RemyBolt 420 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Mate we basically share the majority of our DNA with all life on this planetl stands to reason if you believe they evolved from a source then we came from that source too, no? Yes and no. You're right all life forms have the same basic DNA building blocks, however the conclusion to your sentence is based on a fallacy of logic. If A then B. Let's use the same principle but from another fallacy of logic. It would seem logical, but let's apply the same logic from an 'intelligent design' theory. It would be as follows. If we were made as we currently are and did not evolve, we would be made similar to current life forms, so that we can rebuild our cells from the DNA/proteins/amino-acids/etc that we consume. Therefore, if we were designed by a higher power, we would be designed to be able to live off current life. The only way to do this would be shared DNA. Therefore an intelligent designer would create us as carbon based life forms using the same basic building blocks as other life forms. To be fair, I am very happy to say that I don't know everything and some things I will not have an answer for. I will research and assess all information, but there are some things that I do just accept on blind faith. However, I do not 'poo-poo' science. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Thats not what you are telling me no......thats what evolution is telling me.......we either evolved from apes/fish or whatever..................or we didnt.....no ? Did Darwin not say there would be CHANGE of KIND over many years ?.......well where are they ?.......Again,keeping in mind the reality of what we are talking about ( human beings coming from monkeys/fish ) etc.............im yet to see anything that can be observed ( a word used to describe science ) that proves change of kind.......i say again,any time we are being told we cant see change because its millions of years old we are being told to accept evolutionary FAITH. And what did Richard Dawkins say about faith......."Faith is the great cop - out ,the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence "... and thats the head honcho of evolution ! You're twisting things now. The theory of evolution and common descent is not what I was telling you was a fact. I wasn't arguing that it was a fact. So why even raise that? There's reems of evidence to support that theory but I'm not going down that road, I'm not willing to waste my time with that or risk missrepresenting it as I'm not a biologist. Read a well credited book written by an evolutionary biologist because so far I suspect all your thoughts on it have been derived from creationist rubbishing of the subject. I did as you asked and gave you factual observations of evolution which you have twisted to not being an observation of the theory of evolution and common descent. That isn't what I was claiming has been observed! The mechanism that is evolution and the theory of evolution and common descent are different things. This seriously ain't going anywhere.... Im not too sure how you observe a theory but still thats part of my whole curiosity of the language science uses You talk like theres so much riding on it ...its just a natter on a subject of interest on the internet mate......" risk missrepresenting it " stone the crows if its that important to you i promise i wont dare question you with anything ever again ! Edited September 12, 2014 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) What about those lizards that live on those pacific islands,,,,might be near galopgas Islands ,,,the ones that swim and eat sea weed from underwater,,,,yet on the other islands and mainland they don't ,,,they were the same species but evolved because of habitat Did they change kind ? or are they still lizards ?............if they didnt change kind then surely thats adaptation and not evolution ? Have you read The Origin of Species? It'll really give you a good basis in which to view evolution. Also, I think you should have specified "Behavioural adaptation" to make your point clearer. Personally, I agree with this instance, it doesn't really seem like evolution, simply behavioural change. Genetically still identical though. The Galapagos islands have a few 'examples' of evolution. The thing is, if you look at dogs as a species, you could actually argue that man-made 'natural selection' has evolved the species massively from the original wolf and dingo. But then it would depend on your interpretation of evolution. Some say evolution is mutation and natural selection. Others say it is purposeful genetic changes throughout a species. So the question continues... Just out of curiosity regarding change of species in terms of " change of kind " which were the words Darwin used ( and no i havent read the book just taken snippets so forgive my ignorance if its a stupid question )....at what point does a species become another species in terms of what im learning is macro evolution ? With dogs do the terms man made and natural selection even belong in the same sentance ? im not sure.....i get what you are saying wolf/dingo etc but to put a Chihuaha and an Irish Wolfhound as one and the same is almost absurd but i get they are theoretically and can produce like within the same species......but is there a point in macro evolution where a species cant produce its own due to change....ie,is there a cut off point where its neither here nor there.....and if theres not how can it be called a change of kind......and while we,re here f**k it ... is there any evidence of macro evolution ? Edited September 12, 2014 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) You're twisting things now. The theory of evolution and common descent is not what I was telling you was a fact. I wasn't arguing that it was a fact. So why even raise that? There's reems of evidence to support that theory but I'm not going down that road, I'm not willing to waste my time with that or risk missrepresenting it as I'm not a biologist. Read a well credited book written by an evolutionary biologist because so far I suspect all your thoughts on it have been derived from creationist rubbishing of the subject. I did as you asked and gave you factual observations of evolution which you have twisted to not being an observation of the theory of evolution and common descent. That isn't what I was claiming has been observed! The mechanism that is evolution and the theory of evolution and common descent are different things. This seriously ain't going anywhere.... You talk like theres so much riding on it ...its just a natter on a subject of interest on the internet mate......" risk missrepresenting it " stone the crows if its that important to you i promise i wont dare question you with anything ever again ! You can question me as much as you wish, if you treat the answer to one question as the answer to another though we'll struggle to achieve any sort of understanding of the other persons view and the