Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[yossarian22]

No, yossarian22, the statement "A reptile is cold blooded and lays eggs." is most certainly not a definition any more than the statement " A flame is hot" is a definition.

Sure it is.
A flame is a fire. Fire is combustion. Combustion produces heat. That is how we define combustion. You can't have an endothermic combustion by our definition of combustion
This is not a fact, this is a mere categorization

Speaking of definitions, your understanding of the word "fact" is your own definition and not the accepted definition.

Fact: [SIZE=-1]An indisputable truth. Or something indisputably true.
This is hardly a unique definition. Other definitions gloss the word up, but they still hinge on the word true.
True: conforming to reality.
These are not archaic definitions. I will gladly submit that in science, we use the word fact differently, but this is not at all relevant to my point. Treating anything as fact in science is dangerous and contradictory to the nature of science.
[/SIZE]

 

[Valjean]

A lizard is a reptile which is differentiated by having 4 legs, movable eyelids, and external ears. A reptile is cold blooded and lays eggs. Basically an amphibian with scales, so it doesn't need to be close to water.
A bird's main difference from reptiles is its warm blooded,. Still lays eggs. They have very light skeletons. And most of them have very very fast metabolisms

Some lizards have no eyelids, and some have no legs and look for all the world like snakes.

A bird has a whole different metabolism than a reptile.

 

[Valjean]

And yes ALL Dinosaurs have avian triats. From hollow bones and air sacs to upright limbs and feathers. Even the great Sauropods were highly aivian in many ways.

Interestingly, the pterosaurs, the most birdlike morphologically, were furred. The fur is clearly visible on some of the fossil imprints. Clear evidence of endothermy.

Suchomimus... contemperary carnivourus dinosaur.

As you can see even from a superficial quick glance they are quite different.
even the giant sauropods look nothing like a croc.

wa:do[/quote]

 

[andys]

There is simply no point entering into a discussion with someone like yosrian22, at least in the context of science, when he or she does not recognize what science is, or how it works. Listen to this nonsense:

"Treating anything as fact in science is dangerous and contradictory to the nature of science."

This shines like a beakon to warn others, like Seyorni, that any discussion about lizards, amphibians, and pterosaurs, is doomed. After all, there is no factual basis for such assertions! Even if there were, such facts in science are dangerous (shudder) and contradictory to science!

I certainly salute any effort to enlighten this, er, "skeptic" but I'm afraid lucid arguments and lovely illustrations would have far greater impact if they fell upon the ears of a pterosaur.

Anyway, I wish you luck! Bon voyage.

 

[yossarian22]

There is simply no point entering into a discussion with someone like yosrian22, at least in the context of science,

How dense can you be?
Reread my posts. I do not want to waste my time with somebody who apparently does not read what he responds to.

Here is what I said

I will gladly submit that in science, we use the word fact differently, but this is not at all relevant to my point.

"Treating anything as fact in science is dangerous and contradictory to the nature of science."
This shines like a beakon to warn others, like Seyorni, that any discussion about lizards, amphibians, and pterosaurs, is doomed. After all, there is no factual basis for such assertions!

Now I could resort to petty mockery and ad hominem (such as your inability to spell beacon) in a pathetic attempt to bludgeon you with my points, which you either cannot or will not understand due to a rigid world view but that is nothing more than a waste of my time, and a waste of space.

This post exemplifies a truly idiotic and hypocritical response simply due to a different view. And not a fundamentally different world view mind you. Whether or not I believe in evolution is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The evidence behind evolution is entirely irrelevant. Any attempt to respond to my post with biology shows nothing more than a flat misunderstanding of my point.

Either post a valid response, or shut up. You do nothing but waste time with idiotic responses with no meat to them. My views are mutable. Prove me wrong if you can.

And because I figure that we are going to get hung up over an idiotic, irrelevant, discussion: I don't believe in evolution. I simply do not reject it.
If you interpret this as "evolution is false" I suggest you take some basic reading comprehension courses before posting a response.

