First ever family tree for all living birds reveals evolution and diversification. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=deanpfr;38274000]God did it. You evil satan worshipping atheists will face judgement one day!!! God bless.[/QUOTE] [thumb]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2965125634_d09785da65.jpg[/thumb] to all satan-atheists

Wait, you can be Atheist and a Satanist? Wat.

[QUOTE=KoyaGhost;38282289]Wait, you can be Atheist and a Satanist? Wat.[/QUOTE] satanism is an atheistic ideology

[QUOTE=Lazor;38282407]satanism is an atheistic ideology[/QUOTE] LeVay, yes?

yeah, that's pretty much the most popular form of satanism i'm sure there are people that literally worship satan but LeVay Satanism is by far the most popular form of satanism

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]I have to agree with darwin on some of the doubts about his theory. Firstly: do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms. [/quote] The entire reason evolution exist is that the strong survives. Every little edge animals get from slight defects in their genetics could mean a lot over a period of a million+ years. As for the older generational forms, they get pushed out of competing resources or the new generation focuses on specialization and become completely different. [quote]Secondly: The Cambrian Explosion [/quote] There are plenty of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9Cexplosion.E2.80.9D]explanations[/url] for that occurrence to satisfy the condition of life to progress outside the water as well as the development of the said life. [quote]Thirdly: long list of such cases is sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of the bat.[/quote] That was long ago where travel is difficult and databases were limited. We have those long lists now. [quote]I reserve my opinion about this [b]theory.[/b][/quote] :v: [quote]Humans. Difference of race.[/QUOTE] When animals are separated, they tend to evolve differently from the species they divided with due to the environment (the unsuitable die as the suitable lives). This applies to humans as they move out from Africa into Eurasia and America (using a land bridge). Humans evolved slightly differently based on their region, making them look different from other colonies. Also, all humans are of the same species. Race is only a device developed by humans to discriminate one another using ethnical predisposition.

I present an argument: 1. All information has a source, unless randomly assembled. 2. All evolution involves mutation or activation of genes. 3. Mutation and activation of genes neither create new information. 4. The information which is being cherry picked from in is whole state had to originate somewhere. 5. Cells contain this DNA, however it is impossible for a cell to have evolved when considering all the complex systems required to keep it alive. 6. Evolution creates no new information.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38283589]I present an argument: 1. All information has a source, unless randomly assembled. 2. All evolution involves mutation or activation of genes. 3. Mutation and activation of genes neither create new information. 4. The information which is being cherry picked from in is whole state had to originate somewhere. 5. Cells contain this DNA, however it is impossible for a cell to have evolved when considering all the complex systems required to keep it alive. 6. Evolution creates no new information.[/QUOTE]That isn't an argument, its a list of bullets with no direction to them and no point. Find some string and tie them together in to a coherent statement. [editline]2nd November 2012[/editline] Seems like, over the course of this thread, you've largely been quoting various snippets of information without context and nothing to tie them together to actually make a point. Its been a toss out of quotes and assumptions with little guidance. [editline]2nd November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38281090][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM[/media][/QUOTE]And then we have this, which I think speaks for itself.

Your right. All information has a source. DNA is information. Evolution does not create DNA information. Therefore evolution is insufficient to explain biology.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38284050]Your right. All information has a source. DNA is information. Evolution does not create DNA information. Therefore evolution is insufficient to explain biology.[/QUOTE] evolution never claimed to "explain" biology whatever the fuck that even means

