NationStates Jolt Archive

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

To Creationists: Show me God, and while your at it, have him give me a slightly larger brain, because I'd like one.

Unless you can prove God exists in a labratory, don't respond.

EDITING:
This was intended to point out that both sides demand hard pproof of their point, which simply isn't possible in either case (not to their satisfaction, at least). Consequently, I was attacked by both sides, which I expected, because nobody saw what I was going for. What I was going for was this:
Evolution/creation threads are a waste of time because you can't onvince either side to switch.
Therefore, the question cannot be definitively answered to the satisfaction of a large majority.
Since the question cannot be definitively answered, it is moronic to criticize a person based on a belief in A or B.
My arrogance aside, does anyone see flaws in that particular line of reasoning?

I'm going to respond just to kill your arrogant thesis.

It might surprise you to hear this, but not all science happens in a laboratory.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

Well... how about I just respond to comment on what a truly disturbing lack of understanding of science and evolution that statement represents and then I'll just leave it at that. Unless of course you'd like me to come back and explain in more detail.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

.
That isn't required to prove that evolution occurs. You only need to see one species turning into another. Since we now have a bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon, it's proven.

That isn't required to prove that evolution occurs. You only need to see one species turning into another. Since we now have a bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon, it's proven.
That isn't speciation, that's adaptation.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

Nice straw man. See you later.

By requireing that everything be proven in labs you throw away allot of natural sciences, the best way to examin living things is in their natural habitat, not a clean room where they freak out.

Your thesis is seriously flawed unless you can post something that is actualy feasible, don't resond...

That isn't speciation, that's adaptation.
When it's a fricking new species, it's speciation. The thing synthesizes a new enzyme. That isn't adaptation.

When it's a fricking new species, it's speciation. The thing synthesizes a new enzyme. That isn't adaptation.
Ever taken a biology class? The ability to make a different enzyme isn't speciation. I can make different ezymes than you, which of us isn't the human?

Damn.

To all of you: I am not suggesting that this is the way science works. Also, I intentionally phrased this first post to be arrogant, mostly as a parody of the more extreme elements on either side. I've heard so many Evolutionists say they'll never believe in intelligent design untill God comes down to Earth and tells it to them, and then they'll demand a miracle as proof. I've heard many creationist say that untill their goldfish walks out and turns on the TV, they'll never believe in evolution.
What I am saying is that there is no way to convince either side, and I'm sorry if my initial phrasing was offensive to anyone.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

To Creationists: Show me God, and while your at it, have him give me a slightly larger brain, because I'd like one.

Unless you can prove God exists in a labratory, don't respond.


If no one responds, we can consider the question unproven, and we can have an end to these circular threads.

Don't have to. Belief in God requires faith. Proofs negate faith, therefore you can't have proofs of Creationism. QED.

For the record, I believe in BOTH... God created the Universe, evolution is just his upgrade patch release system....

When it's a fricking new species, it's speciation. The thing synthesizes a new enzyme. That isn't adaptation.


Thisis not a new species, just the same species that has addapted to a new food source.

Ever taken a biology class? The ability to make a different enzyme isn't speciation. I can make different ezymes than you, which of us isn't the human?
It started synthesizing an enzyme that digests nylon. That is not adaptation.

Besides, both of us synthesize the same enzymes, just in slightly different proportions. Have you ever taken a biology class?

When it's a fricking new species, it's speciation. The thing synthesizes a new enzyme. That isn't adaptation.

I thought you were leaving when you saw my straw man. Maybe when you spotted the second straw man you decided to stick around.

Damn.

To all of you: I am not suggesting that this is the way science works. Also, I intentionally phrased this first post to be arrogant, mostly as a parody of the more extreme elements on either side. I've heard so many Evolutionists say they'll never believe in intelligent design untill God comes down to Earth and tells it to them, and then they'll demand a miracle as proof. I've heard many creationist say that untill their goldfish walks out and turns on the TV, they'll never believe in evolution.
What I am saying is that there is no way to convince either side, and I'm sorry if my initial phrasing was offensive to anyone.


