Giraffes [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Giraffes


jokeruh
05-23-2011, 22:31
For what reason did giraffes evolve such long necks?

Jolly_Giant
05-23-2011, 22:47
Allowing for analogous language: They evolved them to reach leaves on the tops of trees.

Animal Mother
05-23-2011, 23:12
For what reason did giraffes evolve such long necks?Environmental pressures and natural selection.

furioso2112
05-23-2011, 23:16
The ones that had long legs and short necks died of dehydration. See Salvador Dali's imagery.

Really, they used to be aquatic. They were among the first animals to develop lungs rather than gills, but had to maintain their ability to navigate around in deep water. Their necks have been getting progressively shorter for incalculable eons.

It's more about their intolerance to pungent odors that anything. They had bad seats on the Ark - among the hogs, monkeys, and skunks. They stretched to the max to get a breath of fresh air.

dbcooper
05-24-2011, 08:04
Why is their vocal nerve 14 feet longer than it needs to be? It travels from the brain all the way down the neck, loops around the aorta near the heart and then travels back up the neck to the larynx. Ours does the same.

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 08:47
Why is their vocal nerve 14 feet longer than it needs to be? It travels from the brain all the way down the neck, loops around the aorta near the heart and then travels back up the neck to the larynx. Ours does the same.
Laryngeal nerve -- great example.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I know, and it does not seem Intelligent.

-ArtificialGrape

jokeruh
05-24-2011, 14:34
I will try and keep a running tally.

So far we have:

1. evolved long necks to eat vegetation at the tree tops (Jolly Giant)

2. evolved long necks so they could live in deep water while breathing air above water [necks are actually getting shorter now - presumably because they can now live on land and therefore don't need to live in water](furioso)

3. have no idea (Animal Mother, dbcooper, Artificial Grape)

pesticidal
05-24-2011, 14:38
So they could see the action while in a crowd without jumping up and down.

Kingarthurhk
05-24-2011, 17:37
Or perhaps they were created that way, as interesting animal that eats leaves from a tree.

Animal Mother
05-24-2011, 17:40
I will try and keep a running tally. Perhaps you should try and keep an accurate one.

Animal Mother
05-24-2011, 17:41
Or perhaps they were created that way, as interesting animal that eats leaves from a tree. You've put forth a hypothesis, how do you propose to test it?

furioso2112
05-24-2011, 19:00
how about to see, hear, or smell their friends (or enemies) far across the savannah? they were the original long distance carriers.

Or possibly for protection. Protect the head, the rest follows. Maybe they have terrible stinky gas from all those leaves, and evolved long necks to spare them the discomfort of their own stench.

A high-up head puts the intake valve (mouth), eyes, ears, nose, and brain quite a ways up. Could be a number of reasons.

Perhaps they used to have wings, and much more robust tail. they might have been dragons at one point. that long laryngeal nerve is adapted from a firestarter. Instead of screaming and spouting flames, now they just chat like the rest of the animals.

creaky
05-24-2011, 19:25
Perhaps you should try and keep an accurate one.

He said you didn't have any idea. Are you saying that you do?

It's clear to me, from many prior conversations, that you really don't.

packsaddle
05-24-2011, 19:36
You've put forth a hypothesis, how do you propose to test it?

The same way you tested yours.

Norske
05-24-2011, 19:41
The ability to eat food that is not available to shorter-necked animals.

The ability to see sense predators at a greater distance.

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 20:57
I suspect that you're trying to collect possible explanations while sitting on a Creationist's attempt to refute giraffe evolution such as this one from The Nature Institute (http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm) that you will reveal after collecting possible explanations.

Below are two articles on the Giraffe neck that may interest some:
Giraffe neck, pt 1 (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck/)
Giraffe neck, pt 2 (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-ii/)

Here is a cool 4-minute video from a giraffe autopsy that shows the laryngeal nerve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0&feature=player_embedded#at=46) going from the brain, all the way down to the heart and back to the larynx. Roughly a 15 foot roundtrip for what needed to span less than 1 foot. A brief evolutionary explanation of the nerve is provided.

What is important to recognize with evolution is that of the millions of species that have lived, the fossil record currently only captures a small percentage of those species, and while many examples of adaptation and speciation can be shown, all the factors influencing species millions of years ago are not known, and many will probably never be known. This does nothing to weaken the argument of evolution because time and again predictions are made and successfully validated by the theory of evolution, and there is enough to be conclusive without tracing every single species, and there has never been an anachronistic fossil found.

So while the question is interesting, there is not currently a consensus on what were the factors facing giraffes that led to their long necks. What is known is that developing the long neck provided an advantage to the odds of producing surviving offspring.

That certainly won't satisfy some, but that's the scoop.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 20:59
Or perhaps they were created that way, as interesting animal that eats leaves from a tree.
That leaves the equally long question of what is Intelligent about the laryngeal nerve?

Angry Fist
05-24-2011, 21:01
So they could see the action while in a crowd without jumping up and down.
Darwin knew porn was coming... seems like a great idea for a critter.

Animal Mother
05-24-2011, 21:40
He said you didn't have any idea. Are you saying that you do? Yes. One would think you'd realize that after I offered one in post #3.
It's clear to me, from many prior conversations, that you really don't. Have you really become so sad that you can't participate in conversations but have to sit back and try to snipe at those who do?

Animal Mother
05-24-2011, 21:41
The same way you tested yours. You mean observation and research? Please, do lay out such a program which could substantiate a creationist position.

dbcooper
05-25-2011, 08:55
I suspect that you're trying to collect possible explanations while sitting on a Creationist's attempt to refute giraffe evolution such as this one from The Nature Institute (http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm) that you will reveal after collecting possible explanations.

Below are two articles on the Giraffe neck that may interest some:
Giraffe neck, pt 1 (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck/)
Giraffe neck, pt 2 (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-ii/)

Here is a cool 4-minute video from a giraffe autopsy that shows the laryngeal nerve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0&feature=player_embedded#at=46) going from the brain, all the way down to the heart and back to the larynx. Roughly a 15 foot roundtrip for what needed to span less than 1 foot. A brief evolutionary explanation of the nerve is provided.

What is important to recognize with evolution is that of the millions of species that have lived, the fossil record currently only captures a small percentage of those species, and while many examples of adaptation and speciation can be shown, all the factors influencing species millions of years ago are not known, and many will probably never be known. This does nothing to weaken the argument of evolution because time and again predictions are made and successfully validated by the theory of evolution, and there is enough to be conclusive without tracing every single species, and there has never been an anachronistic fossil found.

So while the question is interesting, there is not currently a consensus on what were the factors facing giraffes that led to their long necks. What is known is that developing the long neck provided an advantage to the odds of producing surviving offspring.

That certainly won't satisfy some, but that's the scoop.

-ArtificialGrape

First time I've seen the Dawkins video, good stuff.

Eta- Have you read any of Steven Pinkers work, His article on the moral instinct is a good read

SCmasterblaster
05-25-2011, 10:39
What I want to know is why long-necked giraffes are a religious issue?

dbcooper
05-25-2011, 10:59
What I want to know is why long-necked giraffes are a religious issue?

They are all scientologists

ArtificialGrape
05-25-2011, 10:59
What I want to know is why long-necked giraffes are a religious issue?
Because some people believe that giraffes were created in their current form, possibly so that kids would have an animal to feed those funny crackers at the zoo to.

Jolly_Giant
05-25-2011, 12:31
A casual search on Google indicates that creationists are obsessed with the giraffe. Seriously, the first page of hits for "Giraffe Evolution" returns mostly creationist websites. (And one weird new age website that also takes a dubious stance on evolution.)

AlexHassin
05-25-2011, 16:49
So they can reach food the other animals can not, giving them a edge that also allows the longer legs, better mobility. Also they neck gives them a better vantage then other animals to keep it alive form other animals. Kind of a more detailed take on Animal Mothers answer. Its really not that interesting, when you think of some other organisms that have evolved.

Kingarthurhk
05-25-2011, 18:17
That leaves the equally long question of what is Intelligent about the laryngeal nerve?

Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.

ArtificialGrape
05-25-2011, 18:28
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.
That's not the assertion, so either you are particularly ignorant of human evolution, or you are setting up a poor strawman.

Which is it?

packsaddle
05-25-2011, 20:05
You mean observation and research?

have you observed a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you tested a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you repeated a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

no, no, and no.

therefore, your position doesn't meet the criteria of true scientific endeavor.

storytelling, yes...science, no.

Jolly_Giant
05-25-2011, 21:37
have you observed a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you tested a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you repeated a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

no, no, and no.

therefore, your position doesn't meet the criteria of true scientific endeavor.

storytelling, yes...science, no.
That doesn't make sense
The term "observation" does not equate to "direct visual acuity." When we talk about evolution, a process affecting populations and taking millions of years to accrue any noticeable effect, what we observe is a series of forms via the fossil record which show characteristics common to the modern giraffe and some basal form.

From that observation we can form a hypothesis. (The theory of evolution does a good job at explaining why we observe apparent trends towards complexity in the fossil record so we will use that one.)

