The coming Ice Age

[Jaydog]

Which is a big problem for both theories since they both cannot explain origins. Poof! Here we have something, we can't explain how it got here so we're going to say it doesn't matter but now we're going to study it using laws and logic (which we can't explain the origins of either). That's a pretty nice way to conduct science, dismiss what you can't explain.

What do you expect? They don't have evidence of evolving species either, of course they have now deemed all things unexplainable "random mutations" it's the magic of the universe, just sprinkle a little on a fish and poof it becomes an amphibian, sprinkle a little more and poof it's a rabbit :haha::haha::haha:

 

[CrustyJeep]

They don't have evidence of evolving species either

:rofl:

 

[whatthe?]

Science doesn't dismiss the questions of the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Many scientists are trying to answer those questions.

That doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution doesn't care where life came from. Like Crusty said before, we don't need to know how the first self-replicating molecules formed in order to explain the evolution of amphibians from fish. We also don't even need to know where DNA came from to explain how amphibians came from fish. We know how DNA works and that is enough for the theory of evolution. Do you need to know how your wrench was made to be able to use it to turn a bolt? Or to explain how it turns a linear force applied by your hand into a torque applied to the bolt?

Scientists studying abiogenesis don't care about the origin of the Earth.

Scientists studying the formation of the Earth don't care about the origin of the Milky Way.

Again, gravitational theory doesn't explain the origin of gravity. Germ theory doesn't explain the origin of germs. Atomic theory doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Plate tectonics doesn't explain the origin of the Earth and its plates.

And here we are back to where we left off several pages ago, yeah. Gravity, germ, atomic theory doesn't have to explain origins because the theory doesn't address it. Evolution does. Your previous definition "change in allele frequency over time" is one definition of evolution, not the theory. The theory says we all came from a common ancestor, hence origins. An arbitrary staring point was chosen and as such it can arbitrarily be disagreed with. I guess from now on we should just repost what we've already typed.

 

[whatthe?]

Jaydog, don't waste your time with crustyjeep, he never has anything to add. At least Zedmikey is intelligent and has thoughtfull ideas/arguments. Crustyjeep-not so much.

 

[CrustyJeep]

And here we are back to where we left off several pages ago, yeah. Gravity, germ, atomic theory doesn't have to explain origins because the theory doesn't address it. Evolution does. Your previous definition "change in allele frequency over time" is one definition of evolution, not the theory. The theory says we all came from a common ancestor, hence origins. An arbitrary staring point was chosen and as such it can arbitrarily be disagreed with. I guess from now on we should just repost what we've already typed.

So what's your guess on the origin of life?

 

[TreeClimber]

So what's your guess on the origin of life?

6 days, then a day of rest.

 

[CrustyJeep]

6 days, then a day of rest.

But that doesn't explain origins either.

 

[whatthe?]

My apologies Crustyjeep, I did not realize you were still here. Please read post 214 and then you may go.

 

[Jaydog]

:rofl:

Wow, really? If they do have it, then why don't they show us? Maybe it's kept at area 51 with all the aliens. :corn:

Jaydog, don't waste your time with crustyjeep, he never has anything to add. At least Zedmikey is intelligent and has thoughtfull ideas/arguments. Crustyjeep-not so much.

Glen is intelligent too, but sometimes he just likes to sit back and poke at ya, he does know a lot about this debate. :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

Wow, really? If they do have it, then why don't they show us? Maybe it's kept at area 51 with all the aliens. :corn:

I don't think it would fit at area 51.

 

[CrustyJeep]

My apologies Crustyjeep, I did not realize you were still here. Please read post 214 and then you may go.

If you had any place in this discussion, you'd answer my question. It wasn't exactly difficult.

 

[Jaydog]

I don't think it would fit at area 51.

While I will agree that the imagination is huge, the physical evidence could probably fit in a shoe box :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

While I will agree that the imagination is huge, the physical evidence could probably fit in a shoe box :D

Well if that's the case, then you ought to be able to find a website dedicated to exposing that shoe box full of physical evidence.

Repeating the same baseless claim over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Jaydog]

Repeating the same baseless claim over and over doesn't make it true.

Exactly my point :awesomework:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Exactly my point :awesomework:

You're saying that a claim that there is a very very large quantity of physical evidence supporting evolution is a baseless one? That not just baseless, it's plain old fashioned dishonest. You can believe anything you want, but trying to convince others that what you believe is correct by distorting the truth serves no one.

And now, in a valiant attempt to impress whatthe, I present a Wikipedia article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

...and this quote therein:

approximately 250,000 fossil species are known.[50] The number of individual fossils this represents varies greatly from species to species, but many millions of fossils have been recovered: for instance, more than three million fossils from the last Ice Age have been recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles.

