Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

[forumguy456987]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I see you still couldn't answer the question because you know the Mimic Octopus, Cheetah, Woodpecker, Butterfly, the Elephant's trunk the Giraffe's neck, the bombardier bettle, snake's venom all take a shit on the theory of evolution. Again even the narrator in the 2nd video of the Mimic Octopus was baffled- because anyone with a half brain knows that a mimic octopus could not have evolved all those trait- because too many complex things are going on- it was designed my friend- end of story- admit you have lost this debate and go google some more non sense you found on a pro evolution website or blog.

What you say: The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.


Response:(More here.)

In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
a. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
b. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
c. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
d. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
e. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

More gems...

You say....the giraffe

Response: The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.

You say... Why doesn't this asshole animal over here evolve what that prick animal over there has? He sure could use it!

Response: Different organisms make their living in different ways, so a trait that is beneficial for one organism may not be benefical for another. For example, if the ability to eat a certain kind of hard seed is beneficial for one bird, it may not be beneficial to another for the simple reason that the first bird has a monopoly on those seeds already.
Beneficial traits have drawbacks, too. They usually cost extra energy to grow and use, and often they have other costs. If a trait's advantages do not outweigh its disadvantages, it will not evolve. The existence of an organism that already has the trait often means it is not worth it for another organism to evolve it.


I could hit every point with a copy & paste from this site, or you can do your own research to figure out what you believe. I'm not arguing that the start of life is unknown, and perhaps some dick in the clouds did start SOMETHING, we'll know eventually. That's what science is for, exploring the unknown. Instead of trying to fill in every gap with GOD like some sort of religious mad lib. Evidence suggest the asshole sure as hell didn't design anything, unless you want a warm and fuzzy feeling by calling it "god's plan"

[Guest032516]

You are doing an excellent job ForumGuy, but it will make no difference when you are dealing with WE1911.

That website you linked to should be mandatory reading for creationists. It might help some. It accumulates a lot of false claims by creationists and debunks them one by one.

However, I made the same points above about the bombardier beetle - including the fact that it is misdescribed by evolutionists - and it made NO discernible difference to WE1911. He still cites the bombardier beetle as proof of intelligent design.

I also made similar points about the giraffe and valves in the blood vessels becoming thicker and stronger and it made no difference to WE1911.

Finally WE1911 stated (falsely) that Genesis go the order of creation right. Somewhere up above I pointed out that Genesis got it WRONG, but WE1911 nonetheless repeated to you or another poster that Genesis got the order of creation right. WE1911 just ignores all contrary facts and repeats the fairy tales he heard in Bible school.

[Old-T]

Sadly, almost every example the literal bible creation duo has put out there has been torn apart--most more than once. And those that have not fall into the same simple parallel--it just isn't worth repeating the same steps over and over to people who choose not to hear or understand.

No, they just reitterate the list of animals that "can't possibly have evolved". They say if noone was at the big bang to photograph it, it couldn't have occurred. And they claim any who disagree with them are atheists when some--not all--have repeatedly stated otherwise.

In other words these godfearing folks have no problem misquoting people.

[Yssup Rider]

... Especially God!

[CuteOldGuy]

Dammit! Assup actually made me laugh, and was right at the same time!

[Yssup Rider]

are you sure it wasn't just gas?

[CuteOldGuy]

No, I'm not. It's possible you just farted, which would be more intelligent than the usual bilge you post.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Sadly, almost every example the literal bible creation duo has put out there has been torn apart--most more than once. And those that have not fall into the same simple parallel--it just isn't worth repeating the same steps over and over to people who choose not to hear or understand.

No, they just reitterate the list of animals that "can't possibly have evolved". They say if noone was at the big bang to photograph it, it couldn't have occurred. And they claim any who disagree with them are atheists when some--not all--have repeatedly stated otherwise.

In other words these godfearing folks have no problem misquoting people.

I'll give you one more chance before you concede in shame.

That is only fair.

There are no examples of Macro Evolution that have been found in
the fossil record, no missing link fossils when there should be
thousands of them. I'm not talking about just for man but all
the different animals and organisms that exist.