We can test our hypothesis in two ways: we can find some example that contradicts the theory of evolution (Like a lion with feathers) or we can make a prediction based on our hypothesis. In the case of giraffe evolution (Or Giraffolution as I like to call it) we can predict that there should be a fossil at a certain location in the geological timeline with characteristics that are in between a known basal fossil and the modern Giraffe, and that modern Giraffes shouldn't be seen before the appearance of that form.

And yes we have found just that,
It goes something like: climacoceras=> Palaeotragus=> samotherium=> honanotherium=> Giraffa camelopardalis

Though this is a far from complete list

nmstew
05-25-2011, 23:04
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.


Interestingly none of the mammals that walk upright for more than a few feet have "tails" like you mention. Gorillas come to mind. So the primates most close to human in appearance do not have tails. These same primates also have very similar DNA to ours. Which is to say that human DNA is most similar to primates without tails than it is to primates that have tails. Hmmmmm....

Actually we do have tails. It's called a coccyx. The facts that we walk upright and that tails are used for quadruped balance; together with the fact that our tail is vestigial all support...........


Do you dislike the idea of evolution because it plays on your fears, or damages your ego?

ArtificialGrape
05-25-2011, 23:44
have you observed a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you tested a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you repeated a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

no, no, and no.

therefore, your position doesn't meet the criteria of true scientific endeavor.

storytelling, yes...science, no.
These questions are merely the attempt of a Creationist to create a criterion of "science" to be so impractical that really nothing outside of what has been observed by modern science would meet the criteria of "true science".

In one broad stroke this would allow theories of cosmology, evolution, and plate tectonics to be dismissed. Handy, huh?

Not one of your trinity of questions has any bearing on evolution being true. The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and has been used to make numerous successful predictions. The fossil record provides adequate testimony of the divergence of life.

It is not necessary for evolution to explain why every speciation occurred, or why every trait developed. The theory explains under what conditions species evolve; common ancestors such as between birds and dinosaurs, and land and sea animals; predictions can and have been made; the fossil record bears witness to its truth; the genome bears witness to its truth.

There has never been an anachronistic fossil found.
There has never been an unexplained/unpredicted transitional fossil found.

I understand that you are unable to accept evolution because you view it as a threat to religious beliefs that you hold, so I don't believe there exists a level of evidence that would persuade you. I certainly can't provide a giraffe's Long Form Birth Certificate or Long Form Death Certificate.

regards,
-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
05-26-2011, 00:02
have you observed a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you tested a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

have you repeated a giraffe evolving into it's current form?

no, no, and no.

therefore, your position doesn't meet the criteria of true scientific endeavor.

storytelling, yes...science, no. Your standard of "true scientific endavor" is only those things which a single individual has been able to observe and repeat in its entirety?

It seems more likely that you're trying to set an unobtainable standard for things which disturb you, unless you actually are willing to discard pretty much every scientific advance since the late 19th century.

Animal Mother
05-26-2011, 00:04
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies. What evolutionists assert man came from monkies(sic)?

creaky
05-26-2011, 08:25
Have you really become so sad that you can't participate in conversations but have to sit back and try to snipe at those who do?

I guess you tend to bring out the worst in me.

dbcooper
05-26-2011, 08:31
What evolutionists assert man came from monkies(sic)?

A poorly informed one?

nmk
05-26-2011, 10:06
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.

Holy crap. :faint:

jokeruh
05-26-2011, 11:19
Update:

1. evolved long necks to eat vegetation at the tree tops (Jolly Giant, norske, AlexHassin)

2. evolved long necks so they could live in deep water while breathing air above water [necks are actually getting shorter now - presumably because they can now live on land and therefore don't need to live in water](furioso)

3. have no idea (Animal Mother, dbcooper, Artificial Grape)

4. sense friends and enemies (furioso, norske, AlexHassin)

5. protection (furioso)

6. avoid their own stench (furioso)

7. longer neck allows them better mobility (AlexHassin)

RC-RAMIE
05-26-2011, 12:07
T I certainly can't provide a giraffe's Long Form Birth Certificate or Long Form Death Certificate.

regards,
-ArtificialGrape

:rofl:

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 12:27
Update:

1. evolved long necks to eat vegetation at the tree tops (Jolly Giant, norske, AlexHassin)

2. evolved long necks so they could live in deep water while breathing air above water [necks are actually getting shorter now - presumably because they can now live on land and therefore don't need to live in water](furioso)

3. have no idea (Animal Mother, dbcooper, Artificial Grape)

4. sense friends and enemies (furioso, norske, AlexHassin)

5. protection (furioso)

6. avoid their own stench (furioso)

7. longer neck allows them better mobility (AlexHassin)
Animal Mother answered the original question in 2 words in the 3rd message of the thread, "environmental pressures".

The question, "what were the environmental pressures?", while interesting, has no impact on evolution being true.

Will those environmental pressures ever be identified? Possibly.
Will there be unanimous agreement on those pressures? Almost certainly not.

jokeruh
05-26-2011, 12:43
Animal Mother answered the original question in 2 words in the 3rd message of the thread, "environmental pressures".

The question, "what were the environmental pressures?", while interesting, has no impact on evolution being true.

Will those environmental pressures ever be identified? Possibly.
Will there be unanimous agreement on those pressures? Almost certainly not.

If Animal Mother had posed the question, and I answered that giraffes have long necks because of God's design, then I would be ridiculed and laughed off the forum by saying that I gave a non answer answer.

Am I, and others, to accept Animal Mother's non answer answer? Giraffes evolved long necks because evolution is designed that way.

CSnakes
05-26-2011, 13:11
Male Giraffes use that long neck to beat each other during combat as well. The "winner" of this combat gets the chance to breed with nearby females. Over time (assuming the longer the neck, the greater the chance of winning this combat) longer necks would be favored and that would be a trait that continues to get passed down.

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 13:21
Male Giraffes use that long neck to beat each other during combat as well. The "winner" of this combat gets the chance to breed with nearby females. Over time (assuming the longer the neck, the greater the chance of winning this combat) longer necks would be favored and that would be a trait that continues to get passed down.
That would more lead to the sexual amorphism of males having considerably longer necks than females rather than the more modest difference related to males being larger overall.

CSnakes
05-26-2011, 13:41
That would more lead to the sexual amorphism of males having considerably longer necks than females rather than the more modest difference related to males being larger overall.

That would only be true if neck length was a sex linked single gene traitm, and it is unlikely that is the case. Most likley it would be linked to multiple genes such as height in humans (most probably a haplotype scenario).
And, potentially over several genes.

So over time both male and female progeny would develop longer necks than previous generations in a population where sexually selecting males for long necks.

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 14:14
If Animal Mother had posed the question, and I answered that giraffes have long necks because of God's design, then I would be ridiculed and laughed off the forum by saying that I gave a non answer answer.

Am I, and others, to accept Animal Mother's non answer answer? Giraffes evolved long necks because evolution is designed that way.
But that is basically your answer, "God's will", is it not?

The difference is that we can show other evidence of evolution, you cannot show evidence of creation other than asking us to "look around", and as pointed out in my latest reply on the Flew-Warren debate, non-Christian creation stories are just as plausible -- Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Navajo, ...

The facts remain that science has explained the mechanisms through which species evolve and diverge (natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.). No intermediate transitions that would negatively impact a species' likelihood or leaving surviving offspring have been found. While science knows these mechanisms, we currently don't know all the environmental challenges that led to specific trait changes, and in many cases it is unlikely that we ever will.

Biogeography, fossils, experiments all make sense within the framework of evolution, and lack a coherent verifiable explanation outside of evolution.

If that leads you to summarize our responses as "no idea", so be it.

I could certainly pose a series of questions that can be answered easily by evolution, but would leave a creationist with little explanation beyond, "God's will", "God designed it that way", "we can't know the mind of God", etc.

The laryngeal nerve from this thread and biogeography in the Creation/Evolution thread are just 2 examples.

-ArtificialGrape

Now where is that beating a dead giraffe animated gif? :)

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 14:25
That would only be true if neck length was a sex linked single gene traitm, and it is unlikely that is the case. Most likley it would be linked to multiple genes such as height in humans (most probably a haplotype scenario).
And, potentially over several genes.

So over time both male and female progeny would develop longer necks than previous generations in a population where sexually selecting males for long necks.
This link (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck/) that I previously posted contains the conclusion of a biology researcher and his colleagues that after their research, sexual selection could be ruled out.

It does contain a video of a few minutes of a pretty violent "necking" fight for those so inclined.

-ArtificialGrape

jokeruh
05-26-2011, 14:33
But that is basically your answer, "God's will", is it not?

I have given no answer. I simply asked a question.

The difference is that we can show other evidence of evolution, you cannot show evidence of creation other than asking us to "look around",

I don't recall having made that argument.

and as pointed out in my latest reply on the Flew-Warren debate, non-Christian creation stories are just as plausible -- Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Navajo, ...

This is a completely different question. A question, however, which can be adequately handled.

The facts remain that science has explained the mechanisms through which species evolve and diverge (natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.). No intermediate transitions that would negatively impact a species' likelihood or leaving surviving offspring have been found. While science knows these mechanisms, we currently don't know all the environmental challenges that led to specific trait changes, and in many cases it is unlikely that we ever will.