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38284050]Your right. All information has a source. DNA is information. Evolution does not create DNA information. Therefore evolution is insufficient to explain biology.[/QUOTE]What little you said meant even less. You're just making quasi-intellectual remarks on a whim.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38284050]Your right. All information has a source. DNA is information. Evolution does not create DNA information. Therefore evolution is insufficient to explain biology.[/QUOTE] You're not making any sense. Like, at all.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]I have to agree with darwin on some of the doubts about his theory. Firstly: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” - Charles Darwin Secondly: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection." -Darwin The Cambrian Explosion - Ba-Bam! Thirdly "Here, as on other occasions, I lie under a heavy disadvantage, for out of the many striking cases which I have collected, I can give only one or two instances of transitional habits and structures in closely allied species of the same genus; and of diversified habits, either constant or occasional, in the same species. And it seems to me that nothing less than a long list of such cases is sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of the bat." All you have is a series of distinct animals that appear out of nowhere at various times, but you just order them according to likeness. I reserve my opinion about this [b]theory.[/b] [/QUOTE] You do realise those questions are taken from a sort of FAQ thing? [QUOTE]Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory. These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-[/QUOTE] He answered them himself- [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38284050]Your right. All information has a source. DNA is information. Evolution does not create DNA information. Therefore evolution is insufficient to explain biology.[/QUOTE] Evolution doesn't need to create DNA or any genetic information to be true, there just has to be mutations of existing genetic information. Abiogenesis is what created the first genetic information.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]I have to agree with darwin on some of the doubts about his theory. Firstly: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” - Charles Darwin[/quote] We do! Everywhere. Here's an image of transitional skulls, leading to modern man. [thumb]http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg[/thumb] -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]Secondly: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection." -Darwin The Cambrian Explosion - Ba-Bam![/quote] The Cambrian Explosion did not happen "all at once", it spanned 70-80 million years. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]Thirdly "Here, as on other occasions, I lie under a heavy disadvantage, for out of the many striking cases which I have collected, I can give only one or two instances of transitional habits and structures in closely allied species of the same genus; and of diversified habits, either constant or occasional, in the same species. And it seems to me that nothing less than a long list of such cases is sufficient to lessen the difficulty in any particular case like that of the bat." All you have is a series of distinct animals that appear out of nowhere at various times, but you just order them according to likeness. [/quote] We order them in similarity genetically as well. Consider that the discovery of genetics is very recent (relatively), long before Darwin. The family trees match with 99% accuracy, as would be expected if evolution were true. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849]I reserve my opinion about this [b]theory.[/b][/quote] Other theories include: -The theory of gravity -Cell Theory -Atom Theory The use of the word theory does not detract from their significance, as a 'theory' is a scientific statement consistent with all scientific data not yet dis-proven. I should also add that "evidence" and "proof" mean different things. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38280849] Evolution is a whole lot of conjecture and propaganda. Animals do adapt to a certain degree, but they don't change species.[/QUOTE] Speciation is well documented to have taken place in both laboratory settings and in the field. A common example, taught to me in GCSE Biology, is that of the Hawthorn Fly. Here's the peer reviewed article ([url]http://www.genetics.org/content/163/3/939.long[/url]), or the wiki paragraph ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Hawthorn_fly[/url]). [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38283589]I present an argument: 1. All information has a source, unless randomly assembled. 2. All evolution involves mutation or activation of genes. 3. Mutation and activation of genes neither create new information. 4. The information which is being cherry picked from in is whole state had to originate somewhere. 5. Cells contain this DNA, however it is impossible for a cell to have evolved when considering all the complex systems required to keep it alive. 6. Evolution creates no new information.[/QUOTE] Genes are not information, they are protein chains. We, human observers, imply information to study it better. It is not literally A-T C-G links. Mutations happen when this chain is not duplicated correctly. Also, your fifth bullet point doesn't fit the rest of the post. And I fear I've just replied to a post that he likely won't check up on.

[QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955]We do! Everywhere. Here's an image of transitional skulls, leading to modern man. [thumb]http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg[/thumb] -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html[/QUOTE] First off, let me thank you for actually engaging me with some decency, I respect that. Secondly, to address this first point. I was, and I believe Darwin was too, refering to a living variety of subspecies, not dead ones. [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] The Cambrian Explosion did not happen "all at once", it spanned 70-80 million years. [/quote] No but the Early Cambrian Explosion is what got its name. Much phyla and new designs popped out of nowhere. You can refer to Harry Blackmore wittington and his work with Burgess Shale fauna. He had alot of questions regarding the explosion. [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] We order them in similarity genetically as well. Consider that the discovery of genetics is very recent (relatively), long before Darwin. The family trees match with 99% accuracy, as would be expected if evolution were true. [/quote] This seems interesting, please refer me to somewhere where I might find more on this. [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] The use of the word theory does not detract from their significance, as a 'theory' is a scientific statement consistent with all scientific data not yet dis-proven. I should also add that "evidence" and "proof" mean different things.[/quote] I wasn't trying to detract from it's significance, I was trying to justify my having reservations about it. It is not a law. [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] Speciation is well documented to have taken place in both laboratory settings and in the field. A common example, taught to me in GCSE Biology, is that of the Hawthorn Fly. Here's the peer reviewed article ([url]http://www.genetics.org/content/163/3/939.long[/url]), or the wiki paragraph ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Hawthorn_fly[/url]). [/quote] My argument to that is that the "Speciation" example in the Hawthorn fly is not satisfactory as no difference other than the food and mating habits are different. By that logic vegetarian Indians who don't mix ethnic groups are a new species. All the diagram shows is a tree of flies that look exactly the same. Show me documentation of a speciation whereby an animal lost a toe, or grew an eyeball, or gained hardshell armor. [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] Genes are not information, they are protein chains. We, human observers, imply information to study it better. It is not literally A-T C-G links. Mutations happen when this chain is not duplicated correctly. [/quote] I am arguing to say that due to the high complexities of biology, DNA is information whether we say it evolved or was originated. DNA is a code with three letters much like binary is a code with 2. My argument regarding the organelles of a cell still stands. If I were to grant macro-evolution amongst species, then what would you tell me of the evolution of a cell? [QUOTE=SuperLoz;38294955] And I fear I've just replied to a post that he likely won't check up on.[/QUOTE] I like arguing civilly, no worries mate.