 

[Troublemane]

Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes. Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.
Granted, that's not my favorite experiment. Mine was the one with the computer. In that experiment he had a computer randomly generate numbers (1-100) a hundred times then take the average of all the numbers. The average of the numbers (No matter how many times he did it.) was *always* around 50. **And got closer to 50 the more times the computer randomly generated numbers.** If randomization is trully random than why don't we ever get averages of 1? (meaning that 1 was randomly picked a hundred times.) According to chance, this is possible.

*yet every time this experiment is reproduced no strange averages occur*

The reason is in your criteria, you cannot ever find a "strange average" because averages are never strange. When flipping a coin 100 times you will find the average chance to be 50-50, heads or tails, thats just given. But randomly its still impossible to know what will come up next, and the chance of getting a streak of all heads or all tails (HHHHHHHHH....) becomes increasingly unlikely over time. This being said, this likelihood reverses the more time you have to play with it,for example, over millions or billions (even trillions) of years.

Because the universe plays with such huge numbers (million-billions-quintillion coins flipping over billions of years), the probability of huge runs of unlikely sets of outcomes becomes greater over time.

So, I would say the problem is not that probability theory cannot account for novelty in the cosmos, it would just seem that way due to the framework of the question posed.

 

[Yerda]

There is simply no point entering into a discussion with someone like yosrian22, at least in the context of science, when he or she does not recognize what science is, or how it works. Listen to this nonsense:

"Treating anything as fact in science is dangerous and contradictory to the nature of science."

Although I disagree with the statement, I will happily vouch for the productivity of discussing science with yossarian22.

 

[crystalonyx]

Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs (i.e. they are winged dinosaurs). The physiology of dinosaurs was in some ways superior to mammals, which is one reason they dominated the scene for so long.

 

[yossarian22]

Some lizards have no eyelids, and some have no legs and look for all the world like snakes.

A bird has a whole different metabolism than a reptile.

Sorry Sey, but I have no intention of discussing biology, a subject I never particularly liked.
I will gladly submit I thoroughly misargued some of my points previously though.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Mine was the one with the computer. In that experiment he had a computer randomly generate numbers (1-100) a hundred times then take the average of all the numbers. The average of the numbers (No matter how many times he did it.) was *always* around 50. **And got closer to 50 the more times the computer randomly generated numbers.** If randomization is trully random than why don't we ever get averages of 1? (meaning that 1 was randomly picked a hundred times.) According to chance, this is possible.

Sure it's possible, but HIGHLY improbably. If, after 1000 trials you have an average of 1, I would be highly doubtful that it is truly a random number generator. You have a 1/100 chance of getting a one. but you have a 99/100 chance of getting ANYTHING else.

I don't see how this has ANYTHING to do with evolution....

 

[yossarian22]

The idea is quite simply this:
Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes. Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.
Granted, that's not my favorite experiment. Mine was the one with the computer. In that experiment he had a computer randomly generate numbers (1-100) a hundred times then take the average of all the numbers. The average of the numbers (No matter how many times he did it.) was *always* around 50. **And got closer to 50 the more times the computer randomly generated numbers.** If randomization is trully random than why don't we ever get averages of 1? (meaning that 1 was randomly picked a hundred times.) According to chance, this is possible.
*yet every time this experiment is reproduced no strange averages occur*

That is a consequence of the Central Limit Theorem.
The standard error of the average of a sample approaches zero as n reaches infinity.

The black curve is the distribution of the entire population. The red curve is the distribution of the average of the sample. As the sample size grows, the size of the red distribution gets thinner and taller. Once n reaches infinity, there is no distribution, the average of an infinitely large sample is the true mean.

Using the average of a sample is entirely self serving because the distribution is much thinner, especially when n is large. The distribution of the average is ten times less variable than the distribution of a single random number. This analogy fails utterly for this reason.

 

[~Amin~]

the theory of evoloutions is that chance created 1 very simple life form, so more like a straight line than a masterpiece of work.

