Darwin's theory

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... and modern crocodiles in the Jurassic!!
These layers aren't indicative of time ... just the order of burial during the Flood.

The crocodile family appeared in the early Triassic period, long before the Jurassic period, so of course their fossils would appear in the Jurassic era layers.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

No .. no ... no and no.:)

Yup, I think we have solved it.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

I agree, I think the driving force behind people like J C's anti-science is simply a fear of death. 'I don't want to die therefore the bible must be right'.

We all fear death ... to some degree.
You guys cope by believing that the light goes out ... I cope by believing that the light come on.:)

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Yup, I think we have solved it.

I wouldn't jump to any rash conclusions ... just yet.:)

AtomicHorror

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

If that was the case, then human skeletons would be visible in Ordovician rock layers. Why are they not visible there?

Ah because humans lived on the surface you see, whereas invertebrates live mostly in the sea and in the ground. Thus their remains settled at different layers during the Flood with a capital F. Turbulence would act against this, you say? The bible never mentions turbulence so it does not exist you infidel.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

The crocodile family appeared in the early Triassic period, long before the Jurassic period, so of course their fossils would appear in the Jurassic era layers.

... so its worse and more jumbled than even I thought ... the place must have been crawling with Crocodiles during the Flood ... with burials occurring right through the process ... from the Triassic right up:)

AtomicHorror

obplayer wrote: »

As a 'scientist' you should know not to just make things up as you go along.

There are people with science qualifications who are scientists.
There are people without science qualifications who are scientists.
There are people with science qualifications who are not scientists.
There are people without science qualifications who are not scientists.

I wish I could say that, at best J C is either the 3rd or 4th option.

However, after many years and endless arguing, I have concluded that he is actually a partially sentient bible.

GreeBo

J C wrote: »

Juvenile representatives of all Kinds were present.
For example, there was probably only one pair of the Big Cat Kind ... and all big cat species are though to be descendants of these big cats.

J C wrote: »

As all big cats can still interbreed (with varying degrees of success) ... it's a very strong hypothesis.

So one pair of big cats evolved into all the species of big cats we have today....hmm...they evolved....evolved...evolution is wrong....yet they evolved...they didn't get created...I'm confused J C, you just used evolution to explain creationism...isn't that contradictory?
unless .maybe Noah invented evolution?

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

We all fear death ... to some degree.
You guys cope by believing that the light goes out ... I cope by believing that the light come on.:)

You mean you cope by making up something to try and lessen the thought of it. It's a natural instinct I am sure.

Religion is mankind's first attempt at the truth, but becuase it is our first it is also our worst attempt at it.

The knowledge mankind has gained since these primitive books and beliefs were first inscribed supersedes any religious text.

Science, nor anyone of a non religious stand point will claim to know where we go after we die, that position is firmly held by the faith based community.

Doctor Jimbob

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There are people with science qualifications who are scientists.
There are people without science qualifications who are scientists.
There are people with science qualifications who are not scientists.
There are people without science qualifications who are not scientists.

I wish I could say that, at best J C is either the 3rd or 4th option.

However, after many years and endless arguing, I have concluded that he is actually a partially sentient bible.

Genuinely laughed out loud at that one

AtomicHorror

GreeBo wrote: »

So one pair of big cats evolved into all the species of big cats we have today....hmm...they evolved....evolved...evolution is wrong....yet they evolved...they didn't get created...I'm confused J C, you just used evolution to explain creationism...isn't that contradictory?
unless .maybe Noah invented evolution?

"Micro" evolution versus "macro" evolution. "Micro" evolution is possible within kinds or "baramin" as creationists call them.

The need for jargon is one of very few features common both to science and bollocks.

Frank Bullitt

And how big was the boat the Noah built? And was it made from wood?

Wereghost

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Joking aside, we're apparently still apes.

nozzferrahhtoo

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Everyone else, try to explain why the Earthworm continues to compost. Thanks.

But I replied to this twice myself now. Perhaps I do not understand what it is you are actually asking? What precisely is it you want to know? Earthworms eat. Earthworms poo. Plants evolved to utilize that poo. Where is the mystery exactly for you?

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Really stupid answer.

It is _really_ nice of you to preface your post with such an accurate description of your post! Well done.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Earthworms are not evolving.

Every living creature is evolving. Perhaps the changes are minimal, or oscillating, or bred back out in a short period, but it is always happening.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

The problem is you don't understand why they compost so you delude yourself about the origin of species and universe based on flimsy theories.