Congrats man you have jsut produced a steaming pile of flamebait

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

To Creationists: Show me God, and while your at it, have him give me a slightly larger brain, because I'd like one.

Unless you can prove God exists in a labratory, don't respond.


If no one responds, we can consider the question unproven, and we can have an end to these circular threads.

You assume god is testable in a labratory
By his/her deffinition he/she has to exist out of the philsical bounds of the universe

You also assume that demonstration of evolution in a single lifetime is fesable ... its not

I repeat:

Steaming pile.

You assume god is testable in a labratory
By his/her deffinition he/she has to exist out of the philsical bounds of the universe

You also assume that demonstration of evolution in a single lifetime is fesable ... its not

No I don't assume that. Read the first page.

Thisis not a new species, just the same species that has addapted to a new food source.
IT SYNTHESIZES AN ENTIRELY NEW ENZYME THAT NO OTHER LIVING THING SYNTHESIZES! Do you even know what adaptation means? It has a change in its genetic code, and that is not fucking adaptation. Comprende?

I repeat:

Steaming pile.

Congratulations. You have the ability to repeat yourself one post later for no obvious reason. Unless you ocnsider the conjecture that God is not testable in labratory flamebait?

To those of you who haven't had an oppurtunity, go back and read the edited part of the original post. I think it clears up my first, admittedly unclear, post.

IT SYNTHESIZES AN ENTIRELY NEW ENZYME THAT NO OTHER LIVING THING SYNTHESIZES! Do you even know what adaptation means? It has a change in its genetic code, and that is not fucking adaptation. Comprende?


I do understand the term adaptation, and you have just described one. My genetic code is different from yours just like yours is different from the queen of england's. Are we all different species?

drop the obscenities please.

It started synthesizing an enzyme that digests nylon. That is not adaptation.

Besides, both of us synthesize the same enzymes, just in slightly different proportions. Have you ever taken a biology class?
No, we don't. Certain people produce enzymes that other people don't, which is why a small subgroup of the population appears to be immune to HIV. And producing an enzyme is a far cry from speciation. If I grew an extra arm, I still wouldn't be a new species.

I do understand the term adaptation, and you have just described one. My genetic code is different from yours just like yours is different from the queen of england's. Are we all different species?

No. You don't. Adaptation refers to changes in allele frequency, not massive changes in the genetic code that result in the synthesizing of a new enzyme.

EDITING:
This was intended to point out that both sides demand hard pproof of their point, which simply isn't possible in either case (not to their satisfaction, at least). Consequently, I was attacked by both sides, which I expected, because nobody saw what I was going for. What I was going for was this:
Evolution/creation threads are a waste of time because you can't onvince either side to switch.
Therefore, the question cannot be definitively answered to the satisfaction of a large majority.
Since the question cannot be definitively answered, it is moronic to criticize a person based on a belief in A or B.
My arrogance aside, does anyone see flaws in that particular line of reasoning?


Well done, it is no longer the steaming pile it was, unfortunately there will still be flaiming, thats the nature of the issue. I agree that they are a waste of time but what are we to do about it? Its a hot topic for those of us who want to waste time on an internet board.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.

To Creationists: Show me God, and while your at it, have him give me a slightly larger brain, because I'd like one.

Unless you can prove God exists in a labratory, don't respond.

EDITING:
This was intended to point out that both sides demand hard pproof of their point, which simply isn't possible in either case (not to their satisfaction, at least). Consequently, I was attacked by both sides, which I expected, because nobody saw what I was going for. What I was going for was this:
Evolution/creation threads are a waste of time because you can't onvince either side to switch.
Therefore, the question cannot be definitively answered to the satisfaction of a large majority.
Since the question cannot be definitively answered, it is moronic to criticize a person based on a belief in A or B.
My arrogance aside, does anyone see flaws in that particular line of reasoning?
So, how's it feel to have started this thing again?

So, how's it feel to have started this thing again?

I feel like a . . . what's the term . . . rank imbecile.
My intentions were good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so I suppose that isn't an acceptable excuse.

