Evolution

[simplexity]

You're allowing your imagination to run wild my friend.

I think you are a figment of my imagination. I like having completely illogical debates in my head. Not.

[Phil]

You're allowing your imagination to run wild my friend.

I think you are a figment of my imagination. I like having completely illogical debates in my head. Not.

Ignore can be your friend too.

[Abishalom]

This has nothing to do with whether the laws governing evolution require a designer ie physics, chemistry. That would lead us back to the big bang, and no it doesn't "require" a designer. This is not a discussion of how the universe began or how it never really "began" at all either, so please stop where you are now.

The point I am making is that when you input laws into a system which we know to be true, these being mutation and natural selection, evolution works. Whether the computer simulation is designed is completely irrelevant. The same laws guiding evolution in real life were inputted into a computer system on a fast time scale and it works.

Now you're rationalizing again. The computer program did have controlled input, and it was designed to give the desired output. And you still haven't giving me any actual "laws" of evolution. I've given you some independent readings that discuss the limitation on variation through mutations and natural selection. Yet yall keep screaming that variation is limitless (albeit it through a long and slow process) but it clearly cannot transcend a species into a whole new type no matter how many billion years you throw out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who cares about a computer program Ab, we've directly observed speciation a great many times. Doesn't take millions or even billions of years. It only takes a single generation. It took millions/billions of years for this great a variety of species that we see around us to develop and establish themselves, not for one example of speciation to occur. Why do you believe otherwise, if you've actually investigated the matter? Why is it that you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what you are arguing against? Do you know how to use google?

[Abishalom]

Who cares about a computer program Ab, we've directly observed speciation a great many times. Doesn't take millions or even billions of years. It only takes a single generation. It took millions/billions of years for this great a variety of species that we see around us to develop and establish themselves, not for one example of speciation to occur. Why do you believe otherwise, if you've actually investigated the matter? Why is it that you don't seem to have a very clear picture of what you are arguing against? Do you know how to use google?

Well Rhythm you seem to hold the opinion that someone who disagrees with evolution must be misinformed. I've done plenty of reading on evolution, and have yet to find any evidence of infinite variation. Yes we do observe speciation, but that does not remove the limitations. Speciation occurs when a variation of an original species gets separated from the original population. So it is essentially an isolated population of a variant species. It is still variation within a species producing different kinds (to a certain extent) of the original species. Like I said before us observing variation does not prove that all diversity on earth derived from a single cell organism. In fact NONE of our evidence actually proves this. When darwin found different kinds of finch, different kinds of Galapagos tortoises etc. this was observed speciation. He observed different kinds of an original species and came to the conclusion that we all derived from 1 organism. Sadly some scientist still use this logic as proof of evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

They use it as -evidence- for E by NS, because it is. Common descent is simply the proposal that a long series of these speciation events led us to where we are. Genetics and comparative anatomy are the evidence that confirmed this suspicion. Science doesn't deal in proofs, in deals in evidence. This, added to the long list of misconceptions you have about evolution, would explain how you have managed to be wrong, again.

(you keep using the word "kinds" as though it weren't a complete joke, if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop doing that)

[Abishalom]

They use it as -evidence- for E by NS, because it is. Common descent is simply the proposal that a long series of these speciation events led us to where we are. Genetics and comparative anatomy are the evidence that confirmed this suspicion. Science doesn't deal in proofs, in deals in evidence. This, added to the long list of misconceptions you have about evolution, would explain how you have managed to be wrong, again.

(you keep using the word "kinds" as though it weren't a complete joke, if you want to be taken seriously you should probably stop doing that)

You're taking the actual evidence and stretching it with your imagination resulting in a fabrication.

The evidence: Varation occurs within a species producing different kinds of the original species (ie finches with long beaks, short beaks and a variety of other features) to a certain extent. If the variant species gets isolated from the original population then speciation occurs.

Your imagination: Because we can observe variation and speciation this means that the diversity we see today is a result of endless speciation (even though our evidence says variation has limits) fueled by random mutations.

There is no evidence to back this claim. You are basically taking what we can observe and claiming it is evidence for what we cannot (and have not) observed based on a presumption that evolution is the cause for diversity on the planet.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are no "kinds", stop. "Species" is simply a word that describes variation at a specific level. Rewind the tape and you climb the taxonomic ladder. Fast forward the tape and you descend. One interesting note. Due the life constantly changing, and our taxonomic classifications of life being a snapshot in time along that river of change, if we survive long enough we will eventually have to continue adding rungs (which we have actually been doing for some time).

Again you are wrong about the impetus for -our- conclusions. It is not my imaginination (or anyone elses) that lead us to this. It is the evidence that has already been explained to you.

Your posts, from beginning to end, have been a running ad naus. Will this begin to bother you at any point, or are you too committed (or emotionally invested) to retract those statements you have made in error, which have been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters? If so, why continue the discussion?

[AthiestAtheist]

Earth is a fairly new world cosmically speaking

Yes, the earth is new; about 4.5 billion years new.

[Abishalom]

There are no "kinds", stop. "Species" is simply a word that describes variation at a specific level. Rewind the tape and you climb the taxonomic ladder. Fast forward the tape and you descend. One interesting note. Due the life constantly changing, and our taxonomic classifications of life being a snapshot in time along that river of change, if we survive long enough we will eventually have to continue adding rungs (which we have actually been doing for some time).

Again you are wrong about the impetus for -our- conclusions. It is not my imaginination (or anyone elses) that lead us to this. It is the evidence that has already been explained to you.

Your posts, from beginning to end, have been a running ad naus. Will this begin to bother you at any point, or are you too committed (or emotionally invested) to retract those statements you have made in error, which have been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters? If so, why continue the discussion?

You (and the other posters) saying I'm wrong does not prove that I am wrong. You can simply provide your "evidence" for infinite variation and the argument could easily be settled. All you atheist have done is taken what we observed and attribute that to an unobserved event. I've given you readings about the limitations of variation (which you've ignored) and all you have done is say "you're wrong" but you have still failed to support your claim.