atheists

[megaman125]

That’s cause I wasn’t making a claim about scientific evidence there. I was simply saying that the animal could have existed and be considered transitional and not have been the first terrestrial tetrapod. There could have been more developed terrestrial tetrapods at that time. Again, I am not making a scientific claim. I am just saying that the way you tried to counter one of the reasons it wasn’t transitional, and one of the reasons you are trying to discard the model, does nothing to invalidate the claims made about it.

So claims about fossils being transitional are not scientific claims, understood.

I don’t need scientific evidence for that, because it is a question of logic while working in the claims and definitions being used.

It isn't logical to assume animals can evolve into other animals just becuase you assume some fossil is a link between the 2 animals. That's nothing more than story telling and assuming the conclusion, which I see no reason to do. Oh well, at least you admitted it wasn't scientific.

Well what evidence are you looking for?

Seriously, I've been clamoring about this for the last 7 or so pages. I want an EXPERIEMENT (since the scientific method, if being followed) that DEMONSTRATES the hypothesis that a PURELY ASEXUAL organism can evolve and transition into a PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organism. If you cannot provide such a repeatable and testible experiement, than I see no reason to accept the hypothesis as valid. Is there any part of this you need me to be more specific about?

Are you referring to some eukaryotes being able to change from haploid to diploid? These exist in eukaryotes we see today, it is usually known as ploidy cycles. It is beneficial to the organism, and that’s why it is selected for, but it can occur (and does occur), with single celled eukaryotes when it doesn’t benefit them. It is just something that happens and we still see it happening in asexual eukaryotes today, one of the articles I cited goes over this. It is not guided by any conscious being, but the selective process is guided by the parameters that are set up by the surrounding environment.

Exactly, it's not guided by a conscious being, so you can't tell me that evolution is selecting something based on the benefits it brings, because that's something only a conscious being who is guiding evolution would be able to do. I'm not going to let you play both sides of the fence.

I agree with you when you say that just because something is benefited does not mean it will occur. It is one of the most important parts of evolutions to understand and it explains why so many of the organisms we see are so awkward and suboptimal “designs”. But in this situation the evidence exists that shows the evolution of sex and I have linked articles that explain aspects of it. The genes that were duplicated to allow for this change are understood the mechanisms that allowed for it are known, and the environments that would have selected for it are known to have existed many time periods throughout earth’s history (heck, even today!). There are plenty more articles that exist on this topic and it is pretty easy to find large lists of them. Maybe if you read some of the papers that showed it.

Articles and papers are just text, they are not a physical scientific experiement like I am asking for. Anyone can put words on paper or tell a story with words, that doesn't make it true. Ancient Aliens is a good example of that.

If you are looking for someone to take an asexual eukaryote that doesn’t already have all of the genes involved with sex or meiosis, which are really hard to find ( I am not even sure if they exist anymore), and then put it in an environment and expect the EXACT SAME mutations that would lead to all the specific details that define biological sex (though there are varying definitions for what that is) than you are asking for a nearly impossible feat.

I'm looking for scientific evidence to validate the claim that PURELY ASEXUAL organisms can evolve and transition into PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organisms. If you say it's a nearly impossible feat, then there is absolutely no reason for me to beleive these events happened the way evolutionists claim it happened. Plain and simple. You can try and fluff it up all you want, but I'm going to keep drawing you back to the basic premise and problems at hand.

The “assumption” is being derived from a wide body of evidence that are from different fields of biology. Patterns are set up as precedence based on body of evidence and often get referred to as laws. The assumptions that are being used in this context are very similar to the ones used in physics. When we look at big systems we assume a lot of things from the other experiments that have been done over the years because they have been shown to be the case over and over and over. The same goes for this scenario. If we don’t do this then it is impossible to claim to “know” anything.

That's fine if you want to assume and beleive things about what supposedly happened "billions of years ago." You can beleive what you want, but when all you have are assumptions, we're not going to jump at every chance to start believing your radical claims. Face it, these beliefs about what happened billions of years ago is just another religion trying to disguise itself as absolute fact within our school system. I'll say it again (because I don't mind repeating this part), I can't wait until this stuff is taken out of the schools.

What kind of experiment would you suggest be conducted to show that it is or isn’t transitional?

How about a demonstrantion that animal A can evolve or transition into animal B? Or even if it can show physical signs that it's even started developing towards whatever transition between A and B that you claim? This might be too general, and it's getting to be a big discussion, so let's revisit this and focus on one thing at a time, starting with the whole asexual to sexual transition I've been wanting to talk about. All this stuff about transitional fossils was started by someone else.

Well, restate it because I can’t get a clear picture of what you want from the posts I’ve read. The things I have seen you state clearly have been insane challenges that can be compared to "I want someone to repeat the writing of the bible without reference to know that it was, in fact, written!"