But we do know why, and I have explained it to you three times now. Do you need a fourth??

cdoherty86 wrote: »

That means humans are not interdependent no matter how much you delude yourself.

Ah I see the problem. You do not know what interdependency means. Saying an interdependency exists does not mean X is interdependent with EVERYTHING. But it is interdependent with one or more things. That you found ONE thing that humans have no interdependency with, does not mean there is not an interdependency between humans and many things.

I already showed you an interdependency between humans and a huge mass of the biosphere, macro and micro. Did you merely forcibly insert your head into the sand upon reading it, or what?

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Humans are completely inconsequential to every other species/organism on earth but some still prefer to disagree.

We disagree because you are wrong, and I gave multiple examples and explanations of how and why you are wrong. YOU prefer to disagree it seems.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

1) Why do earthworms compost? Why exactly? Did someone tell them to start eating organic material? Why did they decide to eat organic material?

Hang on, you think there was a point in time where earthworms as a species suddenly changed their feeding habits, just like that? Seriously? Thats how you think evolution works? Wow, I have more work to do than I thought.

Earthworms were already eating what they eat when they evolved to the point of being what we consider earthworms.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

2) If the environment is interdependent, would earthworms die without humans? Are humans dependent on earthworms (yes)

AGAIN that is not what is meant by interdependence.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

Are we interdependent? No, we're not.

Yes. We are. With many things. Keep trying.

cdoherty86 wrote: »

No, you're right, I'm looking for a coherent answer.

The reality seems to be that you are looking for the incoherent answers.... and ignoring the coherent ones.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wereghost wrote: »

Joking aside, we're apparently still apes.

And we are vertebrates. And depending on your definition (such as that of Agent Smith in Matrix) we are a virus

Labels.... category boxes..... only go so far. We are indeed apes based on the definition of what constitutes an ape. We are also many other things based on other definitions of other labels and boxes.

nozzferrahhtoo

paddy1990 wrote: »

Here is what it boils down to really. Darwinists seem to me, to have a "blind spot" to certain truths that arise from their theory.

Do these darwinists actually exist, because I know I do not have this blind spot and I have not observed it in anyone on this thread. Nor do I think the phrase "darwinists" actually means anything.

paddy1990 wrote: »

Darwinists simply HAVE to accept that their subjective emotions/instincts etc are illusions and to live by them is simply to live in a delusion.

But it is not a delusion for the reason I outlines very clearly in my post. A post you just called a good post.

paddy1990 wrote: »

I've said emotions are myths.

Myths are things that do not exist at all. Emotions exist, whatever they might be. What they appear to be is an emergent attribute of the system itself. A self referential system that is self aware. I am not sure what is mythihcal or delusional about it.

paddy1990 wrote: »

My point is simply that Darwinist have to live in a subjective delusion in order to continue living

Again there is no delusion. The subjective entity is subjectively important to itself. And we are ok with that. You are making more of it than needs be. Or less of it, depending on how you look at it.

nozzferrahhtoo

catallus wrote: »

The OP questions the tenets of a scientific theory and gets ridiculed. He's only asking a question, not saying the theory's wrong.

Nice to ignore those of us who did no such thing, but answered him politely and patiently.

catallus wrote: »

The idea of an interdependant eco-system is a nice idea, and fits the current fad of evolution as we understand it. But it is surely untrue.

Why is that then?

catallus wrote: »

If it were true then any extinction of a species or sub-species would be catastrophic. But we know that this isn't so.

That is, again, not what we mean by interdependency. We are not talking about a house of cards where if one card is removed the whole lot falls down. But elements WITHIN the biosphere are interdependent.

But remember, over 95% of the species that ever existed ARE extinct. So do not under estimate just how easily a catastrophic cascade of extinction can and does happen.

catallus wrote: »

If it were then we would have died out when our ancestors hunted the dinosaurs to extinction.

You think what happened now? Can you give me a time line on this one?

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

Well other than the fact that most procreation is born out of attraction to a mate, no I cant.

Good, then for several reasons I think we can agree that talking about species extinction in relation to homosexuality is a red herring and we can remove it from the rhetoric forthwith. This is progress at least!

GreeBo wrote: »

Perhaps its tied to something else thats overwhelmingly positive, perhaps it is dying out, who knows, I dont think we are dealing in absolutes here.

