Born Gay? Legit or not.

[Minstrel]

That's not an answer, Minstrel. That's an excuse. Address the point at hand.

That's not a response, PapaG, that's a random assertion with no substance. I did address the (old and long-settled) point at hand: transitory systems.

 

[PapaG]

lungs and gills evolved from proto-lungs and proto-gills. if you're asking for the technical details it's not hard to research this stuff.

How did proto-lungs and proto-gills develop? Have lungs and gills been developed in a controlled laboratory setting from proto-lungs and proto-gills?

 

[magnifier661]

lungs and gills evolved from proto-lungs and proto-gills. if you're asking for the technical details it's not hard to research this stuff.

So in prison; we could have mutations of men that develop both reproductive systems? There are lifers in there that will never have a woman again. You would think there would be some modern macro-evolution or even "micro-evolution" taking place. It's the perfect "petri dish" to observe a change. Men or woman that serve life sentences are in an environment that they cannot reproduce with the same sex.

 

[PapaG]

That's not a response, PapaG, that's a random assertion with no substance. I did address the (old and long-settled) point at hand: transitory systems.

It's not a "long-settled" point at hand, at least in terms of a scientific law. It's a nice theory, though.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. what more do you want.

I always love hearing this claim. It may be true. It may not even be close. We really don't know.

There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today. Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven’t), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE. That’s quite a stretch. So where do Darwinists get their number? By assuming that innumerable species existed in the transitional spaces. Why? Because they _must_ have existed there for their theory to be true.

 

[PapaG]

So in prison; we could have mutations of men that develop both reproductive systems? There are lifers in there that will never have a woman again. You would think there would be some modern macro-evolution or even "micro-evolution" taking place. It's the perfect "petri dish" to observe a change. Men or woman that serve life sentences are in an environment that they cannot reproduce with the same sex.

The problem is that the "gay gene" is anti-evolution, at least in terms of natural selection and advancement of a species via procreation. That's the dirty secret that nobody wants to bring up. Mankind has overcome that problem with science, though, meaning that a genetic anomaly can flourish. I suppose it could be argued that this science is a part of the evolutionary process, though, and could even be extended to the animal world, where man could artificially impregnate gay animals to keep a genetic variance alive.

 

[crowTrobot]

That is a massive mutation that takes a drastic transition.

nobody thinks a fish was suddenly born with lungs. there are true fish that walk on land for extended periods today to find food, and it's no stretch at all to think that such a species in the past could gradually have had small modifications that make use of oxygen through the digestive tract selected for.

When an animal is buried in sludge or "earth"; they can be fossilized very easily.

this is false. it takes very special conditions for bones to fossilize.

 

[PapaG]

I always love hearing this claim. It may be true. It may not even be close. We really don't know.

That's pretty much my opinion. We don't know, and to me, it's OK not to know.

Making up numbers (99% of all species are extinct), without that number being validated by the fossil record, isn't 'scientific' at all. I guess I just don't see why it is so hard for people to admit that there are large holes in evolutionary theory.

"Read this article" isn't an answer.

 

[magnifier661]

The problem is that the "gay gene" is anti-evolution, at least in terms of natural selection and advancement of a species via procreation. That's the dirty secret that nobody wants to bring up. Mankind has overcome that problem with science, though, meaning that a genetic anomaly can flourish. I suppose it could be argued that this science is a part of the evolutionary process, though, and could even be extended to the animal world, where man could artificially impregnate gay animals to keep a genetic variance alive.

I agree. And I think that's why there is so much hesitation on the OP. If there is such a thing as a "gay gene"; then it would go against evolution.

 

[magnifier661]

nobody thinks a fish was suddenly born with lungs. there are true fish that walk on land for extended periods today to find food, and it's no stretch at all to think that such a species in the past could gradually have had small modifications that make use of oxygen through the digestive tract selected for.



this is false. it takes very special conditions for bones to fossilize.

You mean the cowboy boot that was fossilized? So does it take thousands of years?

 

[Minstrel]

It's not a "long-settled" point at hand, at least in terms of a scientific law. It's a nice theory, though.

The question of transitory systems is long-settled.