No, we don't. Certain people produce enzymes that other people don't, which is why a small subgroup of the population appears to be immune to HIV. And producing an enzyme is a far cry from speciation. If I grew an extra arm, I still wouldn't be a new species.
Sigh. The enzyme production is not what makes it a new species. The enzyme production is what makes this change not adaptation. The reason it is a new species is that scientists have studied it and come to the conclusion that it represents a new species.

Sigh. The enzyme production is not what makes it a new species. The enzyme production is what makes this change not adaptation. The reason it is a new species is that scientists have studied it and come to the conclusion that it represents a new species.
What defintion of species are you using? To me, a frameshift mutation that changes your eating habits is not speciation.

What defintion of species are you using? To me, a frameshift mutation that changes your eating habits is not speciation.

In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Can they interbreed?

(Note: if my definition is poor, please correct it)

In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Can they interbreed?

(Note: if my definition is poor, please correct it)
That is the generaly accepted deffinition that I know as well but I am hardly a biologest (comp geek)

In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Can they interbreed?

(Note: if my definition is poor, please correct it)
The Nylon Bug is a bacterium, I would assume it would reproduce asexually.

The Nylon Bug is a bacterium, I would assume it would reproduce asexually.

I must be drunk. I'm an engineering student, not a biologist, but even I know that. Sorry.

Damn.

To all of you: I am not suggesting that this is the way science works. Also, I intentionally phrased this first post to be arrogant, mostly as a parody of the more extreme elements on either side. I've heard so many Evolutionists say they'll never believe in intelligent design untill God comes down to Earth and tells it to them, and then they'll demand a miracle as proof. I've heard many creationist say that untill their goldfish walks out and turns on the TV, they'll never believe in evolution.
What I am saying is that there is no way to convince either side, and I'm sorry if my initial phrasing was offensive to anyone.

This is why I relegate my discussion on these matters to what is and is not science. I don't care if you believe the world popped into existence five minutes ago - you can't teach that in a science class. You want to believe it anyways? Fine. =)

What I was going for was this:
Evolution/creation threads are a waste of time because you can't onvince either side to switch.
Therefore, the question cannot be definitively answered to the satisfaction of a large majority.
Since the question cannot be definitively answered, it is moronic to criticize a person based on a belief in A or B.
My arrogance aside, does anyone see flaws in that particular line of reasoning?
You can convince people of similar view to your own; it has happened that people have been "converted" through forums (although very rarely); also, it is kinda fun debating your beliefs - it makes you think a little more than you might do otherwise.
Having said that, there is no proof that God doesn't exist, and no acceptable proof that he does.

I do understand the term adaptation, and you have just described one. My genetic code is different from yours just like yours is different from the queen of england's. Are we all different species?

drop the obscenities please.

Adaptation =! Mutation

This is why I relegate my discussion on these matters to what is and is not science. I don't care if you believe the world popped into existence five minutes ago - you can't teach that in a science class. You want to believe it anyways? Fine. =)
Exactly ... me and depub feel the same way on this :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I must be drunk. I'm an engineering student, not a biologist, but even I know that. Sorry.
Some bacteria reproduce sexually. Please try to understand what you're talking about, it makes debate go much more smoothly.

Adaptation =! Mutation
Hehehe I like that
(instead of != (not equal) it is =! (equal not)) :D

What defintion of species are you using? To me, a frameshift mutation that changes your eating habits is not speciation.
Not me. Scientists. They declared it to be a new species and I trust their judgement more than yours.

Not me. Scientists. They declared it to be a new species and I trust their judgement more than yours.
They also declared Darwins' finches to be seperate species, even though that isn't true. That's why that isn't taught anymore in real biology.

You can convince people of similar view to your own; it has happened that people have been "converted" through forums (although very rarely); also, it is kinda fun debating your beliefs - it makes you think a little more than you might do otherwise.
Having said that, there is no proof that God doesn't exist, and no acceptable proof that he does.

Although, admittedly it would be ironic if I argued for a cessation of debate on evolution through debate, but that isn't what I was doing.
I'm arguing that ti's moronic to label a creationist a "hut-dwelling, Amish zealot" and it's wrong to castigate evolutionists because they don't agree with you.

