₦airaland Forum

ooman: Deepsight, since you already avow to believe evolutionary theory but disbelieve in randomness of nature but rather believe in intelligence control of randomness, i will not therefore start afresh with you. Also, i do not really think that you need much evidence of evolution anymore since you have stated that you believe something must always evolve.

The point, therefore, is not in proving that "things" evolve but in proving that nature is totally uncontrolled by any intelligence. Is this the stance you take? If yes, then you are a theistic evolutionist, typical of a deist?

Pls answer the above question so i may know where to begin with you, an idi.ot student!

Yes teacher, ya got that right, but please be careful about the bold word above - "theory" - for that would suggest I accept the theory as advanced. Not so: I accept evolution - but the theory as advanced has problems which disclose, in my view, that it was rather a guided process.

So proceed.

This is a new theory unfolding before us: God created evolution.

alfaman2: This is a new theory unfolding before us: God created evolution.

Not so new sir: if you must know, Darwin himself thought so, certainly at some point; and most scientists during the 20th century also thought that there was direction and purpose behind the observed process. Its not new, and not unique to me or created by me.

to begin with, here are currently found transitions between Apes that led to the great ape (us)

i will post some lecture on randomness now!

ooman: to begin with, here are currently found transitions between Apes that led to the great ape (us)

i will post some lecture on randomness now!

WRONG: THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WERE ASKED FOR, KIND TEACHER.

AS FAR AS SCIENTIFIC INDEXING IS CONCERNED, HUMANS ARE A TYPE OF APE.

SO SHOWING ME DIFFERENT TYPES OF APE ALONE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SHOW AN INTERMEDIATE SPECIE OF THE NATURE I REQUESTED.

THIS IS WHY I SIMPLIFIED THIS CLASS IN THE WAY I DID - DO NOT MISS IT - I NEED FOSSILS, SAY, BETWEEN BIRD AND MAMMAL?

WHY IS SUCH A FOSSIL IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND OR PRODUCE?

[Hint: You guys are not even trying. I know very well of mooted fossils for such, read them all even when I was 12 - 13, for Gods sake. They have all been discredited. I am giving you space. Try better please!]

Deep Sight: WRONG: THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WERE ASKED FOR, KIND TEACHER.

AS FAR AS SCIENTIFIC INDEXING IS CONCERNED, HUMANS ARE A TYPE OF APE.

SO SHOWING ME DIFFERENT TYPES OF APE ALONE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SHOW AN INTERMEDIATE SPECIE OF THE NATURE I REQUESTED.

THIS IS WHY I SIMPLIFIED THIS CLASS IN THE WAY I DID - DO NOT MISS IT - I NEED FOSSILS, SAY, BETWEEN BIRD AND MAMMAL?

WHY IS SUCH A FOSSIL IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND OR PRODUCE?

[Hint: You guys are not even trying. I know very well of mooted fossils for such, read them all even when I was 12 - 13, for Gods sake. They have all been discredited. I am giving you space. Try better please!]

Yeah right

[size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

You seem to project that you know more than your teacher.
Answer the simple question you were asked first, then make your own querries clearer.
Shouting in red doesn't make you more intelligent.

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

lol.......you have read evolution since you were 12, yet you were still using a 19th century deist thinking of evolution.



Such arrogance.

The superficial theme in nature is that nature, with all its "designs" must be controlled by some sort of intelligence. Indeed, some scientist held this view, until more light was shed about the structure of DNA.

The DNA revealed that life forms can transit and YES do transit from one form to another without the "compulsory" need of control. This change is termed mutation - It is inherent in the nature of DNA to make mistakes. Most of this mistakes are harmful, however, some are beneficial, leading to a new protein function. More of this change accumulate leading to new species - This process is termed Micro evolution.

Study also revealed that mistakes such as non disjunction of chromosomes can also lead to a "quick" evolution of new species from an ancestral one. RECENT Example include xenopus leavis, tympanoctomys etc - This type of evolution is called Macro Evolution, meaning large change at once in contrast to Micro evolution that needs time.

Also there are divergent, convergent and parallel evolution. Indeed, evolution is so broad to be an abstract.

first premise against intelligence influence - Mistakes are inherent nature of DNA - An omnipotent intelligence cannot /is too perfect to make mistakes. Contention against it is that we have been able to make INFALLIBLE DNA.