And while you keep harping on the word "theory," the word "theory" in science is much more robust than it is in casual conversation. Something doesn't rise to the level of theory in science until its fulfilled many requirements. In some ways, it's a stronger result than a law, because a law regards a single dynamic while theories bind together many dynamics, supported by evidence and predictive power.

 

[crowTrobot]

I always love hearing this claim. It may be true. It may not even be close. We really don't know.

yes we do. it's easily (approximately) inferred from evolution itself and the nature of the fossil record, which we know must represent only a tiny percentage of species that have existed.

 

[PapaG]

The question of transitory systems is long-settled.

And while you keep harping on the word "theory," the word "theory" in science is much more robust than it is in casual conversation. Something doesn't rise to the level of theory in science until its fulfilled many requirements. In some ways, it's a stronger result than a law, because a law regards a single dynamic while theories bind together many dynamics, supported by evidence and predictive power.

Theory is stronger than law in terms of science.

Um, OK. Thanks for the lesson, Dr. Gore.

Don't address any of the questions being raised. Just say 'the science is settled', and mock those asking questions about the obvious holes.

 

[magnifier661]

The question of transitory systems is long-settled.

And while you keep harping on the word "theory," the word "theory" in science is much more robust than it is in casual conversation. Something doesn't rise to the level of theory in science until its fulfilled many requirements. In some ways, it's a stronger result than a law, because a law regards a single dynamic while theories bind together many dynamics, supported by evidence and predictive power.

But theory must always have a strict regeim of being proved wrong. That's what makes it a scientific theory. So questions on the theory and trying to prove it wrong is actually very positive for science. So we are doing evolution a favor. The more you try proving it wrong; the better chances it holds its ground. If the theory isn't sound; eventually it will be dismissed. It's only just a matter of time.

 

[magnifier661]

Theory is stronger than law in terms of science.

Um, OK. Thanks for the lesson, Dr. Gore.

Don't address any of the questions being raised. Just say 'the science is settled', and mock those asking questions about the obvious holes.

Anyone that thinks science has settled anything other than "scientific law" are people that really doesn't know science.

 

[Minstrel]

Theory is stronger than law in terms of science.

In some ways, yes. The requirements for a scientific theory are extremely rigorous and theories require many more components than laws do.

 

[Minstrel]

But theory must always have a strict regeim of being proved wrong. That's what makes it a scientific theory. So questions on the theory and trying to prove it wrong is actually very positive for science. So we are doing evolution a favor.

I agree that questioning and challenging theories is positive. But asking the same questions (ones that have already been answered) over and over doesn't do anything for science.

 

[magnifier661]

In some ways, yes. The requirements for a scientific theory are extremely rigorous and theories require many more components than laws do.

Scientific theory must have a rigorgous regime of trying to prove it wrong. Only then is when you find out if the theory holds up. So why are you so against Christians or other scientists that want to prove it wrong? They are holding their end of the bargin to solidify evolution. If evolution isn't sound; then it will eventually be exposed. That is the puriest science.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree that questioning and challenging theories is positive. But asking the same questions (ones that have already been answered) over and over doesn't do anything for science.

Adding theory to theory isn't settling anything. The questions can still be asked because they haven't had enough evidence to stop that questioning. If that was the case; then things would already be settled. And even to this day; there are tests and tests to try and disprove many things we take for granted like energy sources, treatment of bacterial infections, hell even coloring hair.

 

[Minstrel]

Adding theory to theory isn't settling anything. The questions can still be asked because they haven't had enough evidence to stop that questioning. If that was the case; then things would already be settled.

It is settled in the scientific community. Those who ask these same questions (note, I'm not referring to new challenges) are people who haven't studied biology and evolution or a very tiny minority of scientists. And while there are some that will argue that that very tiny minority of scientists are the ones fighting a massive scientific conspiracy, the truth is that there are a minority who will challenge anything, even things you think are obvious.

I have no problems with challenges to any theory or law (laws are also not proven...nothing in science can ever be proven, because we don't know all the rules of the universe), but they should be ones that haven't already been understood and well explained.