Well written response, and I don't think we're arguing, we're discussing. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] Secondly, to address this first point. I was, and I believe Darwin was too, referring to a living variety of subspecies, not dead ones. [/QUOTE] You mean to say that there would be a large variety of living transitional species, here today? If so, there are quite a few examples. Take the Japanese Mudskipper. [video=youtube;KurTiX4FDuQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ[/video] It's a fish that spends most of it's life living out of water, using a primitive air sac to inhale air and provide it's egg cluster with oxygen. It walks on it's fins, dragging it's self around the mud. A clear example, maybe, of a stage between fish and early amphibians? [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] No but the Early Cambrian Explosion is what got its name. Much phyla and new designs popped out of nowhere. You can refer to Harry Blackmore wittington and his work with Burgess Shale fauna. He had alot of questions regarding the explosion. [/QUOTE] You'll have to forgive me for not knowing too much about the Cambrian explosion. All I can ask is: How is the Cambrian Explosion a problem for the theory of evolution? It seems if life suddenly had an opportunity to fill a lot more niches than previously available, animals would develop and adapt to this quite easily in the space of several million years. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] This seems interesting, please refer me to somewhere where I might find more on this.[/QUOTE] ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree[/URL]) [I apologize for linking to the Wikipedia Series on evolutionary biology, that may seem a bit biased. But the page is filled with far more information than I am.] However, that's the tree of life as produced from a knowledge of the genetic structure of different animals. We had a tree of life based on morphological constructs, and when we learned more about genetics, the two tree matched. This is an interesting topic, try skimming here: ([URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#phylogenetics[/URL]) [Again, you might think that this is a biased source, but it is filled with answers to a lot of questions. Have a look around.] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] I wasn't trying to detract from it's significance, I was trying to justify my having reservations about it. It is not a law.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, the theory of evolution is not law. However, few things are in science. Have a quick glance here ([URL]http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law[/URL]), for an understanding of what makes things laws or theories. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] My argument to that is that the "Speciation" example in the Hawthorn fly is not satisfactory as no difference other than the food and mating habits are different. By that logic vegetarian Indians who don't mix ethnic groups are a new species. [/QUOTE] Speciation is defined as when two animals are no longer able to produce fertile offspring, either because physiological differences make it too difficult for them to mate, or because there are too many genetic differences. Think Donkeys and Horses. Yes, they look similar, and they can mate for offspring, but the resulting mule cannot produce offspring. [Although, I think there was one case a while back posted in the news thread here.] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397]All the diagram shows is a tree of flies that look exactly the same. Show me documentation of a speciation whereby an animal lost a toe, or grew an eyeball, or gained hardshell armor.[/QUOTE] Speciation is not defined as "when it looks different enough". If it were, Zebras and Horses, or Otters and Ferrets would all be classed as the same species. However, for your requested examples: -Loss of a toe A transition well documented in horses [I keep coming back to horses, what's wrong with me] is the transformation of a regular mammalian foot into a hoof. [IMG]http://darwiniana.org/equid2t.gif[/IMG] In this image, you can see the toes slowly work their way back up the leg, losing shape and size, until very little remains. The two middle toes remained in the middle, and become a single, think sturdy hoof. -Grew an eyeball This is a bit complicated. An eyeball didn't just appear on the face of a newborn monkey amongst a clan of blind monkeys. Instead, very small, basic light sensors that have existed since when life was no more complex than a single celled organism. This website ([URL]http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/eye/[/URL]) has a few diagrams. It also has a very slow loading slideshow, with narration, that discusses the wide variety in eyes, from very basic to very complex. There's also this video here, as narrated by Richard Dawkins. [video=youtube;lEKyqIJkuDQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ[/video] I'm going to assume that since you're on the other side of the fence, you're not a fan. But the think to take away from this video is the bit at the end: All of the proposed stages of eye evolution, from basic to complex, [B]exist today in living animals[/B] in the mollusk family. -Hardshell armor A quick search of this didn't give me much, but I don't see how it could be totally hard to believe that scales, which are hard already, can become harder and sturdier through natural selection. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] I am arguing to say that due to the high complexities of biology, DNA is information whether we say it evolved or was originated. DNA is a code with three letters much like binary is a code with 2. My argument regarding the organelles of a cell still stands. [/QUOTE] DNA is not information. A small organelle that transcribes and duplicates DNA does not care what letter we assign to the different protein chains. All it does is lock on to DNA strands and remake it. It sometimes makes it incorrectly, causing the new cell to grow incorrectly. 'Incorrectly' in this context is usually a bad thing, but it occasionally helps the organism (making it have slightly darker skin, for example). [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397] If I were to grant macro-evolution amongst species, then what would you tell me of the evolution of a cell? [/QUOTE] I don't understand this question, sorry.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38301397]-snip-[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html[/url]

[QUOTE][thumb]http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg[/thumb] -http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html[/QUOTE] God OBVIOUSLY put those there to test our faith..duh. /sarcasm/joke