The most likely hypothesis, which I hope I get to later in this post, would in fact EXACTLY mean it is tied to something positive. I am replying to your post as I read it so I hope I get to it later. I will asterix it for now*

GreeBo wrote: »

I think using a hive community to draw conclusions about humanity is fundamentally flawed tbh

Then it is lucky I did no such thing! What I did was to use a genetic truth about hive communities to show a similar genetic truth in genetics as a whole. Which is that a gene SPECIFICALLY CODING that the individual expressing that gene WILL NEVER reproduce.... still propagates through the gene pool. And this fact is monumentally important in relation to the points you have been attempting to make thus far.

When a species of any type has genes for non reproducing individuals, those genes still actively and successfully propagate through the species. And this is not a "flawed" point to make at all. TBH.

GreeBo wrote: »

to me that implies some sort of collective intelligence and self sacrifice by genes, hows does the gene in Man1 know if its expressed in his brother or not? I think thats a flawed view.

Yes. Your question indicates a flawed view. You are right. No "knowledge" is required on behalf of the gene. No intelligence. At all. Merely "effect" is required and that is all. If a gene is carried by a number of individuals, but only expressed in a minority of them..... but in being expressed it increases somehow the reproductive success of the other carriers, then this is enough for evolutionary positive selection.

No intelligence or knowledge is required and I am somewhat baffled as to where you think that comes into it at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

But if that gene causes people to be gay and being gay means whoever is gay doesnt procreate (which I think is a logical conclusion from a biological standpoint) then that gene is serving no positive purpose and will die out unless it is intrinsically linked to some positive gene.

Again, genes are not required to have a positive "purpose" in order to be selected for and propogated. I have given you a list of different ways already where this can happen. I am not sure if repeating that list would be beneficial. Perhaps you have questions about that list instead?

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think that precludes it at all, who's to say that the behavour you describe isnt caused by a gene (s)?

Actually I think that homosexuality is most likely genetic but there is no gene FOR homosexuality.

I referred to this earlier in the hope you would question it but you passed over it. So I will answer the question unasked all the same.

If one thinks that sexuality is genetic AT ALL then the simple fact is you ALREADY contain the genes for being gay.

Why?

Because every human already contains all the genes for being the sex they are not. If you are a man, which I assume so far you are, then you have all the genes for being female. The genes for ovaries. The genes for a vagina. For breasts.

You already have nipples. In fact not only do you have them but in the presence of the right hormone they can lactate too. It is quite common for male babies in the first 6 months of breast fed life to lactate actually. It is called "witches milk" by the "common folk" but it is actually a result of the simple fact that every male child has genes for female breasts and lactation, and these genes are "activated" (expressed) by the lactase hormone in their own mothers milk. So many male children start lactating while feeding. My own son did this three times, and he is now 6 months old.

You have all of the genes already. INCLUDING the genetics required for sexual attraction to men.

When I say homosexuality has a genetic element but not a gene for it, what I mean by this is that a homosexual, like every heterosexual, already contains the genes "for" being attracted to the same sex. The only difference therefore between homosexuals and heterosexuals.... is that their genes for sexual attraction are EXPRESSED differently.

In other words, there is no genetic difference _at all_ between homosexuals and heterosexuals. It is merely WHICH genes that they both possess that are expressed (active) that is the difference.

*Which is why you issues of WHY HOMOSEXUAL GENES WOULD BE SELECTED FOR AND PROPAGATED is actually a non issue. A non question. A non point. Because the genes "for" homosexuality are reproduced by default and necessity.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

More likely that the combination of genes that makes people homosexual is very close to some combination of genes that has a positive impact on procreation.

EXACTLY. Right on the money!

The fact is that every male contains all the genes for being female. And vice versa. We contain both "sets" of genes entirely.

So the combination of genes that makes people homosexual are the genes they ALREADY CONTAIN for being a member of the "opposite" sex.

All that is required for homosexuality to occour is that that "wrong" (and I use that word lightly) pathway set of genes be expressed (active).

No miracles. No special genes. No gay gene. Nothing exciting at all. Simply a n expression of the gene set that would not "normally" be expressed in the sex of the host.

The genetic explanation for homosexuality is therefore likely to be so mundane and boring as to hardly warrant attention. Yet our species pours so much attention on it alas.

J C

GreeBo wrote: »

So one pair of big cats evolved into all the species of big cats we have today....hmm...they evolved....evolved...evolution is wrong....yet they evolved...they didn't get created...I'm confused J C, you just used evolution to explain creationism...isn't that contradictory?
unless .maybe Noah invented evolution?