Hey just wanted to join in,
there seems to be a contradiction inbetween two
individuals who claim to understand evolution theory,
in post 75, camanintx stated that the theory does Not
claim this, that by chance the first living cell was created,
so which one is the accurate one?

 

[fantome profane]

Hey just wanted to join in,
there seems to be a contradiction inbetween two
individuals who claim to understand evolution theory,
in post 75, camanintx stated that the theory does Not
claim this, that by chance the first living cell was created,
so which one is the accurate one?

paddothebomb is wrong. The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is about the development of diversity of life forms.

I can understand your confusion if you are getting your information from a message board on a religious forum. In a format like this one you are bound to get conflicting confusing information. I have to say that you should not be getting your information here. Do your own research, read books, look for valid web sites that can give you valid information. Don’t listen to paddo, don’t listen to camanintx, don’t listen to me. Find out what the qualified scientists have to say. Good luck.

 

[~Amin~]

paddothebomb is wrong. The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is about the development of diversity of life forms.

I can understand your confusion if you are getting your information from a message board on a religious forum. In a format like this one you are bound to get conflicting confusing information.

Thanks profane,
so is there guidance or chance, i believe this is
also a contradiction.

 

[~Amin~]

Can someone produce evidence from a statement of
Darwin, that the theory is saying that its both random
and guided?

 

[~Amin~]

, evolution is not random in that sense. Natural selection is not random selection, it selects organisms that survive. .

If there are certain organisms that have survived, doesnt that mean that
its forced to select the surviving ones? and not choosing?

 

[Valjean]

If there are certain organisms that have survived, doesnt that mean that
its forced to select the surviving ones? and not choosing?

I don't quite see what you're saying here, Amin.

 

[yossarian22]

That is a consequence of the Central Limit Theorem.
The standard error of the average of a sample approaches zero as n reaches infinity.

The black curve is the distribution of the entire population. The red curve is the distribution of the average of the sample. As the sample size grows, the size of the red distribution gets thinner and taller. Once n reaches infinity, there is no distribution, the average of an infinitely large sample is the true mean.

Using the average of a sample is entirely self serving because the distribution is much thinner, especially when n is large. The distribution of the average is ten times less variable than the distribution of a single random number. This analogy fails utterly for this reason.

Hmm, there is an error here.
The average is less variable by the √n where n is the sample size. So in this case, the average is ten times less variable.

 

[fantome profane]

so is there guidance or chance, i believe this is
also a contradiction.

Neither. While there is an element of chance involved natural selection is not about chance, and it certainly has nothing to do with guidance.

Can someone produce evidence from a statement of

Darwin, that the theory is saying that its both random
and guided?

No. It is not guided!

If there are certain organisms that have survived, doesnt that mean that

its forced to select the surviving ones? and not choosing?

Exactly, natural selection has nothing to do with choice. I understand the confusion, the word “selection” can be used as a synonym of “choice”, but not in this context. Have you ever been to the beach and noticed that there is a part of the beach that is covered with small stones, part that is covered with larger stones, and part that is covered with sand. This would be a simplistic example of a kind of natural selection. No one chose to place the stones where they were, but they were selected based upon their size and weight and how far the tides could push them. This is not a matter of chance, nor is it guided. Likewise with living organisms, no one chooses how they will evolve, but those who manage to survive and produce offspring will have their genes selected.



One more time I will implore you to head to a library and check out a book on the topic. The contradictions you find here are likely the result of either misconceptions on the part of the people who post here, or simply bad explanations. If you really wish to understand this don’t limit yourself to the opinions of message board pundits.

(p.s. I don’t know why the quotes keep spitting like that, but I can’t seem to stop it. sorry I hope it is not too confusing)

 

[~Amin~]

Do you think it is possible to win the lottery? Despite the odds of any one person winning, someone still manages to win almost every time. With billions and billions of stars in the universe, having a planet with all of the right conditions for life is not only probably, it is virtually guaranteed.

Lottery is not won by luck or chance, its Given by God to
who He Wills, this is clear in revelation that God increases or decreases
wealth to WHOM He Wills, so the lottery analogy fails terribly.