whole thing becomes frustrating. It's my view that the missrepresentation of science is a key factor in people discrediting it and treating it as something it isn't. I don't want to contribute to that if I can avoid it but I'll weigh up each situation as they come. And yeah, that does matter to me, the advancement of human knowledge and understanding is something I consider important to us as a species. Drawing different conclusions to me is fine and acceptable, twisting what science is, is not. That's why I speak up and with passion. Edited September 12, 2014 by Born Hunter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) Im not too sure how you observe a theory but still thats part of my whole curiosity of the language science uses You talk like theres so much riding on it ...its just a natter on a subject of interest on the internet mate......" risk missrepresenting it " stone the crows if its that important to you i promise i wont dare question you with anything ever again ! Just seen you've added that bit, so i'll respond specificly to that here... If we could observe a theory, it'd stop being a theory and become a fact. That's why I say that evolution, the mechanism of which organic populations change their genetics to adapt to an environment, IS fact. Evolution IS genetic adaptation of an organic population, even on the species level. The Theory of Evolution and Common Descent has not been observed, it started before we were able to observe. That's inconvenient and unsatisfying, as are all theories to explain what we observe, but that doesn't make scientific theories non credible beliefs/explanations. What gives a theory credibility is evidence in the form of predicted observations. Logical consiquences of the theory. We've established that you cannot directly observe the theory but you can, or at least should, be able to observe what that theory predicts. As a theory is being validated/tested...... ....... and can I point out that it's not like the whole scientific community picks a theory they like and then becomes hell bent of proving that, ignorant to all others, there's usually a competition between currently equally credible theories....... .......... it may require ammendments in light of better understanding, they evolve as they become more encompassing of all situations. Theories are models that explain what's going on and all models are only appropriate within, what are known as, boundary conditions. As you apply your primitive theory to more universal situations, you may find that factors, that in your original situation were constant, are variable in this new situation and indeed have an effect that you were previously unable to see. So the theory adapts to give a more universal explanation/model.......... While I can understand, to someone unfamiliar with the methods we use to further our knowledge and understanding of the Universe, this might seem like an endless line of bodges for theories that are just simply wrong. If you were to look at how a particular theory developed from conception to acceptance you would realise to be plain 'wrong' in the first place, it'd never have progressed to acceptance. Edited September 12, 2014 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 no gnash macro has not been witnessed nor any mechanism for it. we have similar dna cause like keratin its a good building block for life.all animals dna are close to humans its a sign of intelligent designer i think. now i have excellent historical eye witness hand written scripture that is proven worthy an very accurate by profesional an credible historians.no one can argue the bible brilliant historical timeline an thats a great bit of solid evidence for creationists. theres plenty of new bible versions confusing people,an they wouldnt stand beside there orignal hebrew greek an latin scripture. kj bible is the only translation word for word an can be trusted. i challenge anyone to show me any mistakes,or contradictions in kj bible;theres thousands of professionals right now going threw it page by page an have done for years trying to find any mistake or lie in there which they cant do. the new testament fulfils the old an proves very accuratley history prophecy an the truth. if anyone is interested how the bible came to be theres an excellent documentary called a lamp in the dark.its excellent il put a link up in a minute Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 http://m.youtube.com/?gl=GB&hl=en-GB# here you go Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 12,917 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 PMSL aye and the epic of Gilgamesh written before the first book of the bible (genesis) what's that then? Another amazing historical timeline?? Or what about all the books and texts destroyed by the conquistadores in Latin America to hide the fact that their history was older than Europeans? Nuttier than a squirrel turd mate lol 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 mushy the two storys are the same just diff names you turd.it recorded a worldwide flood thats it. whats your point cest la vie lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,106 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) Bornhunter its way over the top of my head now.....admittedly im way down the educational ladder compared to folk like you it takes my brain a few hours longer than most to process stuff i dont understand....or in some instances not at all !.....although i see a lot of holes in it im realising my gripe probably isnt science itself but the language science seems to use to validate itself.....but then i still struggle with the abc so its probably me. To me its just interesting learning....but to you it means a bit more so i,ll respect that and take you on your word i wasnt trying to tell a bus driver how to drive a bus so to speak just a natter on a subject of common interest. Edited September 13, 2014 by gnasher16 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tiercel 6,986 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 mushy the two storys are the same just diff names you turd.it recorded a worldwide flood thats it. whats your point cest la vie lol Fraz if the two stories are the same does that mean the bible has plagiarised The epic of Gilgamesh as it was written before the bible? TC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 12,917 Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) Tc the point is that mate but Frazzled wouldn't pick up on that would he lol The epic Fraz is accepted as being written from an ancient oral history once writing was actually invented. The flood is not the whole world and the writing language predate ancient Hebrew by a minimum of 3000 years! So as my original point suggested and as tc cleverly picked up on was the bible plagerised or has it just accumulated several ancient stories like an ancient bedtime book of fables lmao Edited September 13, 2014 by mushroom Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.