Biogeography, fossils, experiments all make sense within the framework of evolution, and lack a coherent verifiable explanation outside of evolution.

If that leads you to summarize our responses as "no idea", so be it.

I could certainly pose a series of questions that can be answered easily by evolution, but would leave a creationist with little explanation beyond, "God's will", "God designed it that way", "we can't know the mind of God", etc.

The laryngeal nerve from this thread and biogeography in the Creation/Evolution thread are just 2 examples.

-ArtificialGrape

Now where is that beating a dead giraffe animated gif? :)

Just keeping a running tally for now. However, furioso has, perhaps, inspired a contest where the most hilarious submission wins a prize. I have to admit, his "giraffes are submarines with extended periscopes" suggestion was absolutely hysterical. :animlol:

Animal Mother
05-26-2011, 14:39
If Animal Mother had posed the question, and I answered that giraffes have long necks because of God's design, then I would be ridiculed and laughed off the forum by saying that I gave a non answer answer. I can experimentally demonstrate that environmental pressure leads to evolutionary change. In fact, it has been done repeatedly. Can you do the same with "God's design" other than simply declaring it so?

CSnakes
05-26-2011, 15:04
This link (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck/) that I previously posted contains the conclusion of a biology researcher and his colleagues that after their research, sexual selection could be ruled out.

It does contain a video of a few minutes of a pretty violent "necking" fight for those so inclined.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape,

I posted before reading your post and seeing that link. I may very well be wrong, but so may that pair of researchers.

Our understanding of the natural world, evolution in particular, continues to improve over time. And many times a single study has been proven to have ignored all pertinent factors, been a misinterpretation of the data, been linked to data that was not broad enough (too small of a subset)...

One conclusion does not make a fact.

Please keep in mind this is in no way a personal attack, I like to provoke thought, reaction and insight a little excitement with the hope of improved understanding. Thanks for the spirited conversation, let's keep it going!

furioso2112
05-26-2011, 15:04
There are plenty of apes and monkeys without tails, and plenty of people who have tail-like extensions to their backbones (I am not one of them, so no pix of me).

Are you suggesting that since humans don't have tails, that giraffes aren't monkeys, therefore humans evolved from giraffes? Now, NOW - we're onto something.

I'm sure everybody knows why alligators are so angry - because they have all those teeth and no toothbrush. Seems like some posters on this thread evolved from alligators.

Toorop
05-26-2011, 16:07
Have you really become so sad that you can't participate in conversations but have to sit back and try to snipe at those who do?
It's what Jesus would do...

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 16:54
I have given no answer. I simply asked a question.
...
I don't recall having made that argument.


I was merely making a prediction to test a theory based upon past observations. :cool:

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
05-26-2011, 17:06
ArtificialGrape,

I posted before reading your post and seeing that link. I may very well be wrong, but so may that pair of researchers.

Our understanding of the natural world, evolution in particular, continues to improve over time. And many times a single study has been proven to have ignored all pertinent factors, been a misinterpretation of the data, been linked to data that was not broad enough (too small of a subset)...

One conclusion does not make a fact.

Please keep in mind this is in no way a personal attack, I like to provoke thought, reaction and insight a little excitement with the hope of improved understanding. Thanks for the spirited conversation, let's keep it going!
I absolutely agree that one study (particularly with the limited sample size) is by no means conclusive, but I don't think that the original question has an answer among biologists with a majority consensus.

If I were thin-skinned enough to take respectful disagreement as an attack I would have no place participating in a forum -- particularly one that discusses guns, religion and other political topics. I'm a particular believer in the second of The Four (now 5) Agreements -- don't take anything personally.

I don't think it would be sticking one's neck out to say that both Creationists and evolutionary biologists are intrigued by the giraffe.

-ArtificialGrape

jokeruh
05-26-2011, 20:46
I can experimentally demonstrate that environmental pressure leads to evolutionary change. In fact, it has been done repeatedly. Can you do the same with "God's design" other than simply declaring it so?

You and I will agree that changes occur. As has been demonstrated in the past, you and I disagree about the scope of those changes.

If I end my post here, you are certain to respond by asking me for whatever mechanism which would prevent change across species.

I will reply by stating that it is not my job to make your argument for you. You want me to provide evidence of the mechanism which would prevent "macro" evolution. The onus, however, is on you. You assert that "macro" evolution occurs and provide no evidence of a mechanism which would allow such. If there were evidence of such, you wouldn't be asking me for it.....you, yourself, would post it for all to see.

You wouldn't expect me to believe in something for which there is no evidence.....now would you?

Animal Mother
05-26-2011, 21:33
You and I will agree that changes occur. As has been demonstrated in the past, you and I disagree about the scope of those changes.

If I end my post here, you are certain to respond by asking me for whatever mechanism which would prevent change across species.

I will reply by stating that it is not my job to make your argument for you. You want me to provide evidence of the mechanism which would prevent "macro" evolution. The onus, however, is on you. You assert that "macro" evolution occurs and provide no evidence of a mechanism which would allow such. If there were evidence of such, you wouldn't be asking me for it.....you, yourself, would post it for all to see. You are wrong, as I've provided the mechanism numerous times in the past. It's the same mechanism that results in the changes you will admit happen, changes in the genetic structure of the affected lifeforms. Those changes can take different forms and can be driven by different influences, but it's all the same change at the foundation.

Now then, to return to the challenge you refuse to meet. If you can provide a biological factor which would allow that mechanism (genetic change) to cause the minor variations you acknowledge yet would prevent those multiplied changes from leading to the changes you refuse to accept, despite the evidence to the contrary you might have an argument against the current understanding of evolutionary change. Can you provide such a factor?
You wouldn't expect me to believe in something for which there is no evidence.....now would you? Of course not, which is why I only offer those examples for which there is verified evidence.

ArtificialGrape
05-27-2011, 00:46
I will reply by stating that it is not my job to make your argument for you. You want me to provide evidence of the mechanism which would prevent "macro" evolution. The onus, however, is on you. You assert that "macro" evolution occurs and provide no evidence of a mechanism which would allow such. If there were evidence of such, you wouldn't be asking me for it.....you, yourself, would post it for all to see.

You wouldn't expect me to believe in something for which there is no evidence.....now would you?
I'll weigh in here as well, and will try to keep it reasonably brief (though I'm not always successful).

First some common ground on what distinguishes distinct species. Pretty simply put in terms generally accepted by biologists, the biological species concept defines a species as a population that interbreeds, combine their genes, and provide fertile offspring. For example, you can breed a male donkey and a female horse to produce a mule, but mules are sterile -- donkeys and horses are distinct species.

Generally some sort of reproductive barrier separates members of a species and they begin to evolve separately (and away from each other). The most common barrier was geography -- mountains rise, continents drift, drought/rain splits a rainforest into forest and grasslands, etc.

Clusters of related species found across oceanic islands are accounted for by pregnant females crossing a boundary, then becoming the matriarch of a new species diverging from her previous species. Examples are the finches of the Galapagos and lizards of the Caribbean. If species are introduced after reproductive isolation occurs, they will no longer mate due to their diverged reproductive needs and preferences. This occurs in both plants and animals.

Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr calculated that it takes from "100,000 to five million years to evolve two reproductively isolated descendants... It's been estimated that there are 10 million species on earth today. Let's raise that to 100 million species to take into account undiscovered species. It turns out that if you started with a single species 3.5 billion years ago, you could get 100 million species living today if each ancestral species split into two descendents only once every 200 million years". So even accounting for species that went extinct, time is not a problem.

About a dozen experiments using flies (because of short reproductive cycles) have demonstrated reproductive isolation within a year.

The fossil record demonstrates speciation as lineages split. Closely related species are found separated by geographic barriers (such as shrimp on opposite sides of the Isthmus of Panama), and new species beginning to arise are currently seen across reproductive barriers.

There are a number of theories that have been formed and confirmed based on the above, but it's more than I'm willing to type, and probably more than many of you are willing to read.

For more details see:
Evolution 101: Macro Evolution at Berkeley (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIMacroevolution.shtml)
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True


-ArtificialGrape

dbcooper
05-28-2011, 07:44
Update:

1. evolved long necks to eat vegetation at the tree tops (Jolly Giant, norske, AlexHassin)

2. evolved long necks so they could live in deep water while breathing air above water [necks are actually getting shorter now - presumably because they can now live on land and therefore don't need to live in water](furioso)

3. have no idea (Animal Mother, dbcooper, Artificial Grape)

4. sense friends and enemies (furioso, norske, AlexHassin)

5. protection (furioso)

6. avoid their own stench (furioso)

7. longer neck allows them better mobility (AlexHassin)

No idea, not true. Just a one word answer you refuse to accept no matter how much evidence is given based on your religious beliefs.

Evolution, we got the fossils , biology, zoology, geology, etc. etc. etc.

You have a book, the most important word of which is on the outside

jokeruh
05-30-2011, 21:41
You are wrong, as I've provided the mechanism numerous times in the past. It's the same mechanism that results in the changes you will admit happen, changes in the genetic structure of the affected lifeforms. Those changes can take different forms and can be driven by different influences, but it's all the same change at the foundation.