 

[PapaG]

In some ways, yes. The requirements for a scientific theory are extremely rigorous and theories require many more components than laws do.

I don't think you undestand the Scientific Method. You tring to act like an expert is amusing as always, though. I also wonder how a 'theory' that takes for a fact that macro-evolution, or even abiogenesis, exists, without it ever being observed, is 'settled'.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think you undestand the Scientific Method.

Please elaborate.

I also wonder how a 'theory' that takes for a fact that macro-evolution, or even abiogenesis, exists

Abiogenesis is actually a separate concept, not a part of evolution. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began, just how life develops.

 

[PapaG]

It is settled in the scientific community. .

If that's the case, why is money still being spent on trying to prove abiogenesis, for example? It's the key foundation block for evolutionary theory, yet some scientists won't even move it past the hypothesis level.

 

[Minstrel]

[Abiogenesis is] the key foundation block for evolutionary theory

It's not, as noted above.

 

[TripTango]

Reading science discussions on this board is like watching a Blazers road game.

 

[magnifier661]

It is settled in the scientific community. Those who ask these same questions (note, I'm not referring to new challenges) are people who haven't studied biology and evolution or a very tiny minority of scientists. And while there are some that will argue that that very tiny minority of scientists are the ones fighting a massive scientific conspiracy, the truth is that there are a minority who will challenge anything, even things you think are obvious.

I have no problems with challenges to any theory or law (laws are also not proven...nothing in science can ever be proven, because we don't know all the rules of the universe), but they should be ones that haven't already been understood and well explained.

It is hardly settled when you have nothing to observe. There is what crowbot repeatedly mentions "God of Gaps" that proves that nothing is even close to settled. All that has been settling is more theories to justify theories. No observations can be made because the theories are not observable. The main theory that it takes thousands of years to make small changes is seriously waging the dog.

Like I said, you could use the lifers in prision to give evidence that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and you can have thousands of documented observations of any genetic mutations in process.

 

[PapaG]

Abiogenesis is actually a separate concept, not a part of evolution. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life began, just how life develops.

Um yes, evolution does attempt to explain how life began. The words "can't" and "doesn't" have different meanings, though, which even Darwin himself struggled with later in life.

Accepting evolutionary theory unquestioned is, in my opinion, akin to accepting creationism without skepticism.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

yes we do. it's easily (approximately) inferred from evolution itself and the nature of the fossil record, which we know must represent only a tiny percentage of species that have existed.

Sure--if you operate under the assumption that macro-evolution is incontrovertible, and you operate under the assumption that the miniscule sample size provided by recorded history, observable nature, and explored strata provides a comprehensive look at the panoply of life on earth, then sure, you can infer that.

Or, you could operate under the notion that those assumptions are uncertain, and then the conclusion becomes uncertain as well. I prefer the "agnostic" approach on this one.

 

[PapaG]

It is hardly settled when you have nothing to observe. There is what crowbot repeatedly mentions "God of Gaps" that proves that nothing is even close to settled. All that has been settling is more theories to justify theories. No observations can be made because the theories are not observable. The main theory that it takes thousands of years to make small changes is seriously waging the dog.

Like I said, you could use the lifers in prision to give evidence that there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and you can have thousands of documented observations of any genetic mutations in process.

I don't think Minstrel understands that the "Theory of Evolution" is actually still a work-in-progress, and that new theories are either added to it to help explain things, or dropped from it (origin of life apparently no longer is a part of it ... didn't know that one ) in order to continue to explain it.

Does evolution exist? IMO, clearly it does at some level. Are there massive holes in the theory? Of course, which is why scientists continue to research it.

Saying the 'science is settled' is base-level stuff, though.

I

 

[Minstrel]

Um yes, evolution does attempt to explain how life began.

It doesn't. Evolution isn't a theory of where life came from, it's about the origin of species, not life.

Accepting evolutionary theory unquestioned is, in my opinion, akin to accepting creationism without skepticism.

I agree that accepting any scientific theory unquestioned is a mistake, which is why I've said several times that there's nothing wrong with legitimate challenges to evolution. Asking questions that aren't considered problems with the theory within the scientific community isn't really a "legitimate challenge."