Evolution

[FritzDerochebrune]

Did you even bother reading my reply? There is plenty of proof, in the DNA of modern birds, as well as traces in the fossil record. This isn't just wild speculation, we have some pretty solid evidence here.

 

Well, if you may speculate I didn't read your reply, I may speculate not everything in evolution is convincing.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

 

Key point: "These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

 

And who says his daughter tells the truth? She is human to, and all humans can lie... And I can link a funny looking stone with ufo's with a bit of imagination.

 

Besides, as KzinistZerg said, even if Darwin had changed his mind, unless the Theory of Evolution was just a giant appeal to authority, it's completely irrelevant. Since Darwin's time, the theory has been supported by vast amounts of evidence and independent verification. While Darwin of course deserves full credit for his work, his approval is not necessary. The theory is perfectly capable of standing on its own without him.

 

So if I create a complete insane theory, find some people to back it up, and then say it isn't true when I die, my theory will still be possible to stand on its own? I don't think the theory of evolution is insane, but still some things of it aren't that convincing.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Peregrine: 'The most you could have is genes for "is able to stretch the neck over time" being passed on through Darwinian selection. But it's the ability that's being passed down, not the end result itself. The offspring will still have to repeat the same stretching process themselves.'

 

That was more my line of thought.

 

everybody else: (*burps*)

[Peregrine]

Did you even bother reading my reply? There is plenty of proof, in the DNA of modern birds, as well as traces in the fossil record. This isn't just wild speculation, we have some pretty solid evidence here.

 

Well, if you may speculate I didn't read your reply, I may speculate not everything in evolution is convincing.

 

Would you please state your qualifications to determine whether the theory is convincing or not? Do you actually have counter-arguments with factual support, or is your entire argument "I don't understand it, therefore I'm not convinced"? The evidence is extremely convincing, if you actually understand the DNA analysis involved.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

 

Key point: "These attempts to fudge Darwin's story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. "I was present at his deathbed," she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. "Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever."

 

And who says his daughter tells the truth? She is human to, and all humans can lie... And I can link a funny looking stone with ufo's with a bit of imagination.

 

Ok, lets use a bit of common sense here:

 

The evidence for the "deathbed conversion":

 

* A statement by Lady Hope, a person unrelated to Darwin's family or friends, with a clear motive for fraud, published after Darwin was safely dead and unable to defend himself.

 

The evidence against it:

 

* Direct statements by Darwin's relatives, including those actually present at the end of his life, saying that no such conversion ever happened.

 

* Complete silence from Darwin's wife, who opposed the theory on religious grounds like Lady Hope, and would likely be eager to support any conversion.

 

* Complete absence of this "conversion" in any of Darwin's published work.

 

* Factual errors in the "conversion story", such as the length of the supposed fatal illness.

 

 

This is about as obvious a case of fraud as you'll get. Even major creationists (including the authors of Answers In Genesis, sponsors of a multi-million dollar creationism "museum") reject the story as fraud.

Besides, as KzinistZerg said, even if Darwin had changed his mind, unless the Theory of Evolution was just a giant appeal to authority, it's completely irrelevant. Since Darwin's time, the theory has been supported by vast amounts of evidence and independent verification. While Darwin of course deserves full credit for his work, his approval is not necessary. The theory is perfectly capable of standing on its own without him.

 

So if I create a complete insane theory, find some people to back it up, and then say it isn't true when I die, my theory will still be possible to stand on its own?

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The fact that you believe otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works.

 

For one thing, theories aren't valid because you "find some people to back it up". They're valid because the factual evidence supports them. If your theory passes this test, it doesn't matter who you are or what you say about it later. The idea that changing your mind actually means anything is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy, all you're saying is "Fritz Derochebruen says it isn't, therefore it isn't" without refuting the theory on factual grounds.

 

Now if your deathbed change of mind included a better theory, with better supporting factual evidence, this would be entirely different. But in this case, it wouldn't matter that it was a deathbed conversion, or even that you, not some random other person, provided the counter-argument. But note this is NOT the case with Darwin's supposed "conversion", even the supporters of the story say it was nothing more than "Jesus hates me for what I've done! I'd better take this back so I don't go to hell!".

 

I don't think the theory of evolution is insane, but still some things of it aren't that convincing.

 

Please, state precisely what these disagreements of yours are, and what qualifications you have to overrule the experts and decide that they aren't convincing.

[FritzDerochebrune]

Would you please state your qualifications to determine whether the theory is convincing or not? Do you actually have counter-arguments with factual support, or is your entire argument "I don't understand it, therefore I'm not convinced"? The evidence is extremely convincing, if you actually understand the DNA analysis involved.