Now then, to return to the challenge you refuse to meet. If you can provide a biological factor which would allow that mechanism (genetic change) to cause the minor variations you acknowledge yet would prevent those multiplied changes from leading to the changes you refuse to accept, despite the evidence to the contrary you might have an argument against the current understanding of evolutionary change. Can you provide such a factor?


A lot of words.....but no evidence. The fact remains, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders. It is not my responsibility to validate your beliefs.

jokeruh
05-30-2011, 21:43
No idea, not true. Just a one word answer you refuse to accept no matter how much evidence is given based on your religious beliefs.

False.

Evolution, we got the fossils , biology, zoology, geology, etc. etc. etc.

Atheists have no monopoly on evidence or truth.

You have a book, the most important word of which is on the outside

False

Animal Mother
05-30-2011, 22:14
A lot of words.....but no evidence. The evidence has been offered many times before. The fossil record, the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards on Pod Mrcaru (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm), Lenski's experiments with e. coli (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/), Australian skinks moving from laying eggs to live birth (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/).
The fact remains, the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders. It is not my responsibility to validate your beliefs. No one is asking you to validate my beliefs. You're being asked to validate the claim you make, that what you term microevolution occurs but what you term macroevolution does not, given that they're both the result of the exact same process, changes within genetic code. Will you be doing that anytime soon? Just curious.

jokeruh
05-31-2011, 15:37
The evidence has been offered many times before. The fossil record, the evolution of Italian Wall Lizards on Pod Mrcaru (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm), Lenski's experiments with e. coli (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/), Australian skinks moving from laying eggs to live birth (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/).

Thank you for linking to evidence which supports my beliefs. Now, like I have already asked, please link to evidence that supports yours.

No one is asking you to validate my beliefs. You're being asked to validate the claim you make, that what you term microevolution occurs but what you term macroevolution does not, given that they're both the result of the exact same process, changes within genetic code. Will you be doing that anytime soon? Just curious.

We both agree that certain changes take place within living organisms (and evidence abounds that supports such). You claim that unlimited changes take place. It is your responsibility to support such an assertion with evidence.

Animal Mother
05-31-2011, 15:58
Thank you for linking to evidence which supports my beliefs. Now, like I have already asked, please link to evidence that supports yours.Apparently, you want to play semantic games rather than hold an actual discussion. If that's the course you choose to take, we'll have to go all the way back to the beginning and ask you to define the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

We both agree that certain changes take place within living organisms (and evidence abounds that supports such). You claim that unlimited changes take place. It is your responsibility to support such an assertion with evidence.

As for my claims, if you could produce any example of my writing that "unlimited changes take place", I would appreciate it because I don't recall ever having written any such thing.

Norske
05-31-2011, 18:29
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.

Gorillas and Chimpanzees do not have tails either.

Does that mean that they did not evolve from monkeys either?

:rofl:

Ever seen a redwood tree? They can be tens of feet in diameter at the base.

Ever see a redwood (or other) pine needle?

A pine needle does not look like a pine trunk, but they are both part of the same tree.

"The common ancestor", Monkeys with tails, monkeys without tails, gorillas, chimpanzees, homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, several other extinct homos, and homo sapiens.

We all branched off from the "common ancestor".

The "common ancestor" had a tail.

As we branched off, some of the branches no longer needed tails and lost them. Some of the branches still found tails useful and retained them.

But the fact is, we are descended from a "common ancestor" that did have a tail.

:dunno:

SCmasterblaster
05-31-2011, 18:37
Or another equally long question, if evolutionists assert man came from monkies why don't we still have prehensil tails? It wuld seem like a useful benefit to me. Answer: We didn't evolve from monkies.

We all have small tail bones - the coccyx (sp) bone off the bottom of our spines.

packsaddle
05-31-2011, 18:39
Gorillas and Chimpanzees do not have tails either.

Does that mean that they did not evolve from monkeys either?

:rofl:

Ever seen a redwood tree? They can be tens of feet in diameter at the base.

Ever see a redwood (or other) pine needle?

A pine needle does not look like a pine trunk, but they are both part of the same tree.

"The common ancestor", Monkeys with tails, monkeys without tails, gorillas, chimpanzees, homo habilis, homo neanderthalis, several other extinct homos, and homo sapiens.

We all branched off from the "common ancestor".

The "common ancestor" had a tail.

As we branched off, some of the branches no longer needed tails and lost them. Some of the branches still found tails useful and retained them.

But the fact is, we are descended from a "common ancestor" that did have a tail.

:dunno:

You forgot to qualify your post with "Once upon a time...."

Norske
05-31-2011, 19:07
You forgot to qualify your post with "Once upon a time...."

No, it should read "Analysis of DNA evidence indicates....."

If you want fairy tails, er, fairy tales, :rofl:, anything and everything in the Bible and every other so-called "Holy Book" ever written has a lot less evidence of its factuality than the theory of evolution.

"Faith" is a belief in the unprovable.

It is the treatment of the unprovable as fact, when it is nothing of the sort.

"Faith" is not FACT.

"Faith" is nothing more than OPINION.

I "believe" that the factual probability that we are descended from a "common ancestor" that had a tail is a lot, lot more likely than that anything in the Bible was in fact the word of some supernatural being that we generally refer to as "God".

So again, if you want fairy tales, start with the one that starts "In the beginning.....and ends with "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen". :tongueout:

ArtificialGrape
05-31-2011, 19:09
You forgot to qualify your post with "Once upon a time...."
I believe you must be referring to your own book.

Norske's statements are backed up by evidence. I don't suppose you're ready to present evidence for your book yet, are you?

Animal Mother
05-31-2011, 23:37
Atheists have no monopoly on evidence or truth. Yet those supporting science (which in your mind apparently equates with being atheist) are the only ones who actually produce any evidence. Why is that?

Norske
06-01-2011, 15:13
Yet those supporting science (which in your mind apparently equates with being atheist) are the only ones who actually produce any evidence. Why is that?

AM, you know full well that theists present their opinions as facts.

Then they insist that their opinions be treated as facts. And moreover, insist that their opinion/facts be treated with solemn dignity and respect.

Dignity and respect that is not deserved.

And when someone dares to point out that opinions are not facts, and they can produce nothing to back up their "faith", they get go into a hissy fit and claim that they are being "disrespected". :steamed:

When it is simply a case of the kid pointing out that the king is naked.

creaky
06-01-2011, 19:42
AM, you know full well that theists present their opinions as facts.

Then they insist that their opinions be treated as facts. And moreover, insist that their opinion/facts be treated with solemn dignity and respect.

Dignity and respect that is not deserved.

And when someone dares to point out that opinions are not facts, and they can produce nothing to back up their "faith", they get go into a hissy fit and claim that they are being "disrespected". :steamed:

When it is simply a case of the kid pointing out that the king is naked.

And that folks, is Norske's opinion.

You should relax. You're gonna blow a head gasket. Lol.

jokeruh
06-01-2011, 21:18
Apparently, you want to play semantic games rather than hold an actual discussion. If that's the course you choose to take, we'll have to go all the way back to the beginning and ask you to define the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

I have no idea what you are talking about. There may be one playing games....but it is not me. You made an assertion. I requested evidence to support your assertion. You then proceeded to present evidence which was insufficient to justify your statements. I recognized the inadequacy.

As for my claims, if you could produce any example of my writing that "unlimited changes take place", I would appreciate it because I don't recall ever having written any such thing.

If I have misrepresented your position, then I apologize. It was not my intent to do so.

Now, since you seem to be taking the position that "unlimited changes" do not occur, then please state what limiters are present and also define the parameters of those limiters.

jokeruh
06-01-2011, 21:21
Yet those supporting science are the only ones who actually produce any evidence.

I, and many other theists, support science. I, and many other theists, present evidence.

(which in your mind apparently equates with being atheist)

False

Are you now arguing that you are a mind reader?

packsaddle
06-01-2011, 21:42
This thread demonstrates the plasticity of evolutionary theory.

Evolution can explain everything, without explaining anything.

Giraffes have long necks: evolution did it.

Fish swim in the water: evolution did it.

Birds fly in the air: evolution did it.

It doesn't matter that nobody ever observed, tested, or repeated the miracles.

All that matters is that they keep the plot going to keep the lazy storytellers employed and to keep the public funding pouring in.

No accountability is needed, just a vivid imagination and a sycophantic media to disseminate the fables to the gullible masses who, having been public educated, are incapable of critical thinking skills.

nmstew
06-01-2011, 21:57
This thread demonstrates the plasticity of evolutionary theory.

Evolution can explain everything, without explaining anything.

Giraffes have long necks: evolution did it.

Fish swim in the water: evolution did it.

Birds fly in the air: evolution did it.

It doesn't matter that nobody ever observed, tested, or repeated the miracles.

All that matters is that they keep the plot going to keep the lazy storytellers employed and to keep the public funding pouring in.

No accountability is needed, just a vivid imagination and a sycophantic media to disseminate the fables to the gullible masses who, having been public educated, are incapable of critical thinking skills.

