|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 5, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 6, 2009 17:15:15 GMT -5
Lol, lots of people sceptical? Where, names? Dozens of mathematicians? The only one I'm really aware of is William Dembsky and he is a Xtain working for a creationist front. (Neo) Darwinian Evolution is a matter of biology, not mathematics. The vast majority of the scientific community, overwhelmingly, accept neo-Darwinian evolution because of the evidence that supports it. This guy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution like most religious zealots. Evolution does NOT discuss the ORIGINS of LIFE , it talks about the DIVERSITY OF LIFE. Life's origins are a whole separate branch of science called ABIOGENESIS. Cow to a whale? FAIL! This is a red herring and misrepresenting facts. No credible biologist suggests a cow can be the ancestor of a whale. They would share a common ancestor. And whale ancestry does not originate cow-like ancestors. Learn a BASIC analysis of whale evolution : www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.htmlAlso , see the 'Valley of the Whales' and note how this is in the desert hundreds of miles from the sea. www.touregypt.net/featurestories/valleyofwhales.htmWhales do not swim like other aquatic non-mammals ( spine weaving side to side) but rather they move their spine in the same manner as quadruped land mammals running ( up-down wave motion with the spine). We have evidence for adaptations over millions of years so perhaps this guy should familiarize himself with the discoveries of modern science. The whale's ancestor isn't a cow-like creature. We have transitional fossils. We've discovered attributes on extinct land mammals that also spent time hunting in the light sea that can only be found on whales today. Whales have leg bones. img301.imageshack.us/img301/8894/whaleevoei0.giffarm1.static.flickr.com/231/495277362_b3838efce3_o.jpgwww.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/100_f.jpgThe evidence is available if you open your eyes and not be afraid to question the certainty of your faith. This guy's straw man 'argument' would be laughable to anybody with just a rudimentary understanding of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Jan 7, 2009 0:46:31 GMT -5
He debunked evolution by comparing cows to whales lmao
|
|
|
Post by captainalbania on Jan 7, 2009 4:54:46 GMT -5
He didn't debunk anything. He shows no understanding of comparative anatomy or any of the principles of evolution whatsoever. I agree with Arthur Kane.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Jan 7, 2009 6:32:19 GMT -5
Only the biggest idiot would think that guys right. Oh right Sheiser posted it.
|
|
|
Post by boscrocop on Jan 7, 2009 9:19:49 GMT -5
lol @ the Dr.Berlinski..
Darwinism is the explanation for evolution, that is even visible within the variations of appearance within one species. I think they should make biology mandatory in high schools.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 8, 2009 7:59:49 GMT -5
Insult me all you want, but don`t insult other ppl, especially the ones you know nothing about, dr.Berlinski is more than qualified to express his opinions regarding Darwinism, and he is an atheist, which is the main reason why i picked him. And there are countless others just like him(more on that later when i have more time, i will elaborate), even Darwin himself had serious doubts collected in the book Life and letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son Francis Darwin. Most of the letters written by Darwin to close friends and other scientists of that time are full of his confessions regarding his own theory. Some of those letters i will be showing here, and demonstrate how they are relevant today, Arthur Kane told me to open my eyes, and i did just that, it was Darwin himself who opened my eyes.LOOOOOOL Isn`t that ironic. Only couple of months ago i was a hardcore atheist and evolutionist. Believe it or not. And you missed the point with the whale example, in any case, there is no strong evidence to support“transitional” organism between land mammals and whales. Ciao
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 8, 2009 19:10:21 GMT -5
Insult me all you want, but don`t insult other ppl, especially the ones you know nothing about, dr.Berlinski is more than qualified to express his opinions regarding Darwinism, and he is an atheist, which is the main reason why i picked him. And there are countless others just like him(more on that later when i have more time, i will elaborate), even Darwin himself had serious doubts collected in the book Life and letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son Francis Darwin. Most of the letters written by Darwin to close friends and other scientists of that time are full of his confessions regarding his own theory.Some of those letters i will be showing here, and demonstrate how they are relevant today, Arthur Kane told me to open my eyes, and i did just that, it was Darwin himself who opened my eyes.LOOOOOOL Isn`t that ironic. Only couple of months ago i was a hardcore atheist and evolutionist. Believe it or not. And you missed the point with the whale example, in any case, there is no strong evidence to support“transitional” organism between land mammals and whales. Ciao Please list these 'countless' others that are experts in Biology that fundamentally disagree with Darwin and evolution by natural selection. An atheist isn't necessarily a person that accepts Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. There are other theories of evolution that deny natural selection but they have no scientific backing ( lack of evidence). Most atheists are rationalist though and accept Darwin's theory. Darwin , like any credible scientist, merely pointed out that his theory can be falsified. He laid out criteria for falsification such as finding a bunny fossil dating from the Cambrian. No such fossils of modern organisms have been found to exist