Not me. Scientists. They declared it to be a new species and I trust their judgement more than yours.

I also trust the judgement of world leaders (as a whle) more than I trust yours. But if, say, Bush told me that God told him to fight Iraq, I wouldn't believe him. Similarly, although scientists as a whole are more trustworthy than the general population, I don't believe everything that some scientists say.

I also trust the judgement of world leaders (as a whle) more than I trust yours. But if, say, Bush told me that God told him to fight Iraq, I wouldn't believe him. Similarly, although scientists as a whole are more trustworthy than the general population, I don't believe everything that some scientists say.
So, what you're saying is that I should trust scientists on matters of science, or, to be more accurate, I shouldn't trust biologists on matters of biology?

If you need me, I'll be in the corner, laughing my ass off.

So, what you're saying is that I should trust scientists on matters of science, or, to be more accurate, I shouldn't trust biologists on matters of biology?

If you need me, I'll be in the corner, laughing my ass off.

He was more saying that you should not accept what they say without question

He was more saying that you should not accept what they say without question
I don't. However, after checking the little information I have found, I have come to the conclusion that the scientists are most likely correct.

I don't. However, after checking the little information I have found, I have come to the conclusion that the scientists are most likely correct.
What was their basis in calling it a new species? Keep in mind, some scientists still say Darwin's finches are different species.

What was their basis in calling it a new species? Keep in mind, some scientists still say Darwin's finches are different species.
Last I heard, they did genetic studies and found enough differences. The species line is blurred among prokaryotes anyways, so it could be a matter of intepretation.

He was more saying that you should not accept what they say without question

Thank you. That is precisely what I was saying.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs and evolving into men.

Unless you can show me evolution in a labratory, don't respond.


Dammit, give me three billion more years!

Dammit, give me three billion more years!
Your time starts now.

Dammit, give me three billion more years!

Okay. Just freeze my mind cryogenically, since by then you'll no doubt be able to download me into a robot or something. :D

I will make one long thing to seem intelligent but people who know me say I should be normal and I would be a genius.

First of all after similations, evelution was proven. Anyway we are currently evolving such as the fact that we are goin to loose our pinky toe, and our pinky finger is going to be like a second thumb. Neanderthals are known to have existed which were a species of human that were made extinct by cro magnums. Evolution is a process of adaption that eventually lead to a different species although an adapted animal is a different type of animal then an unadapted animal i.e. the new influenza is more dangerous then the normal one and shouldnt considered to be the same species.

Now on creationalism, the pope said some/most things in the bibal are metaphorical. So it is the Christens (or should it be: So it are the Christens? It is more grammatically correct unless the Christens I used is a collective noun) that are mainly creationalists such as in the tenesse(? one of those type of states) schools teaching creationalism(funny case. How did it end?) and removing decimals from the cyallbus(might be spelt wrong :(. Anyway they said it was to hard and they didnt want to confuse the students anymore. They are only other places. I wonder if they accept a penny in that state (get penny has a value of .01 dollar), maybe everything below a dollar is free (get it no decimals no rounding :)).) and made pi exactly three(based on something said in the Bibal although, they didnt have as good of a measuring way as us.).

I am a Roman Catholic. Why is it called Roman Catholicism though, it was moved to Constaninople, thats where Constantine ruled? Oh well. Emperor Leo II(or was it the V or X?) was an idiot, he reminds me of Henry VIII(Ha ha ha.)

Okay. Just freeze my mind cryogenically, since by then you'll no doubt be able to download me into a robot or something. :D

Your brain would be dead :P since there is a temp X where your cells cant survive

Hehehe I like that
(instead of != (not equal) it is =! (equal not)) :D

<> is the symbol for not equal. Long Live Visual Basic

For the record, I believe in BOTH... God created the Universe, evolution is just his upgrade patch release system....Thank you Markreich! Proof that creationism and evolutionism can coexist. Will people please stop arguing about which is right? We could say God created all the unicellular organisms at the beginning, and then allowed them to evolve into higher life forms on their own. Or something. (i.e. God created the hydrogen atom, the helium atom, and the lithium atom. Then He merged different atoms together to form new atoms. And then the new atoms He merged to form new ones…and so on and so forth.)