All I'm doing is asking that evolution, which claims to be science, follow the scientific method. If it doesn't want to follow the scientific method, I'm perfectly fine with that. But if that's the case, then let's be consistent and stop calling it science and get it removed from the science classroom.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Saying "it's a possibility" is not scientific evidence, nor does it follow the scientific method.

Absolutely it does. When we evaluate historical claims using the scientific method, we look at what evidence we have as to what happened, as well as known possibilities for how it could have happened. This allows us to form hypotheses, which we can then test by looking for and gathering new evidence.

Let's say that we have evidence that Alexander's army was in a first location in year x, and in a second distant location in year x+1.
We take a look at the possibilities, and say, "it's possible they traveled on foot on routes 1 and 2, or took ships on route 3." This is based on our historical knowledge as to what methods were available at the time.
Then investigate further - we dig at likely places for campsites along each route to see if we can find remnants of an army; we examine any surviving historical accounts from the period in locations along each route; we examine artifacts from Alexander's men themselves to see if that have anything unique to one of those routes. All of this is the proper use of the scientific method to evaluate historical claims.

The same general process can be used for historical claims in biology. We have evidence that eukaryotes developed a sexual reproductive process, so we first determine what possible paths for development such a process could take and then we look for evidence in the genome that might help us determine which of these possible routes it actually took.

But evolution isn't falsified if, at a given point in science, we don't yet know for certain how a particular trait developed - any more than not knowing how Alexander got to Location 2 in Year X proves that Alexander never existed. It just means that our knowledge isn't perfect yet. It may never be.

The evidence for the common ancestry of life on Earth is overwhelming; it fits the many lines of evidence we see without contortion or strain. Scientifically speaking, there simply isn't a viable alternative that's even in the same ballpark.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Exactly, it's not guided by a conscious being, so you can't tell me that evolution is selecting something based on the benefits it brings, because that's something only a conscious being who is guiding evolution would be able to do.

That's incorrect. The process of natural selection allows the selection of traits based on the mechanism of differential survival. Creatures with a beneficial trait survive better and produce more offspring. So, yes, evolution is selecting something based on the benefit it brings, without the intervention of a conscious being. This is a mechanism we observe all the time in the natural world.

 

[megaman125]

Absolutely it does. When we evaluate historical claims using the scientific method, we look at what evidence we have as to what happened, as well as known possibilities for how it could have happened. This allows us to form hypotheses, which we can then test by looking for and gathering new evidence.

No, there's no such thing as scientific evidence for historical claims. That's just contradictory. Then again, self-contradictions are a natural trait of evolutionists. Who needs logic and reason when you can pull as many double standards as you want and claim they're valid?

But evolution isn't falsified if, at a given point in science, we don't yet know for certain how a particular trait developed - any more than not knowing how Alexander got to Location 2 in Year X proves that Alexander never existed. It just means that our knowledge isn't perfect yet. It may never be.

Oh look, it's the typical "we don't know it yet, but just have faith that one day, maybe we will." No thanks, I don't put blind faith in man's ideas and religious doctrines.

The evidence for the common ancestry of life on Earth is overwhelming; it fits the many lines of evidence we see without contortion or strain. Scientifically speaking, there simply isn't a viable alternative that's even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, it's overwhelming alright, an overwhelming amount of conjecture and assumptions and nothing more. I see once again you decided to present me with all this story telling instead of the evidence I've been asking for. Then it's like some big mystery to you guys when we say we don't believe all these claims about billions of years ago.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No, there's no such thing as scientific evidence for historical claims.

Certainly there are. Cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology and archaeology are examples of sciences that mainly use scientific evidence in the form of data gathered about past events. You're denying whole fields of valid scientific inquiry and ignoring whole types of scientific evidence when you say there's no such thing.

That's just contradictory.

Explain the contradiction.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, it's overwhelming alright, an overwhelming amount of conjecture and assumptions and nothing more.

Can you please name three books on the subject that you have read that, in your assessment, were nothing more than conjecture and assumptions?

 

[Ichabod]

Articles and papers are just text, they are not a physical scientific experiement like I am asking for. Anyone can put words on paper or tell a story with words, that doesn't make it true.

Atheists could say the same about the Bible.

 

[Ichabod]

Can you please name three books on the subject that you have read that, in your assessment, were nothing more than conjecture and assumptions?

Most people who reject evolution are poorly informed about the subject. They want to see a
monkey turn into a man but that's not how evolution works.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Would you say that people living longer and longer as generations pass is a sign of evolution? Or just a better understanding of medicine and nutrition?

 

[Cycel]

In yet my 10th or so atempt to take about that one topic, here's what I'm saying. If the claims of evolutionists are true, then the first living cell, which reproduced purely asexually, would have to evolve and become an organism that reproducing purely sexually. So where's the scientific evidence that demonstrates that this transition is possible? Do you have any idea how impossible such an evolution would be?

I started a new thread to address the issue you raised. The current thread has become a catch-all for every objection to evolution ever raised.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

What about black people? Is that some sort of evidence of evolution too? Different skin pigmentations to adapt to the sun in hot climates?