Science has no explanation of how life began on this planet,
and hasn't been able to create life in a lab under what would
have to be considered perfect conditions, and with all of their
combined scientific knowledge and intellect at their disposal
to do it.

Just a couple of easy ones, now tear away.

[CuteOldGuy]

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life

Researchers in the United Kingdom have found algae-like fossils in meteorite fragments that landed in Sri Lanka last year. This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago — and, perhaps more importantly, that there’s life elsewhere in the universe.

How would this change the conversation?

Full article: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...Extremetech%29

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by bojulay

I'll give you one more chance before you concede in shame.

That is only fair.

There are no examples of Macro Evolution that have been found in the fossil record, no missing link fossils when there should be thousands of them. I'm not talking about just for man but all the different animals and organisms that exist.
Define what you mean by "macro evolution" and what would an example of it look like? You and WE1911 use terms incorrectly all the time. What do you mean by a missing link?

Science has no explanation of how life began on this planet, and hasn't been able to create life in a lab under what would have to be considered perfect conditions, and with all of their combined scientific knowledge and intellect at their disposal to do it.
And that proves nothing about there being a god. The inability to recreate life is not exactly unusual. It took an essentially infinite number of random chemical reactions over the course of a couple of billion years until the process finally got started. There is no fossil record of those chemical compounds because they were microscopic in size and simple recombined with the soil and water around them.

Just a couple of easy ones, now tear away.
No, an "easy one" would be just giving up on the task and saying "God did it". That's what your agenda is in fighting the science of evolution tooth and nail with the myths of creation.

There is no "debate" among educated people about the validity of evolution, even if the theory is incomplete and may have some mistakes in it.

Creationists only think they are involved in a debate. Myths and fairy tales have no place in a scientific debate and no place in a science classroom.

[CuteOldGuy]

What about panspermia?

[Yssup Rider]

There is no evidence that ANYTHING you have stated is steeped in fact OR turth, BullJay!

Your proselytizing only makes you look more ignorant.

And, a Major Asshole!

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

There is no "debate" among educated people about the validity of evolution, even if the theory is incomplete and may have some mistakes in it.

Creationists only think they are involved in a debate. Myths and fairy tales have no place in a scientific debate and no place in a science classroom.

Go do some research of your own on Macro evolution and
missing link fossils there is a ton of information out there.

You simply give credit to my argument. There is no proof whatsoever
that all that is needed is a long period of time for life to start
on this planet. Don't you see the huge gaping hole in your
argument. just a few billion years of chemical processes and
then one day bam there it is. And you would call that a scientific
explanation.

Dawkins himself says, know one knows how life started on this planet.

Your other argument seems to be because some people
with biased opinions have a belief in something then that
makes it true.

I only want them to be honest and say it's an idea we have,
instead of claiming that it's a proven fact, when clearly it is not.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There is no evidence that ANYTHING you have stated is steeped in fact OR turth, BullJay!

Your proselytizing only makes you look more ignorant.

And, a Major Asshole!

Your every post only makes you look more ignorant,

I think you've made the loop a few dozen times now.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life

Researchers in the United Kingdom have found algae-like fossils in meteorite fragments that landed in Sri Lanka last year. This is the strongest evidence yet of cometary panspermia — that life on Earth began when a meteorite containing simple organisms landed here, billions of years ago — and, perhaps more importantly, that there’s life elsewhere in the universe.

How would this change the conversation?

Full article: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...Extremetech%29

I actually touched on that subject much earlier in this thread. Like I stated before, Fred Hoyle calculated that the chances of life "spontaneously generating" on earth is about 1 to a number with 40,000 zeros behind it, or effectualy zero. He concluded that life on earth must have an extra terrestrial origin. And he postulated about the exact process article you referenced. I didn't however use the term panspermia though that is exactly the term used by Hoyle. Lest anyone take Hoyle for a crackpot, he was the person who coined the term "Big Bang" in reference to the beginning of our universe.