Who's lying now?

[Anachronous Rex]

For the record, we see what you're trying to do D. You're setting up to build some almighty slam-dunk argument where you systematically disprove evolution at every stage.

That would be fine, except for one problem. Every one of your criticisms is either not a criticism of evolution, or so badly misunderstands evolution that it may as well not be.

Congratulations, you can build up and knock down a strawman.

 

[Welshidiot]

I don't normally rant (on the internet ), and even this one will be brief.

My life's theme for this week seems to be people who can't answer direct questions,......and I've had a fuckin gut-full of it.

 

[deluxe]

Hey, guess what. Science isn't too clued up on a lot of gravitation either. Does that mean gravity is incorrect too?

Gravity is real, how it works may not be totally understood. it works for the Russians, and the Chinese.

It is the same with life. It's really but not understood by the scientists.

But to go on.

From this cell what would or could it 'evolve' into? What would be the first steps ( this is the foundation of the 'evolution' the scientists back). This will get into more of 'evolution' that you guys want to talk about, very quick..

 

[australopithecus]

From this cell what would or could it 'evolve' into? What would be the first steps ( this is the foundation of the 'evolution' the scientists back). This will get into more of 'evolution' that you guys want to talk about, very quick..

Sorry but I'm not going to feed your unwarranted superiority complex by repeating answers to questions that we've already answered. You point blank ignore the answers so until you stop being ignorant and dishonest I personally will not repeat myself or others. The answers have been given to you, go back and read them again.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Hey, guess what. Science isn't too clued up on a lot of gravitation either. Does that mean gravity is incorrect too?

Gravity is real, how it works may not be totally understood. it works for the Russians, and the Chinese.

It is the same with life. It's really but not understood by the scientists.

You claim that the origin of life and it's variation not being 100% GUARANTEED understood means that we poofed here out of nowhere by a magic cloud man -
I conject that since that gravity's mysterious push/pull forces on mass are not 100% GUARANTEED understood means that we're being pushed down by the invisible tendrils of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Do you see the disconnect here?

 

[Laurens]

Read 'Life' by Richard Fortey. It gives a fairly decent account of life from it's beginnings to modern day.

It's not our job to have to educate you.

 

[nasher168]

Great.

I'll repeat gnug and I ask all others to say nothing more until this question is answered, as it is very clearly and obviously being dodged:

What do you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

 

[Snufkin]

deluxe, are you asking questions to learn or are you attempting to use the Socratic method to teach us that evolution isn't real?
I hope you're not doing the latter because your questions are basic, irrelevant and/or show misunderstandings of evolution (for example how you anthropomorphize physics and chemistry).

If you know evolution isn't real, then simply present the evidence which refutes it.
You'd have a very hard time explaining things like the fossil record/geological column and answering the other questions which have been posed to you.

Sorry Gnasher - I started writing before you posted, Ill copy pasta:

I'll repeat gnug and I ask all others to say nothing more until this question is answered, as it is very clearly and obviously being dodged:

What do you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

 

[Gnug215]

Hey, guess what. Science isn't too clued up on a lot of gravitation either. Does that mean gravity is incorrect too?

Gravity is real, how it works may not be totally understood. it works for the Russians, and the Chinese.

It is the same with life. It's really but not understood by the scientists.

But to go on.

From this cell what would or could it 'evolve' into? What would be the first steps ( this is the foundation of the 'evolution' the scientists back). This will get into more of 'evolution' that you guys want to talk about, very quick..

deluxe, I'm sorry to say, but you have demonstrated many times that you do not quite comprehend some of the basics of the Theory of Evolution, so going into advanced cellular biology would probably not get any of us anwhere, and you wouldn't learn anything.

We have to start with the basics, so let's do that. Let's start with what scientists first learned all those years ago when The Theory of Evolution was first starting to form.

Let's start with the fossil record and the geological column, just for a little bit. Tell us in your own words what you know about it and what you make of it.