That's exactly what I was going to say about creationism. Though it is important to note that you are anthropomorphizing evolution, so as to make your facetious point. A riff on the "god did it" position your side takes. I get it. Notice that even saying that god made things this way, does not explain HOW god made them. There is no mechanism offered. Meanwhile we do know how mutations occur, the different types of mutations possible, how these are passed on, how the traits that arise through said mutations may have preferential or deleterious effects on organisms that form a basis for selection.....

Too bad your side does not have anything nearly this compelling.

Edited for precision.

4TS&W
06-01-2011, 22:05
A horse was accidentally fed some viagra, and it got stuck in its throat? :)

Animal Mother
06-01-2011, 22:10
I have no idea what you are talking about. There may be one playing games....but it is not me. You made an assertion. I requested evidence to support your assertion. And it was provided.
You then proceeded to present evidence which was insufficient to justify your statements. I recognized the inadequacy. Simply false. But, if you actually believe my evidence to be inadequate please state why, explicitly and in detail.
If I have misrepresented your position, then I apologize. It was not my intent to do so. I rather doubt this.
Now, since you seem to be taking the position that "unlimited changes" do not occur, then please state what limiters are present and also define the parameters of those limiters. The limiters that are present are the same present in all life, the dependence on the same four nucleotides to form the genetic code and the further restrictions put in place by the existing genetic code from which modifications arise.

You on the other hand, imply the existence of some kind of biological limitation which would prevent what you term "macroevolution" (despite having not yet defined the term) yet continue to fail to identify that limitation.

To be clear, my supposed assertion (which was actually stated by you) is "You assert that "macro" evolution occurs and provide no evidence of a mechanism which would allow such." I have provided that evidence, taking macroevolution as evolution at the species level, as implied by your, "If I end my post here, you are certain to respond by asking me for whatever mechanism which would prevent change across species."

If you didn't object to evolution at the species level, that statement would make no sense.

Hopefully you understand that both the development of a new organ and the development of the ability to metabolize citrate would qualify as species level evolutionary events. Thus, the mechanism of macroevolution is the same as that of microevolution as I've always stated and the evidence is the observed events which I've cited.

Animal Mother
06-01-2011, 22:12
This thread demonstrates the plasticity of evolutionary theory.

Evolution can explain everything, without explaining anything.

Giraffes have long necks: evolution did it.

Fish swim in the water: evolution did it.

Birds fly in the air: evolution did it.

It doesn't matter that nobody ever observed, tested, or repeated the miracles. Could you please cite anywhere in the scientific literature, biological or otherwise, where miracles are invoked as an explanatory mechanism?

creaky
06-02-2011, 11:15
Could you please cite anywhere in the scientific literature, biological or otherwise, where miracles are invoked as an explanatory mechanism?

It's called abiogenesis.

You know: Mud to Man, Goo to Gnu, Sludge to Atheist.

I couldn't get that last one to rhyme, but I'm sure you'll get the point.

nmstew
06-02-2011, 12:28
It's called abiogenesis.

You know: Mud to Man, Goo to Gnu, Sludge to Atheist.

I couldn't get that last one to rhyme, but I'm sure you'll get the point.

Miracles have no basis in reality.

Your rhyme shows your education level, but as it is the same line you have been toteing for a while; I don't expect much more out of you. I think this really is the best you can do. Meanwhile, cyanide EVEN TO THIS DAY will spontaneously condense into adenine, one of the building blocks of DNA. If you work in cyanide chemistry it is common procedure to boil your cyanide first so as to get rid of any purines that will form as the bottle ages. Here is a link showing the chemistry of how this occurs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22473/figure/A192/?report=objectonly

This is a verifiable fact that shows that the molecules you hail so precious as prerequisite to life arise spontaneously. I suggest that you brush up on SCIENCE instead of rhyming. Get a new talking point, you wore this out and no one was impressed back then either.

packsaddle
06-02-2011, 13:32
This is a verifiable fact that shows that the molecules you hail so precious as prerequisite to life arise spontaneously. I suggest that you brush up on SCIENCE instead of rhyming. Get a new talking point, you wore this out and no one was impressed back then either.

ummm, chemicals don't equal life, so maybe YOU need to "brush up on science".

speaking of science, please describe, in detail, how all that coded, functional information originally got into those molecules and, more importantly, how cells figured out how to send, receive, and interpret the coded information.

remember, to qualify as science your answer will necessarily be observable, testable, and repeatable.

no storytelling, no appeals to future discoveries......just give us some of that hard evidence materialists are always bragging about.

thanks!

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 14:29
Why is their vocal nerve 14 feet longer than it needs to be? It travels from the brain all the way down the neck, loops around the aorta near the heart and then travels back up the neck to the larynx. Ours does the same.


So we can speak from the heart. :rofl:

eracer
06-02-2011, 14:52
99% of all species that have ever evolved from less adapted creatures have gone extinct. If God did indeed magically 'create' all things at once, then he sure did a lousy job of it, as a 1% success rate is pretty abysmal. Perhaps the giraffe will continue to evolve. Perhaps not.

Or do some actually believe that fossil records, genotypic studies, and carbon-dating are some kind of 'false science?'

creaky
06-02-2011, 15:03
Miracles have no basis in reality.

Abiogenesis has no basis in reality. That's what I said.

Your rhyme shows your education level, but as it is the same line you have been toteing for a while; I don't expect much more out of you. I think this really is the best you can do.

Why are you atheists such sourpusses? How about this one - Goo to nmstew... You like?

Meanwhile, cyanide EVEN TO THIS DAY will spontaneously condense into adenine, one of the building blocks of DNA. If you work in cyanide chemistry it is common procedure to boil your cyanide first so as to get rid of any purines that will form as the bottle ages. Here is a link showing the chemistry of how this occurs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22473/figure/A192/?report=objectonly

That's nice and all, but building blocks are just that. Building blocks. Show me the life.

This is a verifiable fact that shows that the molecules you hail so precious as prerequisite to life arise spontaneously.

Show me the life, stewy. As usual, you guys got nothing.

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

Dr. F. H. Crick, atheist "Life Itself"


I suggest that you brush up on SCIENCE instead of rhyming. Get a new talking point, you wore this out and no one was impressed back then either.

Which discipline would you suggest? Alchemy, Astrology, Phrenology?

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 15:52
99% of all species that have ever evolved from less adapted creatures have gone extinct. If God did indeed magically 'create' all things at once, then he sure did a lousy job of it, as a 1% success rate is pretty abysmal. Perhaps the giraffe will continue to evolve. Perhaps not.

Or do some actually believe that fossil records, genotypic studies, and carbon-dating are some kind of 'false science?'


More likely is that 99% of them died off for some other reason. If you believe in evolution then all of the animals would still exist in their evolved forms.

eracer
06-02-2011, 16:30
More likely is that 99% of them died off for some other reason. If you believe in evolution then all of the animals would still exist in their evolved forms.At the risk of sounding insulting (and I truly don't mean to..) your statement shows that you are ignorant of evolutionary theory.

The majority of species die out because they are unable to adapt to environmental pressure. A few individuals with mutations that allow them to survive then propagate the species - until a different pressure forces further changes.

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 16:35
At the risk of sounding insulting (and I truly don't mean to..) your statement shows that you are ignorant of evolutionary theory.

The majority of species die out because they are unable to adapt to environmental pressure. A few individuals with mutations that allow them to survive then propagate the species - until a different pressure forces further changes.


At risk of sounding insulting, that's what I just said.

eracer
06-02-2011, 16:54
At risk of sounding insulting, that's what I just said.I'm having a major problem understanding how this statement says that:

"If you believe in evolution then all of the animals would still exist in their evolved forms."

If you mean that evolution has been proven through testing within the limits of scientific knowledge, then I will accept that it's my failure to understand what you meant.

Norske
06-02-2011, 17:02
ummm, chemicals don't equal life, so maybe YOU need to "brush up on science".

speaking of science, please describe, in detail, how all that coded, functional information originally got into those molecules and, more importantly, how cells figured out how to send, receive, and interpret the coded information.

remember, to qualify as science your answer will necessarily be observable, testable, and repeatable.

no storytelling, no appeals to future discoveries......just give us some of that hard evidence materialists are always bragging about.

thanks!

Please prove, in detail, that the entire Bible is in fact the revealed word of God.

No storytelling, no appeals to scripture, just give us some of the hard evidence that theists are always bragging about.

thanks!

Snapper2
06-02-2011, 19:30
Please prove, in detail, that the entire Bible is in fact the revealed word of God.

No storytelling, no appeals to scripture, just give us some of the hard evidence that theists are always bragging about.

thanks!

Have you ever thought that the Creator could be using this evolution theory against us? Men witnessed God and Jesus first hand as the bible says. The ones that believed were changed, they then passed it on to their families down the years and they became stronger in their belief even though they did not physically see(faith). The ones that saw/witnessed but did not believe and werent changed passed their unbelief on blinding their families down the line. Doubt is easy to catch,and easier to pass on while faith comes only from God. You will continue to doubt until you first allow yourself to have hope. Not in religion but God.

