Evolution in action

[Carnavon]

[quote='Phil' pid='279654' dateline='1335884922']
[quote='Carnavon' pid='279634' dateline='1335877822']

---

A bit tongue in cheek: I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level. But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc? I mean, we do not have to rely on "hit and miss" mutations and all the problems associated with irreducible complexity. We can design it and implement it? Here is a chance to make a name for yourself!!

But I suppose it is much easier to hypothesize about assumed development than actually getting something to work - like getting a living organism from non-living material - despite the Miller-Urey experiment that is cited as "proof" and with new discoveries now found to be less likely true than when it was first proposed.

The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.

This concession was made by even an honest "evolutionist" the late Dr Colin Patterson "‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’(http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-...al-fossils)

Sometimes however, this honesty is not exercised - as proven by Lucy, Nebraska man, Piltdown man etc. etc - putting forward for fact that which is known fabrications to support a theory.

At the same time we devalue human life - such that the killing of babies after birth is discussed "( On February 23, 2012, the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) published an article written by philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. Its title was “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”)

If life is a mere "fluke", what is the value of human (or any life for that matter)? Why should life be protected if it is not deemed to be in the interest of a specific person or society? You tell me why? Because you are the healthiest and most "intelligent" of a "batch" of newborns whose biological mother and father//other caretakers can offer you the best opportunities. How many of us would have survived?

Human life has value, irrespective of your financial status, looks, IQ or any other arbitrary measure. You have value because you were in the mind of God long before you were born and He loves you, irrespective of any of the facts mentioned (Social status etc).

---

[quote]
What does god have to do with examples of evolution that we see? BTW, what exactly do you mean by hypothesize? There are two clear examples in the OP. Did you even read it or are you just taking an evolution thread to be an invitation to preach?
[/quote]
Hi. I mentioned God in respect of the value of man/woman, irrespective of the value attributed by others.
Hypothesize means that an assumption is made in the absence of conclusive proof. As you know, evolution is a theory. The second law of thermodynamics is a fact - it can be tested and has been tested and found to be true.
Would you prefer that a person of different persuasion be silenced because his/her views are different to yours?

[downbeatplumb]

You are thinking of theories as though they are the ramblings of someone down the pub who reckons Hitler survived the second world war.
Scientific theories arent like that they have to satisfy certain criteria.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct

Evolution is a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Thor]

Hi. I mentioned God in respect of the value of man/woman, irrespective of the value attributed by others.

And judging by some of the crappola written in the Babble, it is quite obvious that "God" values men more than women.

Hypothesize means that an assumption is made in the absence of conclusive proof. As you know, evolution is a theory.

A "hypothesis" and a scientific theory are not the same thing.

The second law of thermodynamics is a fact - it can be tested and has been tested and found to be true.

As has evolutionary theory.

[jackman]

Hypothesize means that an assumption is made in the absence of conclusive proof. As you know, evolution is a theory.

oops!

[popeyespappy]

The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.

Really? No fossil record at all?

[Welsh cake]

I hear much talk about "human evolution" to the next level.

Not from us you don't. Evolution is not a ladder. There are no "levels" or "hierarchy".

But how come they are not developing humans to have remote eyes - you can send them around a corner , look for your keys five places at once etc?

Remote controlled eyes? Look this isn't technology class. Nor are we addressing the possibilities of biotechnology - we're not cyborgs. The laws of physics and biology do not permit organisms to have fully detachable yet still functional working parts or appendages through natural means only.

Hypothesize means that an assumption is made in the absence of conclusive proof. As you know, evolution is a theory. The second law of thermodynamics is a fact - it can be tested and has been tested and found to be true

Evolution is a fact.

Change over time is a fact.

Your ignorance is positively -painful- to read.

[Phil]

[quote='Carnavon' pid='279719' dateline='1335894714']
Hi. I mentioned God in respect of the value of man/woman, irrespective of the value attributed by others. [quote]Yet god has absolutely nothing to do with any examples of evolution in action. Try to stay on topic or is that too hard?[quote]
Hypothesize means that an assumption is made in the absence of conclusive proof. As you know, evolution is a theory. The second law of thermodynamics is a fact - it can be tested and has been tested and found to be true.[/quote]Gravity is a theory too, Are you really going to be foolish enough to jump off a 50 story building since it isn't a fact? BTW, to paraphrase Stephen Gould, evolution has so much evidence, only a perverse mind could deny it is a fact.



[quote]
Would you prefer that a person of different persuasion be silenced because his/her views are different to yours?

[/quote]As far as Christian views I would go much farther. Let's just say it would be a small step below what Christians did to atheists for 1500 years. In case you are unfamiliar with them let me list them. Christians outlawed atheists from universities and teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, burned their books, drove them into exile, humiliated them, burned their property, arrested them for blasphemy, dehuminized them with beatings and torture, gouged their eyes out, slit their tongues, crushed and broke their bones, tore of women's breasts, crushed men's genitals, put them in prison, stabbed them, disembowled them, hung them and burnt them alive.

Christians did all that to atheists for 1500 years and you have the fucking nerve to complain if an atheist wants to silence you as a Christian? Would you prefer to have any of the above done to you?

[zebo-the-fat]

One example of animals evolving to suit changed conditions is elephants. 100 years ago their tusks were much longer than modern elephants, due to ivory poaching/hunting etc. short tusked elephants have less value to the hunters and so are more likely to live long enough to breed, the offspring are likely to have shorter tusks as well. Maybe in another 100 years they will just have small stumps instead.

[Cyberman]

As you know, evolution is a theory. The second law of thermodynamics is a fact - it can be tested and has been tested and found to be true.

Would you prefer that a person of different persuasion be silenced because his/her views are different to yours?

I wouldn't be so melodramatic as to say silenced; but there is, or ought to be, a huge difference between "having a different view" and being just plain factually wrong.

[DeeTee]

Ok, you have two examples. Let's hear yours

.

The problem evolutionists have to overcome to prove their theory correct is that they have to stop taking fully developed species, with fully developed genes then introducing outside influences while observing the reaction.

to prove the supposed evolutionary theory true an evolutionist has to start from square one and show the process in actual action from the one celled original species, including original enviornmental conditions, to each historical change evolutionists claim took place.

Moving a bird from one continent to another does not prove evolution but the ability of God's created creatures to adapt to new enviornments. Evolutionists have yet to produce one actual scientific experiment that documents the historical claimed evolutionary changes.

All they are doing is taking God's fully developed created creatures, who are influenced by the fall of Adam then adding some ingredient to see what changes will take place then claiming 'evolutiondidit'.

Evolutionists are stealing from God, taking the credit for His work and brainwashing the unsuspecting. They are not producing one piece of evidence for evolution.

---

The supposed evolution of one specie into another has no fossil records at all to prove this. They only have the "end result", without any in-between species.

Really? No fossil record at all?

The problem with that picture is that there is no evidence showing those skulls turning into a different species. There is no evidence showing the supposed evolutionary process at work, all you have is a picture of a bunch of skulls and then declaring it is proof for evolution.

You have no evidence showing the transformation, just conjecture and faith.