Later on, we'll get to the cell. You're pretty much starting with the last chapter in the book, trying to understand the basics. You have to start from the very beginning. So please, if you are here with honest intentions, if you are a decent person that isn't just here to score some personal win in a debate, and if you're a person with enough humility to admit to yourself that there is much to learn in life, then heed to this simple request. It's not some rhetorical trick or trap I'm trying to lead you into; I'm simply trying to establish some common understanding of this complex subject so we can actually HAVE any kind of debate, because so far, we're talking past each other, as should be clear from all the static and dissonance in this thread.

Ok?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Deluxe, what do you make of the fossil record and the geological column?

 

[deluxe]

Now since no one can answer what the first cell 'evolved' in to, this is something else the scientists don't know.
But this is the basis for the premise of evolution. ( how it is supposed to work) It is also the basis for the 'tree"
I don't think the scientists know much about this, I also don't think they know how their own theory 'evolution' is supposed to work.



This cell is neutral, what i mean by that is, that it is not plant or animal. It just looks after itself.

So show me how this cell becomes both plants and animals. ( the column of life are supposed to come from a common source).
I hope some one knows something about this?
If you have a link or source to this, bring out what you think the important part is.
I do that for you, and I highlight the important bits.
So, we are starting to climb that 'tree' now.

 

[deluxe]

Sorry but I'm not going to feed your unwarranted superiority complex by repeating answers to questions that we've already answered. You point blank ignore the answers so until you stop being ignorant and dishonest I personally will not repeat myself or others. The answers have been given to you, go back and read them again.

I was called ignorant, swore at,and that I was telling lies, etc.
Who really has the unwarranted superiority complex. I never have said anything like that to anyone here. I also, recognize the accomplishments of the scientists.
So what we are talking about here is the theories and science. It's not about the individuals.
This is just like the religious leaders who looked down at the common people. But they themselves were the biggest hypocrites.
So let get on with the theories, and science.

 

[australopithecus]

Now since no one can answer what the first cell 'evolved' in to, this is something else the scientists don't know.

We already have, go back and read again.

I don't think the scientists know much about this, I also don't think they know how their own theory 'evolution' is supposed to work.

Argument from ignorance, your opinion is worthless.

This cell is neutral, what i mean by that is, that it is not plant or animal. It just looks after itself. So show me how this cell becomes both plants and animals. ( the column of life are supposed to come from a common source).

Heredity with variation acted upon by natural selection. All concepts YOU have stated you accept.

If you have a link or source to this, bring out what you think the important part is.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm
http://cmg.soton.ac.uk/research/projects/cellular-automata-modelling-of-membrane-formation-and-protocell-evolution/
http://www.fundp.ac.be/pdf/publications/65867.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672004/

I do that for you, and I highlight the important bits.

No, what you do is ask questions that have already been answered and generally shit out nuggets of ignorance while asserting they're facts. You highlight nothing, important or otherwise.

I was called ignorant, swore at,and that I was telling lies, etc.

Because you are ignorant, and you do lie.

Who really has the unwarranted superiority complex.

Still you.

I never have said anything like that to anyone here. I also, recognize the accomplishments of the scientists.

You cherry pick. That's not a good thing.

So what we are talking about here is the theories and science. It's not about the individuals.

You've accused us, and the scientific community, of being brainwashed. You've also quote mined scientists, so yeah, you have been addressing individuals.

This is just like the religious leaders who looked down at the common people. But they themselves were the biggest hypocrites.

No one is looking down on "common people", I'm looking down on someone who has consistently lacked the concept of honesty. Someone who is willfully ignorant and is willing to lie to try and save face.

So let get on with the theories, and science.

We have been, but you've been ignoring, misrepresenting and generally not understanding a word we've said, while asserting your ignorance as fact. Why do you think you are able to discuss then when you clearly can't?

 

[Laurens]

Now since no one can answer what the first cell 'evolved' in to, this is something else the scientists don't know.
But this is the basis for the premise of evolution. ( how it is supposed to work) It is also the basis for the 'tree"
I don't think the scientists know much about this, I also don't think they know how their own theory 'evolution' is supposed to work.