beyond its own geological epoch. We shouldn't use this to criticize Darwin but to compliment him as he was open to having his theory falsified. Over a century has passed since Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection and much has been discovered since then. Darwin's theory compared to what we know today was rather crude and not detailed. Thanks to modern genetics , geological and fossil evidence uncovered since Darwin's time, we have a much more accurate picture of evolution by natural selection. Genetics, rather than contradicting Darwin, fully supports his core theory. By tracing slight mutations in the Y chromosome of DNA, we can see common lineages between human beings. It is like a a memory recording , a plaque on which history is written. We can trace common ancestry back to Africa. If we go beyond that we can trace a common lineage with the Chimpanzee with which we share 95% + common DNA sequence. In biological and genetic terms , the Chimpanzee and human are more closely related than a Rat and a Mouse. We can trace DNA back beyond our own species and show that we share common ancestry with others. All DNA is constructed of four class nucleotides and share enzymes to break apart and piece together DNA helix when replicating itself. The fundamental building blocks of all of these are protein. It doesn't matter if you're a cat , dog , plant , microbe, human , all of us share the same DNA. The evidence mounts. I don't know what you mean by 'evolutionist.' I guess you're implying you used to accept evolution. If this is true, I am not surprised you turned to faith because you show a clear misunderstanding and ignorance of evolution very similar to religious bigots who make statements lacking knowledge. As I recall in another posting you stated that you believe evolution is linear with one of your ridiculous examples. It is not surprising why you also chose Islam of the many faiths out on the market. You already have a predisposition to follow the Islamic faith. You were born into a family that had Muslim religious background. You are a Muslim from Bosnia. Islamic religion there is used to reinforce Bosniak identity much like Christianity is to reinforce Croat and Serb identities. Clearly if you would've chosen Orthodoxy or Catholicism you might be viewed as less of an ethnic Bosnian. Why not chose Hinduism or Buddhism? Greek gods? Egyptian gods? Native American gods? Take your pick of 30,000 + recorded gods in human history. As for the 'transitional' evidence : www.toarchive.org/features/whales/( Hint : Look under the evidence section) Warning : This is actually science backed with evidence. This might challenge your faith-based beliefs but whatever. Truth isn't based on your opinion and what you want it to be. It simply is. Whether you choose to accept evidence or not is clearly up to you but clearly defines whether you are behaving rationally or irrationally.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Jan 8, 2009 20:34:26 GMT -5
^ Well said
|
|
|
Post by meltdown711 on Jan 8, 2009 20:55:15 GMT -5
Shmajzer = PWNED
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jan 8, 2009 21:00:17 GMT -5
^ Like you understand genetics. Also, either Arthur Kane understands it perfectly well or he's just cutting & pasting because as a layman (layperson for AK) it's either you believe that stuff or you need to be well educated on it to really make sense of it.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 9, 2009 3:46:43 GMT -5
A little background on our friend Berlinski. I knew I saw this guy somewhere then I remembered he is connected to the Discovery Institute and buddies with pro-religion cohorts Dembsky and Behe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_BerlinskiBerlinski isn't even an atheist. He describes himself as a secular Jew and agnostic. He does work for the Discovery Institute. For those who are not familiar with the DI, they claim to be a scientific establishment that promotes 'Intelligent Design.' They have been discredited by virtually all biologists in the scientific community and their work is only taken seriously by primarily fundamentalist Christian groups. To get an idea, they are the same people that promote the Young Earth Creationist movement which asserts the Earth is only 6000 yrs old ( with no empirical backing except for biblical scripture of course.) Berlinski has been thoroughly discredited by actual scientists as the Wiki article shows. This guy also helped Ann Colter ( An extreme right-wing evangelical political commentator and author) write her book " Godless: the Church of Liberalism." Coulter is the same person that also asserted that all Jews will die and deserve to die if they don't convert to fundamentalist Christianity. Called for the death of all Muslims and atheists, and believes the war in Iraq to be 'holy.' A little advice for the starter of the thread. If you desire to use scientific evidence to discredit evolution by natural selection, then actually present the evidence. It only makes you look more foolish when you pull out characters from the Discovery Institute. These guys are not respected and taken seriously by the scientific community. I got a laugh out of it. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Kane on Jan 9, 2009 3:49:20 GMT -5
^ Like you understand genetics. Also, either Arthur Kane understands it perfectly well or he's just cutting & pasting because as a layman (layperson for AK) it's either you believe that stuff or you need to be well educated on it to really make sense of it. I am a layman. I am not an expert in genetics but I don't have to be to understand basic DNA properties. This information is available in any scientific journal or standard resource for DNA. You do not need to be an expert in the field to understand or appreciate its findings. Expert testimony is good enough for the layman. All the information presented has been empirically verified through test and observation. Thatis why they call it science.