Second premise - Morphologically, there is superficially, not to talk of thorough scrutiny, NO sign of intelligence in control of nature. Everyone will agree that IN THE WORLD WE OBSERVE, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST IS THE RULE OF THE GAME.

I will stop here for now, make sure you understand and take your questions

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

Brunch and lunch are not the same thing. I dont know why some people like to feel with western cultures they dont understand.

Truly, you are a clown

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]And let me sound a warning here loud and clear before I go off to my brunch. No one should dare post pics that they are not sure of. I say this because of the several cases of so called ape fossils that have been found to be 90 per cent artistic reconstruction and about 10 per cent bone and teeth only. [/size]

Teachers; I am giving you the space: teach well!

I am sorry to say at this point: please do not take this as arrogance. This is a subject I have read widely on since I was a child. I am shocked that the species that you should actually have mentioned are featuring nowhere in your posts so far! Or is it because you are aware of the critiques?

Lunch now!

deepsight, i need to know, shall we focus on fossils or on randomness of nature?

Logicboy03: Brunch and lunch are not the same thing. I dont know why some people like to feel with western cultures they dont understand.

Truly, you are a clown

Silly boy. And who does not know this? ? ? ? Of course it was since intended as brunch but I have been wasting my time here with you lot and now must be lunch. Whatever. I guess it has mutated or evolved. Olodo.

If you have no quality to give me, we cant even step up the game. I guess I have to wait for thehomer or others and the lunch will evolve to dinner.

Hollow Sight needs focus.

ooman: deepsight, i need to know, shall we focus on fossils or on randomness of nature?

Let us make the question as follows - does the fossil record support the ideas advanced by the theory of evolution as to how evolution occurred? If so, lets start with intermediate fossils please.

Night cap now.

alfaman2: Hollow Sight needs focus.

Like the sort of focus you have failed to give me so far?

For heavens sake there are FAMOUS suggestions for intermediate species which NONE of you have mentioned so far!

Abi you know that those suggestions have problems?

Bed time now!

Deep Sight: Let us make the question as follows - does the fossil record support the ideas advanced by the theory of evolution as to how evolution occurred? If so, lets start with intermediate fossils please.

Night cap now.

Below are some fossils of the first single celled organisms, stromatolites down to the first fishes, placoderms.

The stromatolites are elusive in the picture, i hope you will be able to make sense of it.
also is the fossil of amphibians evolving from fishes, they have both lungs and fins, there were amphibians, from them came dinosaurs and mammals. More pics later.

Oya, let me kick it off for you teachers. What are your comments on this transitional fossil.

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

Later now!

here

placoderms

trilobytes

Deep Sight: Like the sort of focus you have failed to give me so far?

For heavens sake there are FAMOUS suggestions for intermediate species which NONE of you have mentioned so far!

Abi you know that those suggestions have problems?

Bed time now!

Try this for focus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

^^^stromatolites refused to show, pls google it

will catch y'all later

Deep Sight: Oya, let me kick it off for you teachers. What are your comments on this transitional fossil.

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

Later now!

Who said it is a transitional fossil? Wikipedia? Scientists?

If you actually do believe in evolution and understand what it means, you will agree that every being that ever lived is a "transitional fossil" of one type or another. Evolution is not static. In 10 million years, your bones might be exposed as a "transitional fossil" of something.

So I say once again. There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. This is what pseudo scientists use to sound intelligent and bamboozle the feeble-minded.

Do you actually know what "fossil" means?

Deep Sight: . . . .

However, I have never considered evolution to be mutually exclusive from intelligent design. Nor do I accept either -

The contrast between the theory of evolution and intelligent design is that one is a scientific theory while the other isn't.

Deep Sight: 1. That there is sufficient evolutioanry impetus - unaided save by nature alone - to produce the human being and mind

2. That there has been sufficient time in the timeline of the existence of the earth, to result in the span and stretch of creatures that have dwelt, and dwell upon the earth.

Why do you not accept those two claims you presented above?

Deep Sight: As such I believe, and have always believed, in some form of evolution, but only that which is necessarily guided by an obvious supervening intelligence. The make-up of the flora and fauna of the earth give me to believe this; and I regard it as only reasonable to any human being acquainted with such.

Nevertheless I digress too far already, as is my wont. Like I said before, what I want here is Evolution for Id.iots. I believe in evolution, but I do not believe that the entire process could have occurred un-aided by external intelligent impetus. I believe that there glaringly was.

Why not? Is it that you simply find it incredulous?