ArtificialGrape
06-02-2011, 20:35
Have you ever thought that the Creator could be using this evolution theory against us? Men witnessed God and Jesus first hand as the bible says. The ones that believed were changed, they then passed it on to their families down the years and they became stronger in their belief even though they did not physically see(faith). The ones that saw/witnessed but did not believe and werent changed passed their unbelief on blinding their families down the line. Doubt is easy to catch,and easier to pass on while faith comes only from God. You will continue to doubt until you first allow yourself to have hope. Not in religion but God.
So that we have a clear understanding, can you explain if you take the Bible as the literal, revealed word of God, and if any stories are parable/fable/allegory, which?

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

Snapper2
06-02-2011, 21:00
So that we have a clear understanding, can you explain if you take the Bible as the literal, revealed word of God, and if any stories are parable/fable/allegory, which?

thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

Its the big or overall picture that matters.Not whether or not some stories might be literal or not. Some believe, many dont. For those who choose not to believe, the word of God will not be revealed. Thats the way He chose it to be. Parables were spoken through Jesus where only His followers would have understanding. Someone that is bent on not believing will have it his or her way. It will be foolishness to them. Everyone chooses their own path. We choose what we want to believe. The real question is....why? And why not at least have hope when there is no faith. Not faith in man or religion,but God.

Syclone538
06-02-2011, 21:26
It's just a completely different mentality. This is like a post in another thread where someone said they thought an atheist had turned his back on, and was angry at God. It just doesn't make any sense if you have any understanding of atheism.

...
We choose what we want to believe.
...

I don't have the ability to choose what I believe, and it doesn't make any sense to me that anyone could. I could no more choose to believe in a god then I could choose to believe in the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster, because I've seen no evidence for any of them.

...
And why not at least have hope when there is no faith. Not faith in man or religion,but God.

Because hope and faith don't change reality.

packsaddle
06-02-2011, 21:53
Please prove, in detail, that the entire Bible is in fact the revealed word of God.

No storytelling, no appeals to scripture, just give us some of the hard evidence that theists are always bragging about.

thanks!

the same evidence that Socrates and Henry the 8th existed: eyewitness testimony and archaeological evidence.

your turn!

Snapper2
06-02-2011, 22:01
I don't have the ability to choose what I believe, and it doesn't make any sense to me that anyone could. I could no more choose to believe in a god then I could choose to believe in the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster, because I've seen no evidence for any of them.



Because hope and faith don't change reality.

Dont you choose not to believe because of lack of evidence and I choose to believe because of faith? Thats ability. Not force. As for as hope and faith goes, reality can be changed. But not without hope.

packsaddle
06-02-2011, 22:05
Or do some actually believe that fossil records, genotypic studies, and carbon-dating are some kind of 'false science?'

fossil records and carbon dating are not necessarily "false science", however they are both built upon a series of unverifiable assumptions and an objective person will acknowledge the limitations.

bandmasterjf
06-02-2011, 22:07
I'm having a major problem understanding how this statement says that:

"If you believe in evolution then all of the animals would still exist in their evolved forms."

If you mean that evolution has been proven through testing within the limits of scientific knowledge, then I will accept that it's my failure to understand what you meant.

What I'm saying is that those animals that lived through the die off of their species becuase of some genetic abnormality, like a longer neck, harder shell or spots on it should have the basic makeup of it's ansistors thus proving evolution exist.

Animal Mother
06-02-2011, 22:08
Have you ever thought that the Creator could be using this evolution theory against us? Why would a benevolent creator provide false evidence?

Animal Mother
06-02-2011, 22:11
What I'm saying is that those animals that lived through the die off of their species becuase of some genetic abnormality, like a longer neck, harder shell or spots on it should have the basic makeup of it's ansistors thus proving evolution exist. Assuming you mean "ancestors", they do, and it is one component of proving evolution exists. Look at the evolutionary timeline of Homo Sapiens as an example.

Syclone538
06-02-2011, 22:21
Dont you choose not to believe
...

No I don't, that is the point I was trying to make. It's not a choice that I made, it's the default position when I've seen no evidence to support belief in a god. If it was a choice, I could change my mind, but I don't have the ability to do that. The closest I could get would be to pretend.

Animal Mother
06-02-2011, 22:24
fossil records and carbon dating are not necessarily "false science", however they are both built upon a series of unverifiable assumptions and an objective person will acknowledge the limitations. Yes, there are limitations, but neither is built upon any kind of unverifiable assumptions. Radiometric decay is based on established decay patterns, which can be checked for accuracy and to eliminate outside contamination. Similarly, the age of fossils is determined not through any single method but through a variety of means to check and recheck the dating.

Animal Mother
06-02-2011, 22:28
the same evidence that Socrates and Henry the 8th existed: eyewitness testimony and archaeological evidence.

your turn! You have archaeological evidence for the claims of Joshua 10:13 or Genesis 7-9? Please, do share it.

Animal Mother
06-02-2011, 22:29
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."

Dr. F. H. Crick, atheist "Life Itself" Could you also share the paragraph immediately following the one you've quoted?

Snapper2
06-02-2011, 23:25
No I don't, that is the point I was trying to make. It's not a choice that I made, it's the default position when I've seen no evidence to support belief in a god. If it was a choice, I could change my mind, but I don't have the ability to do that. The closest I could get would be to pretend.

You said that you could not see how anyone could believe in God. I can respect that. Its your feelings. My feelings are that I cant see how anyone could not at least hope there was a God to believe in. Evidence or not.

Snapper2
06-02-2011, 23:31
Why would a benevolent creator provide false evidence?

Maybe it isnt false. Maybe its a shadow of our spiritual condition.

ArtificialGrape
06-03-2011, 00:24
Could you also share the paragraph immediately following the one you've quoted?
Great example of why one should not rely on creationist propaganda unless their intent is to pass along quotes taken blatantly out of context (aside from being based on understandings 30 years ago).

ArtificialGrape
06-03-2011, 01:03
fossil records and carbon dating are not necessarily "false science", however they are both built upon a series of unverifiable assumptions
Wrong again. First, radiometric dating is not limited to carbon. There are 30ish isotopes that can be used, with a variety of useful date ranges. They are consistent, they have been stressed in laboratories by heat and pressure without affecting the half-life.

Radiometric dates have been validated on artifacts of known ages.

Professor John Wells of Cornell also demonstrated that the daily and annual growth rings in coral fossils attested to the accuracy of radiometric dating.

Here's a Creation website (admittedly not young earth) with links to multiple Christian authors (including scientists) demonstrating the accuracy of radiometric dating -- http://www.answersincreation.org/radiometricdating.htm

How old do you believe (need?) the earth to be?

Animal Mother
06-03-2011, 01:08
Maybe it isnt false. Maybe its a shadow of our spiritual condition. How does our spiritual condition create evidence of common descent?

Syclone538
06-03-2011, 01:18
You said that you could not see how anyone could believe in God. I can respect that. Its your feelings.
...

I'm pretty sure I didn't put it like that did I? What I meant was I don't understand how someone could chose what they believe, or how someone could believe without seeing any evidence, but I did not mean to say that the evidence had to be something that they could use to prove it to someone else or something that would convince me if I believed them or even if it happened to me. If someone heard a voice in their head that predicted something specific that was very unlikely or rare and not a self fulfilling prophecy, that to me would be evidence for them to believe. Now if they tell me about it after the fact, I'm probably either not going to believe them or blow it off as coincidence depending on how unlikely it is, and if it happened to me I would probably think I was hallucinating, but it would still be a reason for them to believe.




...
My feelings are that I cant see how anyone could not at least hope there was a God to believe in. Evidence or not.

Why? As I've explained, I don't believe and don't have the ability to. If a god made me, then that god made me skeptical. So I should hope that I'm wrong and that I'm going to suffer forever through no fault of my own?

ArtificialGrape
06-03-2011, 01:21
Dont you choose not to believe because of lack of evidence and I choose to believe because of faith? Thats ability. Not force. As for as hope and faith goes, reality can be changed. But not without hope.
It's not exactly a choice.

Let's say that one of your loved ones is under threat of death (sorry, I know it's horrible, but I would also assume motivating) as the assailant orders you to "believe that they have 7 invisible faeries dancing on their shoulder", or your loved one dies.

Can you tell them that you believe? Of course. Can you actually make yourself (that is, choose to) believe that they actually have 7 invisible faeries dancing on their shoulder? Probably a little harder to do.

This is just one of a number of flaws with Pascal's Wager.

ksg0245
06-03-2011, 08:09
Could you also share the paragraph immediately following the one you've quoted?

For those who don't wish to wait for creaky (to be fair, it's a relatively difficult quote to track down; the ratio of dishonest creationist quotemines to unedited versions of this quote is literally several hundred to one. I wonder why that is), this is from an article on talk.origins about creationist quotemining (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html)

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

Snapper2
06-03-2011, 10:36
It's not exactly a choice.

Let's say that one of your loved ones is under threat of death (sorry, I know it's horrible, but I would also assume motivating) as the assailant orders you to "believe that they have 7 invisible faeries dancing on their shoulder", or your loved one dies.

Can you tell them that you believe? Of course. Can you actually make yourself (that is, choose to) believe that they actually have 7 invisible faeries dancing on their shoulder? Probably a little harder to do.