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 9, 2009 7:23:03 GMT -5
A.K, i can safely say that you don`t have a clue, i suggest that you at least read "origins of species" by Charles Darwin, that is the basis for all our discussion, i can easily refute most of it, starting from whales to DNA, all you do is basically character assassination of the ppl you don`t agree with. I can do the same with your heroes ppl like Dawkins, Hitchens and that nutty talk show host Bill Maher, but why stoop to your level. Theory of evolution is raughly based on the following: Natural selection: we know today that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of organisms. he even stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Harvard university 1964 p.189. ( if you want me to scan this page, just say a word. I have his book. I will do more scans during Sathurday and Sunday. Than you have "strugle for survival" recent research showed that there was no strugle for life in nature as Darwin imagined it. Animals manage their population according to their food resources. Animals control their numbers acording to reproduction, not by competition. "Mutations" biologists tried to find examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. but it has always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. "Microevolution"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species- Darwin's problem-remains unsolved.34www.scribd.com/doc/6883055/ebook-Johnson-Philip-Darwin-On-Trial-evolution-intell"Fossil records" and "transitional links": Fossil records are the final nail in the coffin of so called theory or better yet the myth of evolution i will dedicate more time to this topic later, probably on monday. As for transitional links: If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html In short this is the theory of evolution in a nutshell, if you actually took the time to study it instead of copy/paste from questionable sites you would know that even hardcore evolutionists agree with me on several points, but NOOO instead you say stuff like: Darwin's theory compared to what we know today was rather crude and not detailed. Thanks to modern genetics , geological and fossil evidence uncovered since Darwin's time, we have a much more accurate picture of evolution by natural selection. Genetics, rather than contradicting Darwin, fully supports his core theory.It is exactly the opposite my friend. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Shmajser on Jan 9, 2009 7:29:26 GMT -5
My family background is none of your business, you have no knowledge of Islam, why i chose Islam should not concern you, i suggest you concentrate on the topic and not me.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jan 10, 2009 12:32:57 GMT -5
Recently I saw on a evolution documentary (pro) that the fossil evidence for human evolution (ape ancestors) would fit into the back seat of a car or something small like that. Looking in to that apparently there are thousands, but in some cases it’s only a tooth or a shin bone. That got me thinking about the fossil evidence for dinosaurs & made me wonder why there isn’t a LOT more proper fossil evidence for evolution? So… looking into it… scientists believe that the oldest fossils found are stromatolites from 2724 million years ago. Next we have the trilobites at 542 to 251 million years ago. The fist dinosaur fossils are dated to 245 million years ago. Euskelosaurus Human evolution runs from about 2.5 million years ago. Homo habilis. So anyway, I don’t know much about evolution. But is it weird to wonder why when human evolution represents such a tiny tiny recent fraction of the fossil record there seems to proportionately not be many fossils for it? If we have dinosaur fossils from 245 million years ago shouldn’t we have pretty much every bit of the chain for human evolution in the last 2 million years??? Am I having a blonde moment? I haven’t really been too interested in fossils & all I’ve done is check out a few pro-evolution sites before posting this.
|
|