This cell is neutral, what i mean by that is, that it is not plant or animal. It just looks after itself.

So show me how this cell becomes both plants and animals. ( the column of life are supposed to come from a common source).
I hope some one knows something about this?
If you have a link or source to this, bring out what you think the important part is.
I do that for you, and I highlight the important bits.
So, we are starting to climb that 'tree' now.

I told you a decent book you could read that would provide you with a layman's understanding of how single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms.

If you missed it, it's called 'Life' by Richard Fortey.

The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins is also a good one.

Go and read up about it. You're making an argument from ignorance.

None of us here should have to educate you, do it your fucking self.

 

[deluxe]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142628.htm
http://cmg.soton.ac.uk/research/project ... evolution/
http://www.fundp.ac.be/pdf/publications/65867.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672004/

The
presence of pyrenoids in these two
widely separated taxa (hornworts and
green algae) has not been accounted for
by evolution theorists.
page 44


The hornworts are not considered to be
in the direct line of descent proposed
from green algae to higher plants but are
thought to be a side branch. And yet it
is the hornworts, not the liverworts, that
possess pyrenoids found in the supposed
green algal "ancestors." This puzzling
fact presents difficulty for proposed
schemes for the evolutionary descent
of higher plants. It would be more in
line with evolution theories if the chloroplasts
of liverworts, not hornworts,
possessed a pyrenoid.


Plastoglobuli, objects that are similar
to pyrenoglobuli, have been observed in
the stroma (spaces between the grana)
of chloroplasts in angiosperms (fl owering
plants) such as onions, spinach, and
Tradescantia (Lichtenthaler, 1968). Pyrenoglobuli
and these very similar plastoglobuli
are widespread in phycobionts,
free-living algae, and plants. Although
plastoglobuli were at fi rst assumed to be
unique evolutionary productions found
only in phycobionts, this evolution-related
error was corrected.
page 47


Is Starch Storage an
"Ancestral Trait" in Trebouxia?
Jacobs and Ahmadjian (1969) postulated
that Trebouxia evolved from a different
green algal ancestor. Accordingly, they
speculated that Trebouxia's ability to
store starch was an "ancestral" trait,
which persisted after having been
somewhat replaced by the lipid storage
mechanism in the pyrenoglobuli (Jacobs
and Ahmadjian, 1969, p. 238). But one
might theorize instead that starch and
lipid storage systems are simply two
different alternatives, each designed to
enable Trebouxia to cache photosynthate
under diverse ecological regimes. In fact,
Jacobs and Ahmadjian (1969) penned a
very "design friendly" remark along that
theme by stating that:
a better way of viewing this is that
lipids present in the pyrenoglobuli
represent a type of storage product
that is more suitable to the lichen
symbiosis. In their natural habitats,
lichens have only a few hours during
the day with an adequate water balance
for metabolism"¦Lipids would
represent a product which would
give the greatest amount of energy in
the shortest possible time. (p. 238)

page 48




It is merely an evolutionary
assumption that the ability to synthesize
ribitol arose after the origin of sucrose
production or that sucrose synthesis is
somehow an "evolutionary vestige."

page 49


Some researchers argue that mitochondria
are bacteria that once
invaded other living cells. Smith and
Brown (1985) provided evidence that
mitochondria were instead created as
organelles for each separate living kind.
The dynamically complex series of coordinated
mitochondrial macromolecules,
each depending on the other for proper
functioning of the cytoplasm, supports
rapid creation.

The intricate details of membrane structure
and physiology, which command
the attention of hundreds of researchers
at numerous laboratories worldwide, fi t
with an intelligent design model.