A few counter arguments:

 

1. DNA decays after all those years. Even fossils can't hold the exact DNA. The result is damaged or mutated DNA forms. Even DNA of a year old can be too old to recognize.

 

2. Even before all that 'evidence' was found (50/50 fossil) the evolutionist allready claimed birds came from dinosaurs. And there they find a the complete fossil of dinosaur covered with feathers. Fits perfectly, no? A bit too perfect maybe. And whatever you might have heard: there is still no evidence that fossil is real. Checked several sources.

 

3. Another bit: A while ago you said: ...Fossils only develop under a rare set of circumstances, and we have only searched a tiny fraction of the planet... Isn't it a wonder that the fossil the evolutionists need, is found complete?

 

Ok, lets use a bit of common sense here:

 

The evidence for the "deathbed conversion":

 

* A statement by Lady Hope, a person unrelated to Darwin's family or friends, with a clear motive for fraud, published after Darwin was safely dead and unable to defend himself.

 

The evidence against it:

 

* Direct statements by Darwin's relatives, including those actually present at the end of his life, saying that no such conversion ever happened.

 

* Complete silence from Darwin's wife, who opposed the theory on religious grounds like Lady Hope, and would likely be eager to support any conversion.

 

* Complete absence of this "conversion" in any of Darwin's published work.

 

* Factual errors in the "conversion story", such as the length of the supposed fatal illness.

 

This is about as obvious a case of fraud as you'll get. Even major creationists (including the authors of Answers In Genesis, sponsors of a multi-million dollar creationism "museum") reject the story as fraud.

 

Well, I'm going to agree on that. We recently got an encyclopedia from... a group of people... which stated that Darwin rejected everything on his deathbed. Since I know the book is one of the greater pieces of fiction ever, I'll believe you when you say Darwin didn't take back his theory.

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The fact that you believe otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of how science works.

 

For one thing, theories aren't valid because you "find some people to back it up". They're valid because the factual evidence supports them. If your theory passes this test, it doesn't matter who you are or what you say about it later. The idea that changing your mind actually means anything is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy, all you're saying is "Fritz Derochebruen says it isn't, therefore it isn't" without refuting the theory on factual grounds.

 

Well than, if I show a complete lack of understanding how science works, and my word is law, I should become a dictator, no? Still: people to back you up are more important than factual evidence, as human history shows. "The most important thing in life isn't being right, but other people believing you're right."

 

Please, state precisely what these disagreements of yours are, and what qualifications you have to overrule the experts and decide that they aren't convincing.

As I already stated in my early posts, I believe in the theory of evolution. Only some things seem to be to good to be true (like the dinosaurs). Most of the theory is, according to me, correct.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I've forgot to quote: ...There is no "Universal Year" since the universe doesn't orbit anyting...

 

It does not orbit anything, no. But that isn't needed. Like I said, a humanyear or earthyear consist of 365 (366) days, because the earth orbits the sun in that time. But it is only like that, because people said so. A humanyear only consists of the time the earth takes to orbit the sun. But if the earth stopped orbiting the sun, it would still take 365 days. Even without something orbiting another thing, time does exist. The "Universal year" is the term for an amount of time in the universe, since the Earthyear can not be used while in space, nor when on another planet (Venusyear,...).

 

cya,

 

Fritz

[Switch]

Fritz' previous post removed. One liner spam (see the rules). Please try and avoid this in future, thanks. ^^

[Marcus Wolfe]

wow. just wow.

we've come a long way from sea scum haven't we?

well, here goeth I:

"1. DNA decays after all those years. Even fossils can't hold the exact DNA. The result is damaged or mutated DNA forms. Even DNA of a year old can be too old to recognize."

Can be, but not always is.

"2. Even before all that 'evidence' was found (50/50 fossil) the evolutionist allready claimed birds came from dinosaurs. And there they find a the complete fossil of dinosaur covered with feathers. Fits perfectly, no? A bit too perfect maybe. And whatever you might have heard: there is still no evidence that fossil is real. Checked several sources."

Oh really? hmm? well, even if the 50/50 fossils is a fake, how does that explain all the 25/75 fossils?

"3. Another bit: A while ago you said: ...Fossils only develop under a rare set of circumstances, and we have only searched a tiny fraction of the planet... Isn't it a wonder that the fossil the evolutionists need, is found complete?"

Yes! It is a F***ING MIRACLE we have found the most important fossils instead of the crappy useless ones.

 

Are you trying to suggest that all paleotology is one big scandal?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

[ninja_lord666]

Yes! It is a F***ING MIRACLE we have found the most important fossils instead of the crappy useless ones.

Yes, that's all it is. Palaeontology is mostly luck.