This is just one of a number of flaws with Pascal's Wager.
Tell me, how many lights do you see?LOL
I think I see your point AG and catch the drift. That would be motivated by only fear. But lets use motivation by love and not fear. Nature as example is no respecter of persons. It calls out(you swim in my currents you get pulled under by my riptide). Now are you acting out fear or love when you tell your children not to go swimming? Its easy to go overboard when motivated by fear. Yet you cannot changed the outcome when someone is caught up and being dragged out. What you can have is a peace and faith that they are in God's hands no matter what the outcome is. "Deals with the devil" aren't cheap. I do believe you can make yourself believe in your scenario, but its fake, motivated by fear and not the faith God gives.

Snapper2
06-03-2011, 10:43
How does our spiritual condition create evidence of common descent?

Good point to study. One walks by faith, the other only by what he sees.

ArtificialGrape
06-03-2011, 11:33
Tell me, how many lights do you see?LOL
I think I see your point AG and catch the drift. That would be motivated by only fear. But lets use motivation by love and not fear. Nature as example is no respecter of persons. It calls out(you swim in my currents you get pulled under by my riptide). Now are you acting out fear or love when you tell your children not to go swimming? Its easy to go overboard when motivated by fear. Yet you cannot changed the outcome when someone is caught up and being dragged out. What you can have is a peace and faith that they are in God's hands no matter what the outcome is. "Deals with the devil" aren't cheap. I do believe you can make yourself believe in your scenario, but its fake, motivated by fear and not the faith God gives.
I just chose fear in my example, but the specific motivation isn't that important. I think that somebody could reprogram himself to believe by readdressing all of the reasons that they have for not believing and finding a way to reconcile it with belief, but it's certainly not a switch that can be flipped.

-ArtificialGrape

eracer
06-03-2011, 11:46
fossil records and carbon dating are not necessarily "false science", however they are both built upon a series of unverifiable assumptions and an objective person will acknowledge the limitations.All scientists admit that .0001% chance of error is 'reasonable certainty.'

Snapper2
06-03-2011, 11:57
I just chose fear in my example, but the specific motivation isn't that important. I think that somebody could reprogram himself to believe by readdressing all of the reasons that they have for not believing and finding a way to reconcile it with belief, but it's certainly not a switch that can be flipped.

-ArtificialGrape

I agree to a point on the flipped switch but it can be. Then what you believe is tested by fire.A fire in your life,not something you read about from someone else. Its a process where what is fake or false will be burned up over a period of time. But I DO believe specific motivation is a key. Fear is the opposite of faith. Love is trust. I believe its more important to love truth, not the knowledge of it. Knowledge can burn/change/pass away.

eracer
06-03-2011, 12:03
What I'm saying is that those animals that lived through the die off of their species becuase of some genetic abnormality, like a longer neck, harder shell or spots on it should have the basic makeup of it's ansistors thus proving evolution exist.Morphological similarities are valid indicators that there is a shared evolutionary path - up to a point. Eventually, many physical attributes become so different as to lead one to believe that there is no connection. But eventually, we find connections, like the fossil record of Tiktaalik Roseae, which clearly shows an animal that is transitioning from fish to amphibian.

Evolutionary theory is being proven more true as time goes on. Better methods for genomic mapping, continued fossil discovery, new advances in paleo-geologic - all are helping us to understand how wonderfully complex and interesting God's creation really is.

Snapper2
06-03-2011, 13:05
Why? As I've explained, I don't believe and don't have the ability to. If a god made me, then that god made me skeptical. So I should hope that I'm wrong and that I'm going to suffer forever through no fault of my own?

Just by confessing this you limit yourself. And in doing so put limits on what God is able to do for your understanding. And then blame it on if a god made me he should have made me this way. Its your world. You set the rules to the game and see if He'll play. Or find He doesn't exist. To you He doesn't. Lets say though if there is a God, do you think He is impressed with our attempt to figure out His work of creation or do you think there might be more important issues first.Wow if someone builds a mansion for their wife, is the wife going to spend all her time studying how but not who built it? Or will she see it and be thankful? If that wife is not thankful the suffering is wondering forever how and not why.

Syclone538
06-03-2011, 13:33
Unless I've misunderstood you, you are basically saying that you don't believe me when I say I don't have the ability to believe without good evidence?


...
Lets say though if there is a God, do you think He is impressed with our attempt to figure out His work of creation
...

If there is a god, with the lengths that he must have went to hide his existence, I would say no.

Snapper2
06-03-2011, 14:27
Unless I've misunderstood you, you are basically saying that you don't believe me when I say I don't have the ability to believe without good evidence?
.

No I do believe you. You think you dont have the ability.But I dont question my own ability to doubt when evidence shows itself. I know I have the ability to have faith or doubt. What I'm trying to say is without out hope(in God) no one has the ability for faith that God gives.

jokeruh
06-04-2011, 20:00
I rather doubt this.

So, by your apparent reasoning, I intentionally misrepresented your position. Then, when you corrected me, I stated that it was not my intent to do so and then I apologized for it.

One only has to read in this forum for all of two minutes to recognize that your attitude toward others is rife with condescension and disrespect. And now, you can add/include to the list calling me a liar despite evidence to the contrary.

I try to treat people in a way which is in stark contrast with the way you treat others. I and Artificial Grape disagree about many things. However, we both engage one another with respect and decency at the fore.

I hope that you will see the error of your ways. However, I am practical. I realize that your behavior is perfectly consistent with your worldview - one characterized by subjectivity and lawlessness.

My posts tonight may be the last of my posts communicating with you.

The limiters that are present are the same present in all life, the dependence on the same four nucleotides to form the genetic code and the further restrictions put in place by the existing genetic code from which modifications arise.

You on the other hand, imply the existence of some kind of biological limitation which would prevent what you term "macroevolution" (despite having not yet defined the term) yet continue to fail to identify that limitation.

To be clear, my supposed assertion (which was actually stated by you) is "You assert that "macro" evolution occurs and provide no evidence of a mechanism which would allow such." I have provided that evidence, taking macroevolution as evolution at the species level, as implied by your, "If I end my post here, you are certain to respond by asking me for whatever mechanism which would prevent change across species."

If you didn't object to evolution at the species level, that statement would make no sense.

Hopefully you understand that both the development of a new organ and the development of the ability to metabolize citrate would qualify as species level evolutionary events. Thus, the mechanism of macroevolution is the same as that of microevolution as I've always stated and the evidence is the observed events which I've cited.

I find it interesting that, first, you admit that unlimited changes do not take place. Then, you admit that limitations are imposed by the genetic code. It seems that you are already on the path to the truth about evolution.

Animal Mother
06-04-2011, 22:49
So, by your apparent reasoning, I intentionally misrepresented your position. Then, when you corrected me, I stated that it was not my intent to do so and then I apologized for it. Based on your behavior in this and other threads, it is apparent that your intent is to misrepresent the position you oppose. Most likely because only be constructing and attacking strawmen are you able to maintain even an illusion of a defensible position.
One only has to read in this forum for all of two minutes to recognize that your attitude toward others is rife with condescension and disrespect. Only to those who are unworthy of respect.
And now, you can add/include to the list calling me a liar despite evidence to the contrary. I see far more evidence in favor of the accusation, such as misrepresenting the content of the TalkOrigins.org article on the origin of life in this post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17448219&postcount=64), your claim to be willing and able to produce evidence to support your position but continually failing to actually do so (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17434807&postcount=72), or your ongoing refusal to define macroevolution while making it the focus of your attempt to dispute the clear evidence for evolutionary change which exists throughout the biological world.
I try to treat people in a way which is in stark contrast with the way you treat others. I and Artificial Grape disagree about many things. However, we both engage one another with respect and decency at the fore. I find it difficult to respect those who constantly claim to want to base a conversation on evidence, yet then continually fail to produce that evidence when asked to do so. You asked for examples of evolution, they were provided. You either dismissed or attempted to co-opt them without explanation or justification. But perhaps you're right and I should apply Hanlon's razor.
My posts tonight may be the last of my posts communicating with you. And yet you still have yet to offer any evidence to support even a single one of your claims. Shocking that you'd try to flee the conversation.
I find it interesting that, first, you admit that unlimited changes do not take place. Then, you admit that limitations are imposed by the genetic code. It seems that you are already on the path to the truth about evolution. I've never denied any of those limitations. Nor do I deny that both the simplest bacteria and the largest lifeforms share the same four nucleotides at the foundations of their genetic structure. What sadly has not yet come to light, for the anti-evolutionary position at least, is any testable hypothesis explaining these realities other than common descent.

Toorop
06-05-2011, 00:12
the same evidence that Socrates and Henry the 8th existed: eyewitness testimony and archaeological evidence.

your turn!
The Norse people saw Thor and Odin. I myself along with many have seen the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I wrote about it in my blog as did they. There is archaeological evidence of it. Can you disprove that?

jokeruh
06-06-2011, 00:12
Based on your behavior in this and other threads, it is apparent that your intent is to misrepresent the position you oppose.

False

Most likely because only be constructing and attacking strawmen are you able to maintain even an illusion of a defensible position.