An anonymous referee of our paper
suggested that perhaps these droplets
are "evaginated vesicles transferring
dissolved food to the storage layer," a
possibility that deserves further investigation

Workers who adopt the design view of
origins would see this manifold storage
program as an intelligent "overdesign,"
enabling lichens to endure adverse environmental
conditions.


page 50



In the Lichen Literature,
Is Evolution Usually Treated
Like a Scientifi c Theory or
Like an Origins Model?
The evolutionary idea that lichens and
all life have descended gradually from
a common ancestry over vast aeons
is often espoused like some sort of
religious/philosophical presupposition
rather than being handled like a real
scientifi c theory. Even after leading to
false conclusions about scientifi c data,
evolutionism is so very plastic that its
devotees can quickly modify it to fit
the confl icting new information. This
demonstrates that evolution is an origins
model, not a scientific theory
An illustration of this point exists in
the history of lichenology.
Evolutionismwas part of a minor error that was
corrected. We bring up one of these
evolution-based errors, not to criticize
the lichenologists involved, but to show
the evolutionary basis of their error and
to demonstrate that they reversed earlier
ideas in order to preserve evolutionism.


In 1972, however, Griffiths and
Greenwood reported discovering concentric
bodies in two non-lichenized
fungi. And, as stated earlier, it is now
known that concentric bodies are widely
present in non-lichenized fungi; they
are not unique evolutionary innovations
found only in mycobionts. This
evolutionary error was rectifi ed by Ahmadjian
(1993, see p. 22)

His "reversal" illustrates
the manner in which evolutionism has
little predictive power, frequently serving
as just an afterthought that makes
it applicable to almost any data. It also
demonstrates that evolution is treated
as a philosophical presupposition and
is thereby considered to be unassailable,
even when predictions based upon it
turn out to be inaccurate.

page 52
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_1/Lichens.pdf

Also take note of the images on those pages, and tell me that all just happened on it's own.

 

[australopithecus]

You didn't even read the sources I cited did you? Congratulations, you've just conceded the argument by yet again citing an argument from ignorance, biased source for your non argument. Not to mention you've spent all this time trying to question us on the common ancestry of plants and animals, now you rock up with an article on Lichen? Sorry, but you've dropped a massive ball there.

Also, the 'paper' is about cell structure, not genetics. Swing and a miss.

Thanks for playing, and better luck next time.

 

[nasher168]

What. do. you. make. of. the. fossil. record. and. geological. column?

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I don't agree with all of your views or methods but something you posted did get to the heart of the matter:

His "reversal" illustrates
the manner in which evolutionism has
little predictive power, frequently serving
as just an afterthought that makes
it applicable to almost any data. It also
demonstrates that evolution is treated
as a philosophical presupposition and
is thereby considered to be unassailable,
even when predictions based upon it
turn out to be inaccurate.

You see admitting presuppositions doesn't destroy evolution but the evolutionist can't put their theory of evolution on such a high pedestal if they admit their presuppositions. No science does not allow presuppositions, but the MEN who do science DO. Not only that but in Origins you HAVE TO.

 

[nasher168]

We can (and I for one certainly will) address Deluxe's points. After Deluxe tells us plainly what he (?) makes of the fossil record and geological column. We have not had an answer in two days of asking for one.

 

[Laurens]

Deluxe, you, like many creationists seem to be under the impression that evolution has no evidence in support of it. This is not true. In this post I will summarize the kinds of evidence we have for evolution:

1. Palaeontology
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology)

2. Classification
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification)

3. Comparative Embryology
(http://wiki.medpedia.com/Comparative_Embryology)

4. Comparative Biochemistry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry)

5. Experiments in Artificial Selection
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection)

6. Geographical Distribution
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeography)

7. Adaptive Radiation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_radiation)

8. Comparative Anatomy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_anatomy)

9. Genetics
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics)

This is a rather broad summery, but it should give you some kind of idea of the sheer amount of evidence that we have for evolution. What have you got to counter this broad range of independent sources of evidence?

A quick search on PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) for the term 'evolution' shows 300991 papers on the subject. More papers are turned out on evolution in a week than have ever been published by creationists...

You come on here claiming that these 9 (and there are more areas of evidence that I omitted no doubt) independent sources of compelling evidence for evolution are false, and that really the evidence supports creation. You come here claiming that these 300991 papers (and this is only from one source) are based upon faulty science, and that their authors are brainwashed and peer pressured into holding these views. Do you have anything to show us that substantially supports your position?