the evidence for evolution

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by reggie_jax, Jan 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SpillnMoney

    SpillnMoney Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    So basicly this is saying 1) that all life is somewhat inter-related through dna 2) common decent is one of the only testable theories for life 3) theyve seen it happen in bacteia but 4) which i think is most important common desent should be able to be seen at each stage of transformation on each level which it doesnt.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  2. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i do appreciate your efforts if you read through the article. i understand if u didn't since it is long as fuck.. though i would ask you at least read post # 15 where i attempt to break down the argument in a much shorter version..

    i say this only because you still don't seem to have grasped the theory or the proposed evidence behind it, based on this last post of yours.

    1) all life is related, not somewhat related. all life is the direct relation of all other life, which is supported by the science of genetics.

    2) common descent is not "one of the only testable theories." there are many testable theories. common descent is simply the only testable theory that not only corresponds with the existing data but makes future predictions which if were rendered false, could disprove the theory.

    3) micro evolution is in fact observed in microscopic life, but this was not mentioned in the article i posted nor the argument i made. the theory of common descent stands up to scientific testing and research regardless of its relation to the proposed micro evolutionary theories.

    4) this prediction that every single 'stage' of evolution should be recorded in the form of fossilized evidence seems to assume that we have access to a complete fossil record of the species on earth, which we don't have and never will since fossilization is a selective process that only occurs in some rare instances. most organisms just die and decay into the earth, and will have no trace of their existence in a million years time. we don't have a complete record of the species in earth's history. hell, we don't even have a complete record of the species in earth's present.

    but i would like to delve into this claim since you think it is the most important hole in the theory. have you taken the time to consider that all of the fossil evidence that we do have supports common descent, and that a lot of it directly contradicts the biblical creation myth?

    here's another observation that relates to that: 98% of all documented species on earth are now extinct. this is a startling fact if you believe that all life was created at once. this would mean our biological diversity has decreased over the eons to the point that the entire planet is comparatively dead, if you consider how many species were once in existence. yet this isn't possible. the earth could never support it. all these species didn't exist at once. they died off and were replaced by other species. this process is what we call evolution. this is consistent with the fossils that we have found.

    i have to wonder... how far would you get in your own beliefs if you applied the same skepticism you have for evolution on to the various claims you've made. don't you believe that biblical men and dinosaurs coexisted? this is directly negated by fossil records. why aren't there any human fossils over 65 million years old? why aren't there any dinosaur fossils under 6000 years old?
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    To the last question i said some lived amongst humans. Not all. Specifically the plant eaters. GOD was talking to Job an he certainly knew which ones he was talking about.
    Posted via Bag Phone
    test
  4. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    but what i said applies to plant eaters as well. they are from a different era of life than humans... by millions of years
    test
  5. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I thought that too. But when i came across the scripture i had to rethink it as a possibility.
    Posted via Bag Phone
    test
  6. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I'd say you're taking yourself for a ride on this dinosaur business.

    There are some compelling speakers out there who would have you believe it, that would interpret it as being a dinosaur so convincingly that you would be at a loss for any other explanation. They might even be convinced of it themselves. They might have been convinced of it by someone else. They might have added on to it, and if they weren't really sure, they may have been able to convince themselves of it.

    I stand to reason that this is only a myth propagated by the inventive mind in an ever changing understanding of the world. Christians continue to reinvent the Bible into modernity. And what do you know? It's nothing new under the sun.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    All i know is there were 3 mentioned specificly in Job and they couldve just been prehistoric species of things like crocadiles or whatever. Now i certainly dont think every species of animal has ever been present on earth at one time. I do think they all have a common decendant that through migration and things changed the species into a new class hense the microevolution. That happens with all animals tho including humans. Thats how we got the racial differences.
    Posted via Ouija
    test
  8. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    well, you're very close to accepting the theory of evolution. just by saying that we have a common ancestor and that all species didn't exist at once, but have appeared and disappeared over the eons.

    the only way to explain the appearance of new species in place of the ones that went extinct is if those microevolutionary adaptions eventually changed a species to such an extent that they became classed as a new distinct species.

    you're halfway there, all thats left for you to do is connect the dots
    test
  9. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    come on, buddy

    don't shy away from this discussion
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Lool. Well i mean like a pigon migrates to a beach area and adapts itself to eat fish an eventially gets the characteristics of a sea gull. (dont know if thats true or not) but thats the kind of changes im talking about. I still have yet to see great evidence of inter-species changes. If we did id be the first one to accept defeat arguementally. But again like the study said we have yet to see these changes at every level of transformation like we should if it were the case.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  11. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    ok... lets back up a second

    you say that every species didn't exist on earth at one time, and that the changes in biological diversity on earth was due to adaptions based on migration.

    migration is actually only one of many complex reasons for adaption, but besides that what you said was essentially correct.

    the conclusion that inevitably follows from this explanation is that those adaptions had to lead to the rise of new species. otherwise how do you explain the existence of those new species?

    if you don't believe in inter species evolution, then those adaptions wouldn't effect the number of species on earth. they would simply lead to more diversity within each species.
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I mean one animal changing into another. Not just different types of the same one.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  13. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    thats the point though, one species has to lead to the rise another species over time in order for your explanation to hold up. otherwise, the number of species on earth couldn't possibly grow, it could only get smaller and smaller as more species go extinct.
    test
  14. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Their extinctions are based on outside influence tho wether it be ecological, or otherwise. If there werent inhibitions to their growth they wouldnt have gone extinct.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  15. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Another problem with evolution is that Time itself creates more disorder than it does order based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The more time the less organised things tend to become naturally.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  16. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    right. that explains their extinction. we know species go extinct, right? we also know that most species we've documented are already extinct. you said yourself that you don't believe all of these species were created/existed at once. so connect the dots. where did the new species come from?

    i get the feeling that you're intentionally dancing around my point. i've seen the elaborate theories you believe in, i know you have the logical capacity to digest what i am saying. you're simply being stubborn.
    test
  17. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I dont get what your saying i explained how species could change same animal different type. But not different animal altogether. Unless u mean humans are just a different monkey species.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  18. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    ok maybe you're just unsure what the word 'species' means

    now earlier you mentioned an example where a pigeon could move to a beach area and adapt the characteristics of a seagull. in reality, the pigeon and the seagull are actually two different species. thus the claim that you don't believe in inter-species evolution does not hold up. if you are thinking that 'birds' themselves rank as a species, you are mistaken. 'birds' are a class. several ranks above the classification of species. here's a visualization that should help with what i'm saying:

    [​IMG]

    so your definition of the ability to change into a new type of species but not a new animal simply makes no sense. a new species is a new animal. and i was referring specifically to new species when i was making the argument about biological diversity.
    test
  19. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Gotcha. Ok well then ya i ment class
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  20. SiFu

    SiFu Burning Down Babylon!

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,867
    All a religious person has to ask is...


    where did 'c' come from???


    Where did DNA come from???


    A scientist once said "DNA just happening is like a tornado passing through a junk yard and creating a fully functioning car".....that tornado could last billions of years and yet would not be able to do such a thing.....


    I dont know tbh...


    I think we evolve/adapt but thats not an explanation for life in general....


    For all we know there could be MANY different ancestors....who's to say one bacteria didnt come from outta space and mix with current bacteria creating a new one.....and later on other 'invasions' havent spurred evolution??


    Water on this planet came from somewhere....if the earth was all molten then water couldnt exist....yet once it cooled and water asteroids containing bacteria landed.....those bacteria didnt have to all be the same....did they!?!?



    PEACE
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)