I am an evolutionist (with a small 'e') ... natural selection and rapid speciation occur ... using pre-existing CFSI present in genetic information ... that was created via an input of intelligent action by God.:)

J C

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

If that was the case, then human skeletons would be visible in Ordovician rock layers. Why are they not visible there?

... they aren't in the 'Ordovician' layers for the very simple (circular) reason that it would immediately be re-named 'Quaternary', if they were found there.:)

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And we are vertebrates. And depending on your definition (such as that of Agent Smith in Matrix) we are a virus

I see ... a vertebrate virus ... so is Ebola and invertebrate one?:eek:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Labels.... category boxes..... only go so far. We are indeed apes based on the definition of what constitutes an ape. We are also many other things based on other definitions of other labels and boxes.

Apes, viruses ... and Men ... sounds like the title for a new Monty Python sketch!!!:)

That is why Creation Scientists are needed ... to keep some check on Evolutionist 'flights of fancy' ... and to keep them focused on reality.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I am an evolutionist (with a small 'e') ... natural selection and rapid speciation occur ... using pre-existing CFSI present in genetic information ... that was created via an input of intelligent action by God.:)

Not according your own definitions....

J C wrote: »

Its both a Creationist and an Evolutionist theory ... the Creationist version involves an omnipotent God ... while the Evolutionist theory involves nothing but muck ... and time.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I see ... a vertebrate virus ... so is Ebola and invertebrate one?:eek:

Apes, viruses ... and Men ... sounds like the title for a new Monty Python sketch!!!:)

That is why Creation Scientists are needed ... to keep some check on Evolutionist 'flights of fancy' ... and to keep them focused on reality.:)

Says the person who suggests humanity is descended from a golem.

Tordelback

J C wrote: »

... they aren't in the 'Ordovician' layers for the very simple (circular) reason that it would immediately be re-named 'Quaternary', if they were found there.:)

You've heard of stratigraphy, right?

Cianmcliam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

EXACTLY. Right on the money!

The fact is that every male contains all the genes for being female. And vice versa. We contain both "sets" of genes entirely.

So the combination of genes that makes people homosexual are the genes they ALREADY CONTAIN for being a member of the "opposite" sex.

All that is required for homosexuality to occour is that that "wrong" (and I use that word lightly) pathway set of genes be expressed (active).

No miracles. No special genes. No gay gene. Nothing exciting at all. Simply a n expression of the gene set that would not "normally" be expressed in the sex of the host.

The genetic explanation for homosexuality is therefore likely to be so mundane and boring as to hardly warrant attention. Yet our species pours so much attention on it alas.

In fairness, I think the question isn't whether or not genes play some role, clearly they should do. The questions that are more tricky are:

Is entirely determined by genes or is some other factor causing genes to be expressed in this way (eg. mother's hormones during gestation)? If so then we can't just shrug our shoulders and say 'genes are the answer so the question is inane'.

Is it an adaptation that conferred a reproductive advantage on carriers of a specific set of genes? If so why has it not spread through the population or if it is maladaptive why has it not disappeared?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Floods cause single layer, largely disordered sedimentation with a gradient based on particle density, not multiple layers.

Remarkably fine layering occur in large scale floods ... these thousands of very fine rock layers were laid down in a matter of hours during the Mount Saint Helen's eruption and flood

http://www.rtgmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/helen-layer.jpg

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If I knew where you lived I would drive about after you all day screaming that sentence into a megaphone punctuated with an earsplitting klaxon. Just to demonstrate that you will never ****ing get it.

That would be megaphone diplomacy!!!!:)

J C

SW wrote: »

Says the person who suggests humanity is descended from a golem.

... says the person who suggests that humanity is descended from a blob.:D

Wereghost

J C wrote: »

That is why Creation Scientists are needed

There is no such thing as Creation Science; Young Earth Creationism is about denial of known reality in favour of a preferred conclusion and is therefore counter-scientific by nature.

J C

Tordelback wrote: »

You've heard of stratigraphy, right?

... ... so how do you explain polystrate fossils?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/lifesciences-polystrate_fossil.jpg

http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/polystrate_trees_wide.jpg
Either these trees stood there for millions of years, while the rock layers were laid down ... or they were rapidly buried during the Flood.
I'm going with the latter!!!