Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
My challenge to all atheists My challenge to all atheists

02-11-2011 , 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blutarski
grunch:

do you UNDERSTAND how long a billion years is? no, you don't, because it's beyond our ability to fully comprehend a period of time this long.

consider how frequently cells can reproduce- sometimes hourly. there is a ton of time for species to evolve into humans
^
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-11-2011 , 04:29 AM
^ this
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-11-2011 , 04:31 AM
this ^


oOpsies
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-12-2011 , 05:43 AM
I just want to know if there is a single person in RGT that thinks theists have shown well ITT.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-12-2011 , 07:14 AM
I gotta give it to the theists though.. Having to work with invisibility must be a bitch. It's like being a super crime investigator. Imagine this scenario:

You arrive at the scene. Father of two claims he was home when his kid's were "compromised". The problem is there's no evidence he was there. No one can claim they saw him. He left nothing behind to indicate that he was ever there. He has an alibi and a written testimony and several witnesses. Nothing can be corroborated though. Time lines don't match up and the witnesses' accounts aren't admissible in court. You have nothing to go on but the word of some questionable witnesses. You search and search but find nothing concrete. You say to yourself "No way, this guy was never here. How else can you explain the kids getting compromised in the first place?"
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-12-2011 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oshenz11
No, you don't have to have an answer. But since I'm not asserting that macro is merely micro extrapolated, it would help your case. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Mountains of evidence from many branches of science support it. Yet it would be very easy to disprove. You are asserting that a small portion of it is true, and the rest is hand-wavy speculation. The burden of proof for your claim is clearly on you.

You accept that evolution can explain the wide range of dogs we see, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, yet claim that it can't account for the differences between the Arctic and Red Foxes. One is smaller, with longer, denser fur that turns white in winter - and it is most certainly viable. Based on dogs, you must accept that evolution can account for those adaptations. What is it about breeding that precludes evolution as the explanation?

You can point again to observation. Ignoring that we have observed what you call "macro" evolution, why would you even expect to observe something that takes place over thousands and millions of years? If you're following Bunny's conversation with Jib about the origin of the sun, do you consider that to be hand-wavy speculation as well?
Concerto, I'm still interested in your response to this.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-13-2011 , 12:14 PM
Cambrian Exploration.

It's called not being ignorant.

Read and you may learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-13-2011 , 02:07 PM
I wanted to cross post this from another thread as part of a response to Concerto's assertion that evolution is "hand wavy pseudo-science" as it is relevant here. Aside from that comment being incredibly ignorant, it's also an insult to tens of thousands of scientists who have provided substantial evidence for over 100 years.

Here's a couple examples to get you started. But, to thoroughly understand evolution, its supporting evidence and its implications, you will have to spend a long time studying it. I'm not even close to a full understanding personally. I can just never understand people who refuse to educate themselves when the information to do so is so readily available.

As an aside, speciation is a settled issue among biologists. At this point, if you're questioning it, you might as well question whether or not we landed on the moon. Also, speciation has several definitions among scientists and one of the first links I provided earlier has a good section discussing the different definitions and their implications. The biological species concept, which implies inability to mate between species, is only one possible definition and is not actually a sufficient one to cover all species we see on this planet.

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The long term E. coli experiment shows natural selection in action and yields essentially different species, depending on which category of speciation you're talking about.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-13-2011 , 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oshenz11
No, you don't have to have an answer. But since I'm not asserting that macro is merely micro extrapolated, it would help your case. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. Mountains of evidence from many branches of science support it. Yet it would be very easy to disprove. You are asserting that a small portion of it is true, and the rest is hand-wavy speculation. The burden of proof for your claim is clearly on you.

You accept that evolution can explain the wide range of dogs we see, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, yet claim that it can't account for the differences between the Arctic and Red Foxes. One is smaller, with longer, denser fur that turns white in winter - and it is most certainly viable. Based on dogs, you must accept that evolution can account for those adaptations. What is it about breeding that precludes evolution as the explanation?

You can point again to observation. Ignoring that we have observed what you call "macro" evolution, why would you even expect to observe something that takes place over thousands and millions of years? If you're following Bunny's conversation with Jib about the origin of the sun, do you consider that to be hand-wavy speculation as well?
Concerto, still interested....
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-22-2011 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP$IP
Are there still Christians who classify life in
  • Plant
  • Animal
  • Human
categories, despite the evidence? "We are not animals! We are humans, made in God's image."

What do Christians think when they see other vertebrates (or more generally Chordates)? Do they think that God was just reusing one of his "cleaver" ideas?

Do they recognize that we are more closely related to all mammals than to any reptile? Or are they all just "animals" to them?

When Christians see other primates, does the little light-bulb in their heads come on for even an instant?

If none of those enlighten them, do they see the overwhelming similarity to the "great apes"? Is it just another one of God's mysteries to them?

Do they see the unique species that have evolved over time on isolated islands and continents? Have they heard of places named Australia, Madagascar, and Galapagos? What could they be thinking?

Do they know about the differences between New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys?

Maybe they can see the obvious categories in plants easier.

What forms of denial are they forced to engage in?

Should we treat them with great patience and understanding? Or should we publicly point out the superstitions that they perpetuate?
I neglected to include the lemurs of Madagascar as an example.
The evolutionary history of lemurs occurred in isolation from other primates, on the island of Madagascar, for at least 40 million years.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-22-2011 , 10:59 AM
Haha Lemurs are funny little guys.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-22-2011 , 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
Haha Lemurs are funny little guys.
They're just the way god made them.
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-22-2011 , 11:49 AM
My challenge to all atheists Quote
02-23-2011 , 02:59 PM
evolution explains nicely
My challenge to all atheists Quote

      
m