Fritz: You think that it's all too convenient that the fossil was found? You think the chance is so small that its almost impossible? Then look at it this way: there are thousands of palaeontology expeditions that turned up absolutely nothing. Combine all those failures with one great find, and it doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

 

1. DNA decays after all those years. Even fossils can't hold the exact DNA. The result is damaged or mutated DNA forms. Even DNA of a year old can be too old to recognize.

Yes, DNA of dead organisms does decay over time, but it doesn't mutate. Because DNA is so unique from species to species, it would be possible to take a part of the DNA and compare it to the DNA of living organisms. Also, not every strand of DNA decays exactly the same things at the same time. One strand might loose the third chromosome while another will instead loose the fifth. Since there are trillions of strands of DNA in a body, and DNA from one cell is the same as another, scientists could combine the DNA from different cells to produce a whole strand of DNA to compare with.

[Abramul]

Or, you could compare the DNA of living organisms.

 

By the way, you might want to look up 'chromosome'.

[crazydave]

Even before all that 'evidence' was found (50/50 fossil) the evolutionist allready claimed birds came from dinosaurs. And there they find a the complete fossil of dinosaur covered with feathers. Fits perfectly, no? A bit too perfect maybe. And whatever you might have heard: there is still no evidence that fossil is real. Checked several sources.

Well, I'm going to agree on that. We recently got an encyclopedia from... a group of people... which stated that Darwin rejected everything on his deathbed. Since I know the book is one of the greater pieces of fiction ever, I'll believe you when you say Darwin didn't take back his theory.

You know, there is a little something called "bias". You may not realize it, but saying you put more faith in one womens second hand acount of an old mans dieing words, than in a team of highly trained Paleontologist with tons of documentation, tells me that you are bias. just becaus its in a book doesent make it true.

Still: people to back you up are more important than factual evidence, as human history shows. "The most important thing in life isn't being right, but other people believing you're right."

NO!!! The only thing that would acomplish is make future generations think we are a bunch of idiots. Back in the middle ages, it was common knowledge that: Earth was the center of the universe, Water snakes are made when a horse hair falls out in a river, and that women were impregnated when a mans sweat got on her skin. Now, what part of believing any of that would be more important than being right?

[FritzDerochebrune]

Fritz' previous post removed. One liner spam (see the rules). Please try and avoid this in future, thanks. ^^

Please, accept my appologies. I didn't know that it was against the rules, probably misread them :unsure:

 

And now for my defence:

 

You know, there is a little something called "bias". You may not realize it, but saying you put more faith in one womens second hand acount of an old mans dieing words, than in a team of highly trained Paleontologist with tons of documentation, tells me that you are bias. just becaus its in a book doesent make it true.

Uhm... I said I believe that Darwin didn't reject his theory because I read in the encyclopedia of the creation he did. That, in combination with the knowledge that it is a great work of fiction, makes me believe Darwin DIDN'T take his words back.

I'll believe you when you say Darwin didn't take back his theory

NO!!! The only thing that would acomplish is make future generations think we are a bunch of idiots. Back in the middle ages, it was common knowledge that: Earth was the center of the universe, Water snakes are made when a horse hair falls out in a river, and that women were impregnated when a mans sweat got on her skin. Now, what part of believing any of that would be more important than being right?

Think about it: all dictators weren't right, but the people thought they were. As long as you have the masses on your side, you are winning. And you might know the infamous quote: "The great masses of the people, fall more easily for a big lie, than for a small one." He who said that might be the greatest example ever why being right isn't important. After all, he executed millions of people, just because he thaught they were inferior. And he didn't live in the Middle Ages, did he?

And you might say: oh but that was 60 years ago! Well this might be a newsflash: but today there are still enough dictators on the world.

 

Fritz: You think that it's all too convenient that the fossil was found? You think the chance is so small that its almost impossible? Then look at it this way: there are thousands of palaeontology expeditions that turned up absolutely nothing. Combine all those failures with one great find, and it doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Ah yes, but it's a miracle the most needed fossil they need is found intact, no? There were thousands of species, and from how many do we have a complete fossil? 100? And still they find the most needed fossil in one piece. I know: there is a chance of finding such a fossil, but it is a bit strange that just when the evolutionist needed some hard evidence, they get a beautiful fossil of a 50/50 race...

And think about it: under pressure of finding proof, one quickly gets seduced...

 

Or, you could compare the DNA of living organisms.

Well, if you can do that, and the test show a positive result, I will believe in the evolution of dinosaurs into birds. But you'll have to find living dinosaur to do that test first... When you have one, let me know, OK?

 

Yes, DNA of dead organisms does decay over time, but it doesn't mutate.

Yes, it doesn't mutate, but I can't explain that what I mean, I don't know how to say it in English :(

 

Cya

 

Fritz