Deep Sight: Now, being an evolutionary id.iot, who cannot understand (quite apart from the fact that the Theory of Evolutions does not, and was not intended to discuss the origin of first life) how natural selection alone would lead to that which we have today (starting of course with a unicellular organism and ending - or perhaps continuing) with space-age beings who wear Armani Suits, drink champagne and enjoy Caviar & Sushi. Aside from write philosophy, build nuclear craft and discombobulate the atom. Or perhaps my more specific problem is believing the idea that mutations can and do lead to the sort of complexity we have today within the time-frame referenced. In that regard, please remember that the earth is about 4 billion years old, and even if we accept the pre-biotic soup idea of the origin of life, that could hardly have occurred as soon as the earth came into existence - that would have "chopped" out of the time as well. So we are talking about -

1. Earth forming and cooling

2. Life originating within pre biotic soup

3. The said first life gradually experiencing so many mutations, that it eventually turns into human beings and many other creatures

- - - all within the said time-frame.

I respectfully submit if we draw out the amount of mutations required to fulfill this miracle, the age of the earth cannot realistically support this conclusion from the point of view of statistical probabilities.

I don't think statistics supports that claim. While there are random mutations, you need to accept that most of the the mutations that survived, either improved the chances of survival or virtually did nothing.

Deep Sight: . . . .
[b]Okay, to begin this class on Evolution for Id.iots, (I am the Id.iot-student, not teacher here; I am expecting certain evolution-inclined atheists to be the teachers) - I start with my first and most basic question.

Where are the intermediate fossils?

By this, I mean the intermediate fossils between the largely distinct groups of species -

Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal.

Evolution having occurred over millions or perhaps even billions of years on earth, it would be expected that there would be a staggering collection of intermediate fossils showing clearly the transition by various mutations and extinctions, the development from Unicellular Organism to man. So please, can any teacher help me fill in the blanks above, and where not possible, give me plausible reasons why there is a paucity of intermediate fossils - whereas there should be a deluge of same?[/b]

We start with these. More to follow.

Many thanks.

Firstly, unicellular and multicellular organisms don't really fossilize well.
Secondly, fossilization is rare. Though we do have a staggering collection of fossils
Thirdly, a lot of those mutations are genetic and as you know we're yet to recover genes from fossils millions of years old.

Now my own questions, what do you think an intermediate fossil (transitional fossil) is?
Do you think that man was the intention of evolution?

thehomer: The contrast between the theory of evolution and intelligent design is that one is a scientific theory while the other isn't.

I did not ask for the contrast: I merely stated that I do not see the notions in either to be mutually exclusive. You are surely aware that even Darwin did not see any such mutual exclusivity when he propounded the theory?

Why do you not accept those two claims you presented above?

Because with regard to the first claim there is abundant evidence of features that cannot be explained by the mechanics of the theory of evolution by themselves alone, and with regard to the 2nd claim, the age of the earth simply does not support the amount of mutations and the time therein required to arrive at what we have today.

Why not? Is it that you simply find it incredulous?

Yes, that too, sir.

Firstly, unicellular and multicellular organisms don't really fossilize well.
Secondly, fossilization is rare. Though we do have a staggering collection of fossils
Thirdly, a lot of those mutations are genetic and as you know we're yet to recover genes from fossils millions of years old.

None of this addresses the absence of useful intermediate fossils.

You surely cannot rely on recovery of genes alone as your mere excuse? Not even with the rarity of fossilization can you proffer these VERY weak excuses. In the case of the latter, the the share quantum of creatures over millenia puts your excuse to the lie. In the case of the former, since when has visual evidence of fossil shapes become useless to you and the theory? Was the entire theory not built and sustained on such visuals' re - fossils?

Now my own questions, what do you think an intermediate fossil (transitional fossil) is?
Do you think that man was the intention of evolution?

I already quoted the separate definitions from one of the links above.

As to your second question, no: life generally is, not man alone.

Yawns bunch of atheists pseudo scientist (vodo scientists) arguing over things they mostly do not understand!

vedaxcool: Yawns bunch of atheists pseudo scientist (vodo scientists) arguing over things they mostly do not understand!

Trololo

Logicboy03: Trololo

Cry your butthurt here http://
www.nairaland.com/1173767/atheists-
stories-religious-discrimination-
atheophobia

vedaxcool: Cry your butthurt here http://
www.nairaland.com/1173767/atheists-
stories-religious-discrimination-
atheophobia

Trololo

^
ah the sweet sounds of butthurt!