I'd like to see the shoes that came out of that box :flipoff:

 

[ZedMikey]

And here we are back to where we left off several pages ago, yeah. Gravity, germ, atomic theory doesn't have to explain origins because the theory doesn't address it. Evolution does. Your previous definition "change in allele frequency over time" is one definition of evolution, not the theory. The theory says we all came from a common ancestor, hence origins. An arbitrary staring point was chosen and as such it can arbitrarily be disagreed with. I guess from now on we should just repost what we've already typed.

A single common ancestor to all life and the origin of life are very different things.

Here's where things get fuzzy... what is life? Are self-replicating molecules alive? Are viruses alive?

Abiogenesis hypothesizes about the origin of self-replicating molecules from non-living (or non-self-replicating, if you prefer) molecules. I consider self-replicating molecules to be a form of life. It appears that view is shared by many (most?) evolutionary biologists.

Self-replicating molecules, however, have nothing to do evolution, as they don't have genes to pass on to successive generations, hence no change in allele frequency. Life already existed by the time biological evolution was even possible.

There is no arbitrary starting point for evolution. The starting point was no sooner than genes could be passed from generation to generation, and this (by our current scientific understanding) ability arose some time after the origin of life. Not at the same time.

 

[ZedMikey]

I'd like to see the shoes that came out of that box :flipoff:

Maybe these?

 

[whatthe?]

Maybe these?

:haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

As for evidence... Crusty has posted a link with a ton of cited sources that would be wonderful reads. I will narrow it down just a tad and offer you one specific example.

Ensatina eschscholtzi

A <--> B <--> C <--> D <--> E <--> F <--> G <-/-> A

This is the classic ring species example of Darwinian evolution at work. Seven subspecies that can each reproduce with its adjacent subspecies... except for the two subspecies at either end of the ring. Too many genetic modifications have occurred between the two for interbreeding to be possible. Speciation at its finest...

For those that think animals reproduce after their own "kind"... does that mean the first and last in the ring are different "kinds"? But A would be the same "kind" as B since they can interbreed... which is the same "kind" as C which is the same "kind" as D... which should be the same "kind" as G. Oopsies...

Oh, here's a link with a cool little graphic of the habitat range of the various subspecies. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

 

[ZedMikey]

:haha:

The site I got that pic from said you'd have to be 125 feet tall to fill those! :eek:

 

[CrustyJeep]

The site I got that pic from said you'd have to be 125 feet tall to fill those! :eek:

Do you also have to have green feet?

 

[ZedMikey]

Do you also have to have green feet?

Those are just the socks, dummy. :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[CrustyJeep]

Those are just the socks, dummy. :fawkdancesmiley:

Hmm, big feet == poor taste in socks?

 

[ZedMikey]

Hmm, big feet == poor taste in socks?

I would imagine the selection of colors for socks for a 5.3 meter foot would be rather limited.

 

[Jaydog]

You're saying that a claim that there is a very very large quantity of physical evidence supporting evolution is a baseless one? That not just baseless, it's plain old fashioned dishonest. You can believe anything you want, but trying to convince others that what you believe is correct by distorting the truth serves no one.

And now, in a valiant attempt to impress whatthe, I present a Wikipedia article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

...and this quote therein:

I'd like to see the shoes that came out of that box :flipoff:

The problem with all of that is that they will find a fragment of a bone, or tooth and then completely fabricate a skeleton out of clay to create a "new" species.

There is, or at least was, a dinosaur in the fossil record that the only evidence of its existence was part of a tooth they found, pardon me for being sceptical.

Here is just one article and there is one for every fossil in the records

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1348

 

[LiftedZuki]

Best part is, whatever happens, nothing you do is going to change it.

Waste your time on a debate, for something you cannot change?

 

[whatthe?]

But our understanding of what happened or didn't happened can be changed/corrected or reinforced.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Best part is, whatever happens, nothing you do is going to change it.

Truer words have always been spoken.

 

[ZedMikey]

The problem with all of that is that they will find a fragment of a bone, or tooth and then completely fabricate a skeleton out of clay to create a "new" species.

There is, or at least was, a dinosaur in the fossil record that the only evidence of its existence was part of a tooth they found, pardon me for being sceptical.

Here is just one article and there is one for every fossil in the records

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1348

There are very few instances of the sort of thing you are talking about. Your assertion that "there is one for every fossil in the records" is just plain wrong.

And even in the cases where incomplete fossils are completed artificially, it is done to have a basis to work from while more complete fossils (or other incomplete fossils with new information) are looked for.

I think the tooth instance you are thinking of is Nebraska man. Which is a great example of how the scientific community really does work the way it is supposed to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Another great example of how the scientific community really does work the way it is supposed to is the archaeoraptor fossil your link is talking about. It's discovery was published in a non-peer-reviewed journal (National Geographic) and through the miraculous powers of science, it was determined that the article's claims were incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Gee... isn't science great? :D

Edit to add a link to National Geographic's article about the discovery that the archaeoraptor fossil was a chimera. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html

 

[ZedMikey]

But our understanding of what happened or didn't happened can be changed/corrected or reinforced.

This... so much of this.