False


I see far more evidence in favor of the accusation, such as misrepresenting the content of the TalkOrigins.org article on the origin of life in this post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17448219&postcount=64), your claim to be willing and able to produce evidence to support your position but continually failing to actually do so (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17434807&postcount=72), or your ongoing refusal to define macroevolution while making it the focus of your attempt to dispute the clear evidence for evolutionary change which exists throughout the biological world.

False

Only to those who are unworthy of respect.

I find it difficult to respect those who constantly claim to want to base a conversation on evidence, yet then continually fail to produce that evidence when asked to do so.

"Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

You asked for examples of evolution, they were provided. You either dismissed or attempted to co-opt them without explanation or justification. But perhaps you're right and I should apply Hanlon's razor.

The examples provided supported microevolution. I stated such. You did a good job. Keep up the good work.

And yet you still have yet to offer any evidence to support even a single one of your claims. Shocking that you'd try to flee the conversation.

False

I've never denied any of those limitations.

Excellent

Nor do I deny that both the simplest bacteria and the largest lifeforms share the same four nucleotides at the foundations of their genetic structure.

True

What sadly has not yet come to light, for the anti-evolutionary position at least, is any testable hypothesis explaining these realities other than common descent.

False

Animal Mother
06-06-2011, 08:25
False
False Your protestations would perhaps carry more weight if we didn't have the simple expedient of reviewing the thread available.

For example, you asked: For what reason did giraffes evolve such long necks?
I answered: Environmental pressures and natural selection.
But, rather than responding directly and engaging in a conversation, you chose to instead completely misrepresent my answer: 3. have no idea (Animal Mother, dbcooper, Artificial Grape)
and then continued that misrepresentation even after it had been explicitly pointed out.
False Which statement are you claiming to be false? That you don't produce evidence after offering to do so or that you refuse to define the terms you use, like macroevolution? Whichever it is, I invite you to demonstrate my error by linking to where you've done either thing.
"Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." Irrelevant to the current conversation since I'm only attacking your arguments, assertions, and your failure to support them, not you personally.
The examples provided supported microevolution. How can you make this claim, when you haven't yet defined the term microevolution?
False No, it is true, you feign offense, but that doesn't constitute evidence.
False Then in the spirit of producing evidence to support your position, I'm sure you'll be happy to share a testable hypothesis, other than common descent, that would explain the observed commonality in the DNA of all life.

creaky
06-06-2011, 10:47
For those who don't wish to wait for creaky (to be fair, it's a relatively difficult quote to track down; the ratio of dishonest creationist quotemines to unedited versions of this quote is literally several hundred to one. I wonder why that is), this is from an article on talk.origins about creationist quotemining (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html)

Thanks, ksg. I don't see anything dishonest about how the quote was presented. The idea and the quote stand on their own.

"Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest."

I always find the alien angle amusing. Almost as amusing as the "deeply dishonest" lectures from talkorigins.org.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence that life arose from non-life. Do you dispute that?

ksg0245
06-06-2011, 13:07
Thanks, ksg. I don't see anything dishonest about how the quote was presented. The idea and the quote stand on their own.

It's dishonest because it dishonestly leaves out the most significant part of the quote, the part that points out that just because something APPEARS miraculous doesn't mean it is. Creationists use it to dishonestly imply that Crick thought the origin of life couldn't have happened without a miracle, which is the opposite of what he was saying. Kind of like how they make dishonest claims about other scientists, who don't hold the beliefs creationists want them to hold.

I always find the alien angle amusing. Almost as amusing as the "deeply dishonest" lectures from talkorigins.org.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence that life arose from non-life. Do you dispute that?

Yes, I do. Life HAD to arise from non-life. The evidence is that life exists now, and it didn't exist at a point in the past. The difference is, creationists say "it must have involved a deity," and non-creationists say "there is no evidence any deity was required."

creaky
06-06-2011, 14:24
It's dishonest because it dishonestly leaves out the most significant part of the quote,

Signifigance is a product of perspective. From the creationist perspective, it is signifigant that an atheist would admit:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

And, I'll even add the rest of the quote:

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

There is nothing dishonest about how the quote was broken down.

You, as an atheist on the other hand find the second part of the paragraph to be the signifigant part. No surprise there.

the part that points out that just because something APPEARS miraculous doesn't mean it is.

Everybody who isn't a complete idiot already knows that. The point is that abiogenesis has not been shown to occur in the labratory or anywhere else for that matter.


Creationists use it to dishonestly imply that Crick thought the origin of life couldn't have happened without a miracle, which is the opposite of what he was saying.

You're stretching the quote. Read it again."An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,...

According to you, Crick didn't include himself in his quoted "honest man" category? That's interesting. What about you? Are you an honest man?


Kind of like how they make dishonest claims about other scientists, who don't hold the beliefs creationists want them to hold.

This is just sour grapes. Words mean things. Don't say the words if you don't want them quoted later.

Yes, I do. What is your evidence? Life HAD to arise from non-life. Negative. "I am the way the truth and the life"

The evidence is that life exists now, and it didn't exist at a point in the past. The difference is, creationists say "it must have involved a deity," and non-creationists say "there is no evidence any deity was required."

I want evidence that shows life arose from goo and lightning. Or space aliens. Lol.

ksg0245
06-06-2011, 15:06
Signifigance is a product of perspective. From the creationist perspective, it is signifigant that an atheist would admit:

I agree that it's significant, but would suggest the significance is the comparative level of honesty; creationists use it as a "Ah ha! You admit you don't know!" cudgel, and scientists see it as just ordinary recognizing what is known and not known.

And, I'll even add the rest of the quote:

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

There is nothing dishonest about how the quote was broken down.

So you think it's honest to imply that Crick was saying life must have arisen through a miracle? Do you think that's what Crick was saying?

You, as an atheist on the other hand find the second part of the paragraph to be the signifigant part. No surprise there.

I think the whole quote is significant, and to leave out part of it is dishonest. It's called "quote mining," and it's dishonest because it's done to make it appear as if one thing was said, when in fact the opposite is being said.

Everybody who isn't a complete idiot already knows that. The point is that abiogenesis has not been shown to occur in the labratory or anywhere else for that matter.

That was the point of Crick's comment? Because with the creationist version of the quote, it looks like Crick is saying the only currently viable explanation is "miracle."

You're stretching the quote. Read it again.

I'm not stretching the quote; I'm pointing out that creationists are dishonestly quote mining.

According to you, Crick didn't include himself in his quoted "honest man" category? That's interesting. What about you? Are you an honest man?

Try to avoid putting words in my mouth.

And yes, I'm an honest man. If you'd like to point out where you think I've been dishonest, I'd be happy to address it.

This is just sour grapes. Words mean things. Don't say the words if you don't want them quoted later.

What difference would that make? Creationists will only quote the part they think is some sort of "gotcha."

What is your evidence?

Uh, I gave the evidence; life exists, and it didn't in the distant past. Are you implying life has always existed?

Negative. "I am the way the truth and the life"

That's nice, but isn't really evidence of anything other than that you can quote scripture.

I want evidence that shows life arose from goo and lightning. Or space aliens. Lol.

Ah, so the goalposts have moved. I have no problem admitting the exact mechanism for the origin of life isn't yet known. There is, though, substantial evidence of various possibilities; e.g., the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrate how organic compounds can be cooked up from inorganic ingredients with no miracles involved.

What evidence do you have that life arose from divine action?

creaky
06-06-2011, 20:25
I agree that it's significant, but would suggest the significance is the comparative level of honesty; creationists use it as a "Ah ha! You admit you don't know!" cudgel, and scientists see it as just ordinary recognizing what is known and not known.

I disagree with your picture of creationists as wild cudgel swingers vs. (atheist) scientists as calm, cool islands of neutrality. It just isn't true. Both their (our) pre-existing beliefs are polar opposite and deeply held and do color the way they or we approach the problem.

So you think it's honest to imply that Crick was saying life must have arisen through a miracle? Do you think that's what Crick was saying?

He said what he said and people with opposite views are going to use it to their advantage.

I think he started out the quote very honestly. Then further on in the paragraph you see his bias in play. You'll disagree of course.

I think the whole quote is significant, and to leave out part of it is dishonest. It's called "quote mining," and it's dishonest because it's done to make it appear as if one thing was said, when in fact the opposite is being said.

I respectfully disagree. As I've said, I think the first part of the quote can stand alone.

I'll get to the rest later.

RC-RAMIE
06-07-2011, 09:27
creationists as wild cudgel swingers vs. (atheist) scientists as calm, cool islands of neutrality.


I respectfully disagree. As I've said, I think the first part of the quote can stand alone.

I'll get to the rest later.

Still like only taking part of a quote?

nmstew
06-07-2011, 21:14
Still like only taking part of a quote?

Give him a break, he's catholic and used to someone telling him what parts of things to like and dislike.

Dubble-Tapper
06-08-2011, 14:37
of all the cool things to read and converse about on GLOCK TALK you guys discuss fairly tales? is there a section on this forum dedicated to the discussion of Aliens, Vampires, leprechauns, werewolves and the like? the funny thing is that creationists have no more viable proof for what they believe in than the people who believe in mystical creatures like dragons and such. yet they act like there is no possible way they are wrong...