 

[Ichabod]

What about black people? Is that some sort of evidence of evolution too? Different skin pigmentations to adapt to the sun in hot climates?

I've always wondered this as well. We have quite the diversity of ethnicity on this planet. It probably
had something to do with different groups of people migrating to different parts of the world a long
time ago. The environment and climate affected their appearance perhaps?

 

[Cycel]

Would you say that people living longer and longer as generations pass is a sign of evolution? Or just a better understanding of medicine and nutrition?

Better medicine, better nutrition, more advanced science. Nothing to to with evolution.

Welcome to the forum IntoTheVoid.

 

[Cycel]

What about black people? Is that some sort of evidence of evolution too? Different skin pigmentations to adapt to the sun in hot climates?

If you accept evolution the current idea is that humans evolved originally in Africa and migrated to other areas of the world at a later date. Black populations evolved lighter pigmentation as they moved north. The human body requires exposure to ultra violet light for the production of vitamin D. Lighter skin is a reflection of that need. Dark skin protects against excessive exposure. This is the simple explanation.

Void, where do you stand on evolution? Are you a creationist?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

If you accept evolution the current idea is that humans evolved originally in Africa and migrated to other areas of the world at a later date. Black populations evolved lighter pigmentation as they moved north. The human body requires exposure to ultra violet light for the production of vitamin D. Lighter skin is a reflection of that need. Dark skin protects against excessive exposure. This is the simple explanation.

Void, where do you stand on evolution? Are you a creationist?

No I'm not creationist. I'm not entirely sold on evolution either. I have no interest in asexuality, carbon dating, or rock layers etc. I don't know enough about those things to form an opinion on them.

I like to consider the more immediate and tangible things like Skin Colour, life span, our appendix etc. those things seem to be more accessible to everyone.

You know when you leave a piece of bread out for days then it slowly becomes engulfed in bacteria? That's pretty much how I view us, bacteria on the planet. Engulfing it and slowly destroying it.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Oh and thanks for the welcome!

And before anyone asks me why as an atheist I've signed up to a Christian chat room. It's very simple. I frequent atheist forums, Muslim forums, and other religions too. There are lots of different types of people in this world and we should make an effort to engage with as many types as we can. I'm not here to push my point of view or to belittle anyone else's. Just here for the experience.

 

[megaman125]

Oh and thanks for the welcome!

And before anyone asks me why as an atheist I've signed up to a Christian chat room. It's very simple. I frequent atheist forums, Muslim forums, and other religions too. There are lots of different types of people in this world and we should make an effort to engage with as many types as we can. I'm not here to push my point of view or to belittle anyone else's. Just here for the experience.

If that's all true about you, then you will join Cycel as one of the few atheists I enjoy chatting with. Welcome.

 

[danschance]

No I'm not creationist. I'm not entirely sold on evolution either. I have no interest in asexuality, carbon dating, or rock layers etc. I don't know enough about those things to form an opinion on them.

I like to consider the more immediate and tangible things like Skin Colour, life span, our appendix etc. those things seem to be more accessible to everyone.

You know when you leave a piece of bread out for days then it slowly becomes engulfed in bacteria? That's pretty much how I view us, bacteria on the planet. Engulfing it and slowly destroying it.

Some people assume the appendix has no function and is proof of an evolutionary quirk. Some research shows it does have a function. Here is an article that delves into this. Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal?: Scientific American

Here is another interesting story about the appendix. A boy swallowed lead pellets and many of them became trapped in the appendix. This story augments the previous story. Source of Boy's Mysterious Lead Poisoning Was in an Unlikely Place | LiveScience

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Some people assume the appendix has no function and is proof of an evolutionary quirk. Some research shows it does have a function. Here is an article that delves into this. Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal?: Scientific American

Here is another interesting story about the appendix. A boy swallowed lead pellets and many of them became trapped in the appendix. This story augments the previous story. Source of Boy's Mysterious Lead Poisoning Was in an Unlikely Place | LiveScience

I assumed the appendix was once our second stomach, but we don't eat the same types of food we once did so there is no need for it anymore.

I've never done any research into that though. I think my dad told me it when I was a kid. And my dad never lied!

Well, apart from when he told me that gypsies stole children, or when he told me that he buried my dead hamster in the park but he really flushed it down the toilet, or had me convinced that the local library was infact a prison for naughty young boys.

Hmm actually he lied about a lot things lol

 

[megaman125]

I assumed the appendix was once our second stomach, but we don't eat the same types of food we once did so there is no need for it anymore.

That's another point that I've heard brought up a lot.

I've never done any research into that though. I think my dad told me it when I was a kid. And my dad never lied!

Well, apart from when he told me that gypsies stole children, or when he told me that he buried my dead hamster in the park but he really flushed it down the toilet, or had me convinced that the local library was infact a prison for naughty young boys.

Hmm actually he lied about a lot things lol

I'm surprised you didn't mention Santa in there.