Hehehe I like that
(instead of != (not equal) it is =! (equal not)) :D

Ok, so I'm not a programmer. hehe

They also declared Darwins' finches to be seperate species, even though that isn't true. That's why that isn't taught anymore in real biology.

It is difficult to classify species in prokaryotes. The best we can do is label them by differences in the genome and what they do.

Meanwhile, at the very least, the nylon bug debunks the "no mutation can ever help you and bring in any new information!" argument we hear so often.

Okay. Just freeze my mind cryogenically, since by then you'll no doubt be able to download me into a robot or something. :D

You'll have to wait a while even for that - we can't really properly freeze people's brains yet.

Thank you Markreich! Proof that creationism and evolutionism can coexist. Will people please stop arguing about which is right? We could say God created all the unicellular organisms at the beginning, and then allowed them to evolve into higher life forms on their own. Or something. (i.e. God created the hydrogen atom, the helium atom, and the lithium atom. Then He merged different atoms together to form new atoms. And then the new atoms He merged to form new ones…and so on and so forth.)

If we said that, it wouldn't be Creationism, it would be creation. =)

But yes, the idea of creation and evolutionary theory can and do coexist for many of us.

Your brain would be dead :P since there is a temp X where your cells cant survive

Only if you got ice crystals in the cells. A lot of them woudl survive if you could freeze them down w/out ice crystals breaking them apart and then rethaw later.

Okay. Just freeze my mind cryogenically, since by then you'll no doubt be able to download me into a robot or something. :D

for 3 billion years? thats rather wishful thinking to assume that human beings will still exist then

for 3 billion years? thats rather wishful thinking to assume that human beings will still exist then

Meh.

Thank you Markreich! Proof that creationism and evolutionism can coexist. Will people please stop arguing about which is right? We could say God created all the unicellular organisms at the beginning, and then allowed them to evolve into higher life forms on their own. Or something. (i.e. God created the hydrogen atom, the helium atom, and the lithium atom. Then He merged different atoms together to form new atoms. And then the new atoms He merged to form new ones…and so on and so forth.)

Nope, cos that is a personal choice to become a theistic evolutionist. Just cos one of a group believes in something doesn't mean the rest will accept it. Or are we not allowed to behave as individuals anymore? :mad:

Nope, cos that is a personal choice to become a theistic evolutionist. Just cos one of a group believes in something doesn't mean the rest will accept it. Or are we not allowed to behave as individuals anymore? :mad:

In truth, from the viewpoint of a scientific theory, a theist scientist wouldn't think of evolution any differently than an atheist scientist or an agnostic scientist. The matter of religion simply doesn't come into it, so anyone can have any opition on that matter and still be a scientist.

Very, very simple-
To Evolutionists: Show me, in labratory conditions, fish growing legs

Ever seen a tadpole? They start out as a fish then grow legs and become frogs

Thank you Markreich! Proof that creationism and evolutionism can coexist. Will people please stop arguing about which is right? We could say God created all the unicellular organisms at the beginning, and then allowed them to evolve into higher life forms on their own. Or something. (i.e. God created the hydrogen atom, the helium atom, and the lithium atom. Then He merged different atoms together to form new atoms. And then the new atoms He merged to form new ones…and so on and so forth.)

Somebody else has my POV? :cool:

My favorite retort to a scientific type is thus: I agree with evolution. Now prove to me scientifically how the universe began.
Inevitably, the Big Bang come in.
So... what cause the Big Bang?
Well, there was this massive rush of hydrogen and...
How'd that get there?
Well, before...
Then it's hardly the start, eh?
But....
So something or somebody created what the the Big Bang used, right?
Um...

;)

(no, its not a proof that God exists. God needs no such proof. It just proves that science, as good as it may be, does not have all the answers because it relies on the human mind. Which is a finite quantity.)