WilliamBlue

I think that the problem lies with the word "macro-evolution", there is no such thing as macro-evolution, before there was a wing there was an arm with fingers, before there were feathers there was fur. Individuals and groups are trying to push that these things as if they just popped into existence and to do that you need magic.

That fact that a certain group of dinosaurs had an avian like lung, even if it post dated the earliest birds, to me says that it existed and may have existed for a long time as soft tissues do not fossilize as easily as bones, therefore are extremely rare. Until someone invents a time machine we are going to have to put up with this nit-picking. It is unfortunate that every creature in the past did not jump in to a bottle for preservation, but that's how it is.

I still would like to see who these 'major scientists' are that GI keeps going on about as the ones he listed do not seem to fall into this category. Oh yeah if you are going to copy things off the web GI at least do it right, quote it and don't change the words.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

GI

A law whose content is set by nature; a necessary, intrinsic and immutable feature of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. So, in this case; we would propose that carbon based life on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, galaxies, light, gravity, metal, gases etc.

I propose a non-Darwinian account of the development of life. Self organisation and "directed" mutation by the laws of nature and not by natural selection. That may seem like a contradiction, but there is a subtle difference there - believe me. A Platonic conception for organic form if you will. If you want an example of what I am talking about, advances in protein chemistry have revealed that protein folding (the physical process by which a polypeptide folds into its characteristic and functional three-dimensional structure) represents a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary
modifications of primary ‘‘givens of physics.’’ This is NOT likelely to be the only case in nature where a set of complex organic forms is determined by natural law.

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

GI

Like who? Does it matter anyway? Can you not think for yourself?

Not that I have done that anyway, but why???? Why not read something on the net and agree with it? What an odd thing to say!!! I even pointed you all to three links of what I would say but would not neccessaily regurgitate here. Your ability to reason Mr Blue is quite poor I am sorry to have to inform you, are you sure you are on the right forum??

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

AB517

WOW, you are so close you can smell it… Just inhale dude!

The only thing I see is that you do not understand that “natural selection” as a piece of this natural law. The steadfastness of you conviction implies that man knows what laws of the universe are. We do not! I hear all too often on forums, this included, people over state what we know about the universe and human construction.

“A law whose content is set by nature; a necessary, intrinsic and immutable feature of the world order, which will occur throughout the cosmos wherever there is life. So, in this case; we would propose that carbon based life on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, galaxies, light, gravity, metal, gases etc.”

Evolution fits this perfectly.
Think of how we get an electrical outlet into a house. During one phase an electrician has to drill holes in a few studs, bend the wire around a corner and through the holes to the location of the outlet… Blab la bla.

My wife walks into the house and sees the outlet and has to propose and possible “order of operations” based on what she sees. She is not allowed to take anything apart, just based in her observations from fuse box to the, lets say, master bed room she has to give her procedure. Based on her knowledge today of construction techniques, which is very limited, she has to speculate on how it was done.

This is what “evolution” does.

This “natural law of carbon” allows life to form precisely because of carbon’s electron configuration flexibility. This flexibility allows the mutations.

By the way, science does use to Darwin’s view totally. Darwin was just the first guy to propose something. Kind of like we don’t use Edison’s first light bulb anymore but the basic idea is still there..

WilliamBlue

Here is the magic I was speaking of; ""directed" mutation" which is the real reason behind this whole argument and has no evidence other than 'I don't understand'. Directed by whom, I ask? Don't bother as I all ready know the answer. If it was directed, what was the purpose of waiting 4 billion years? Why not direct directly to what you want instead?

This all has to do with mankind's ego in that we need to feel that we are special, well I say we are special, we have reached the top as of today and we have every right to expect that we will do more! The process of evolution does not need magic and I being agnostic will not buy into an argument based on conjecture and no evidence whatsoever.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

GI

I have a fact for you:

The theory you take as factual and unquestionable is incomplete. I'm telling you where it is incomplete, and in all honesty where it is incomplete is where there is no evidence for it and where the explanation is as far fetched as is possible.

Why you are so dogmatic, arrogant, 'aggressive' and sure about it is something that amazes me and others. I can only deduce it is a matter of reputation, the inability to think it through, general fear of the unknown or a black and white Bible/Science dilemma in a feeble mind. Those scientists that have the bottle to demonstrate clearly the problems with this theory/dogma/doctrine in the face of adversity should be applauded and the rest of you that have the ability to think should be questioning yourselves.

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

WilliamBlue

Yes it matters, you can not make things up and then call it science.

Lets search for this; On this page;http://philosophy.nuim.ie/documents/...rs2005ver4.pdf since the book is not on the web...

Hmm, almost word for word, oh except for this little change "can't be" instead of "can seldom be"... interesting. Seems your whole argument is from one book (Evolution; A theory in crisis)by one author (Denton)which has been lambasted by his peers(if they even call him one), are you really thinking here? Even Denton has backed out of a lot of what he has claimed in that book. You should also reconsider(think).

Because the web is full of junk, lots and lots of junk, anyone can put something on the web, like you for instance. I am sure there are many pages that will argue that leprechauns are real, are you going to believe that also? Regurgitate is the correct word. You have not informed me of anything as of yet, other than how gullible some individuals can be.

definition-agnostic-just-so-were-clear

Yeap.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

WilliamBlue

I say no kidding and so what?! You want to fill the holes with unproven and unprovable magic. Your conjecture does not even have evidence to support it. This is not thinking, it is imagination. Imagine all you want, just don't tell me it's science.

__________________
When you dance with an elephant it's up to you to not get stepped on.
How can we be so arrogant and egotistical to believe that the whole Universe was created just for us?
Anger is like you drinking poison and hoping your enemy will die.

GI

It doesn't matter what I want to 'fill the holes' with, that isn't my argument and if you can't see that then you either a bit thick or just ignorant (both I suspect)! What I would attempt to fill the holes with is theory, as everyone else does on the planet, including you!!! Just because it's not your theory doesn't mean it is wrong, and scientists are looking at solving the mysteries not magicians, so grow up!!

At least you concede that there are 'holes', they are major major ones though aren't they????????? So until we know what fills these massive holes, stop being so dogmatic and aggressive about the whole thing and try to know that you don't know right now.

Your comments about copying and pasting a sentance or two are wrong, even if they were right it does not matter and it only serves to show how desperate you are in your failing argument. My homology comments were pretty much taken from the book you site and were manually written from memory....so bloody what!???? Why can't I read something and agree with it? Do you want me to just re-word it so that it looks like I should get credit for it? I agree with it, that's all that matters. Instead of asking me who I agree with, what I have read, which scientists agrees with me, why not discuss the actual problem, or is that asking a bit much from the likes of you?

So you Darwinists seem to think. This is not true at all. Dr Denton still believes gradualistic mechanisms are not sufficient for macroevolution, and that the origin of life is a complete mystery as we know. However, he is deeply impressed by the closeness of all life in DNA space and in his second book 'Nature's Destiny' attempts to explain a theory for why macroevolution via the Neo-Darwinism mechanism is not conceivable. What IS your PROBLEM here???? Think, read, understand what people are saying!!!

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.

GI

So where do you fit into all this then WilliamBlue? Or is Darwin and Dawkins yor God????

__________________
The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, the less you know the more you THINK you know.