Bat-Melon said:
I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.
The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed,
|
no it cant. Proteins are formed by combinations of amino acids, precise combinations dicated by information only...and environmental factors that select from present genes to survive.
Bat-Melon said:
|
and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.
|
proof of concept? lol
Bat-Melon said:
|
Are you looking in the right textbooks?
|
There are alot of them out there!
Bat-Melon said:
|
When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window.
|
When it was discovered, scientist thought the earth was no longer then 10,000 years old. There are no intermediates! Bats are found fperfectly complete with sonar hearing and fully extended bat wings! There are no intermediates! there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions! what a lucky time to be alive I guess, nothing is evolving anymore I guess...
Bat-Melon said:
|
The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.
|
Nor will they ever! But they do try to...
Bat-Melon said:
|
This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless,
|
dude, there are thousands of textbooks written over the last 150 years! Are you joking? Get some like every 20 years and you will laugh!
Bat-Melon said:
|
and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).
|
...again another opinion with no foundation. Lets debate facts and not discuss what people would or wouldnt do...
Bat-Melon said:
|
The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link.
|
oh but it is. My nephew has it in his textbook!
Bat-Melon said:
|
It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds,
|
Oh yeah? where are the rest?
Bat-Melon said:
|
and is still not fully understood.
|
..and it wont be, iits been proven a hoax!
Bat-Melon said:
|
However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.
|
..oh is that it, hence? lol...yes that MUST be the reason. Such an exact science!
Bat-Melon said:
|
The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed.
|
another played out hoax!
Bat-Melon said:
|
polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).
|
point about what? Its not evolution, its adapting to the environment! This is not evolution, you cant have the best of both worlds! The definition of evolution sure has come along way in the last 150 years, WAY more than the actual proof for the original theory! Its ALL information that had to have had a designer.
..and by the way, its still a bear!!!!
Bat-Melon said:
|
Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process),
|
yes it does, which is why its used.
Bat-Melon said:
|
but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest
|
Natural Selection actually is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest as a means of explaining "evolution"..but the definition has evolved to include it as well..with a twist of couse.
Natural selection occurs, but nothing evolves. Nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.
People think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. In actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!
Bat-Melon said:
|
It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.
|
Not improvments for say... Just the goal MANS INTERVENTION deliberatley set out to accomplish by taking one gene and mixing it with others. This is FAR from explaining orgins or evolution for that matter!
amazing also that everything just so happens to be fool proof just as it is, the way God made them huh? lol
Bat-Melon said:
|
Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found.
|
Or not found, we as humans have imaginations. Plant an image, it stays. Very useful tool for proaganda.
The examples givin were proven that the people were told to make the drawings!
Bat-Melon said:
|
They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.
|
opinion and false.
Bat-Melon said:
|
Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven,
|
what? Are you joking? Are you just bending rules to fit the mold? lol
Bat-Melon said:
|
"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported.
|
Say the entire name of the book. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
..its because it HAS to be. Do research on who controls the museums, research funding, boards and everything under...
Evolution is a tool for control.
Bat-Melon said:
|
Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true,
|
Obviously.
Bat-Melon said:
|
so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.
|
Another opinion. He said and did alot of things. Big deal. Most HURT his "theory"
Bat-Melon said:
|
THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them,
|
you got that right...
Bat-Melon said:
|
but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny,
|
Another opinion that doesnt hold. Look at the scientific community then, what influence did it have compared to today? lol
Bat-Melon said:
|
and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness.
|
Useless to you. Another unfounded opinion.
Bat-Melon said:
|
Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept.
|
what something is regarded as means nothing.
Bat-Melon said:
|
Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact,
|
what something is regarded as means nothing. Facts are facts. If you teach one as ABSOLUTE when it isnt, there is a reason...
Bat-Melon said:
|
not as a religious concept,
|
yes because not being absolute it is faith based that worships time that can not be proven, how convenient!
By saying "other concepts such as creationism",
what?
Bat-Melon said:
|
you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned.
|
Lets say I actually know what you are talking about, thats not what Im implying Im sure.
Dont divert attention from the facts. One is taught as absolute without ANY regard for the other, facts, or what people believe or want! It and its concepts are constantly changing and expanding for lack of evidence and the dumbing down and unknowingly ignorant acceptence by the controlled masses. Obviously.
Bat-Melon said:
|
Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law.
|
give me a break dude..
Bat-Melon said:
|
(I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)
|
wonder why...lol
spin spin
Bat-Melon said:
|
We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more.
|
when you START with a conclusion and warp what you find to fit the mold it isnt science. Its propaganda.