)? Lawl

Why would a Creator "create the process of Evolution" when all He would need to do is create DNA?

This is another malformed question. Time is a measurement. Time causes evolution the same way speed causes driving.

So what causes the gradual rewriting or spontaneous new genetic code to come into existence over time? If the theory is true, where is the evidence to support this assertion?

First, "kinds" is not scientific jargon, it's creationist jargon which is unique to the bible. Animal biology deals with classifications and sub-categories (Fish, anphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals etc..) then jawed/jawless for fish, marsupials etc.. for mammals.

Jawless fish are still fish

Marsupials are still mammals

Kinds/Types

Their genetic code can only work within their respective genetic types. The Bible is 100% accurate in it's description btw. This was a book that written thousands of years before that idiot Darwin and his finches. How was it able to explain and have the foreknowledge of how life is genetically structured in this Universe when not even a microscope existed? In Darwin's time, cells were just blobbed. The entire premise of Darwin's theory rested on cells being simple. Not these complex and vast microbiological genetic cities with the most amazing real time error checking/debugging systems (not to mention self replicating) that make our latest technology look like legos.

Secondly entropy is a law of thermodynamics, if you can give me a concise reason as to why you conflate thermodynamics with evolutionary biology I'll begin to entertain it, in the meantime the only honest reaction I can have to it is "wat".

I already have multiple times. You're just too stupid to understand it. Everything decays and becomes more disordered over time naturally. It doesn't randomly structure and order itself by random. The Universe is a closed system. Not our galaxy. The Sun adds to this decay over time. Look at the roof of some cars and houses for examples that your tiny brain can grasp.

You used those words yet again... This is becoming frustrating. You are also again asserting that time is a force. To add insult to injury you are now stating that complexity implies design. It does not. Malformed is an understatement for this one.

I wasn't the one that asserted time is a force. You religious zealots are the ones that are asserting magical "gradual changes over time".

This is simply unnecessary ad-hominem with an implication that I don't want to be 'accountable' for actions, what actions? I have no idea.

Fact actually. You fucking lied about having a personal connection to victims of Sandy Hook to try and shut down debate. You tried to hide behind an emotional lie because you are a lying fucking coward and low life POS. You need to start doing some personal reflection and make some badly needed changes. Your smug arrogance can no longer hide your lack of character and ethics.

Evolution is, simply put, the most plausible explanation for how life on Earth came to be the way it is today. It's not only the prevailing theory with the greatest amount of evidence to back it up, it's literally the only theory that has any evidence to back it up.

Wait, so Evolution has gone from "settled and tested science" according to you bozos to now "the most plausible explanation"? Based on what? Certainly not Fossil or genetic evidence. So then what? Faith?

I realize that you and I have different definitions for the word "evidence", yours is simply incorrect. If that makes you angry, all the better, because at least there's some response that's been elicited so there's potential that for the first time, you may use logic to come to a conclusion.

You wouldn't know logic if it stomped you in the face