evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
The person that replied right before me about how all the evidence points toward evolution. ill have to disagree, id say the evidence points toward the world being created.


I would say that the world was definitely "created"...the fact that it's here proves the assertion. I think our only disagreement is the question of how it was created.


now, if its created as in God spoke and there it was is how I belive, or others, if God spoke and let earth slowly evolve, that still means that God had to have set in fourth the notion to evolving, and it couldnt have of occured by complete accident, but rather God.


That is a valid point, both in considering the macrocosm and microcosm. In the latter case, it appears that mutations are entirely random. But this appearance could be deceiving, i.e., there may be some purpose in it. The same could be said of the universe as a whole.


I still dont see any evidence of billions of fossils of ape/human mix out there folks, which theoretically it would have took more than trillions of half ape guys to have lived before the full man would have come out


Enough fossils have been found to construct the basic evolutionary chart. Our pre-human ancestors would have been nowhere as numerous as our own species. We have been able to adapt and make the world safe for us, enabling us to flourish. Recall that even the first humans were hunters and gatherers. In the Paleolithic era, they still lacked basic knowledge of agriculture, and lacked even common tools. These early humans would have had a high level of starvation in the winter, as well as a high mortality rate due to exposure to the elements. They were also common prey for predatorial animals.

Only when humans were able to engage to agriculture in the Neolithic period, as well as advancements in tools and weapons, did our species began to become widespread.


how do we really no the world is billions of years old, where the proof of that?


A century ago, Edwin Hubble made a landmark discovery: everything in the universe is slowly moving away from each other. Hubble was able to diagram visible galaxies and their motion, whose speed was later calculated using Einstein's general theory of relativity. The results produced from these calculations and observations lead to very important conclusions.

Since everything is in motion moving away from each other, it follows that at some finite point in the past that all things occupied the same position in space, when the universe was infinitely dense; it also follows that at some finite time in the past, an event occured which set everything in motion (this event is popularly called the "big bang").

Newton's theories of a static universe were disproved in this regard; the universe is expanding, and motion can be calculated relative to the speed of light, approximated at 186,000 miles per second. Using this calculation as a guide, it can be estimated at what point matter was set in motion at the primal event, i.e., the big bang. The current estimate is that the big bang occured between ten and twenty thousand million years ago.

Einsteinian theory further explains the nature of time and space, which give even more insight into the question. In fact, Einstein's theory put an end to the concept of "absolute time", introducing the concept of a space-time continuum, where reality itself is relative to the viewpoint of the observer, and does much in explaining this awe-inspiring universe that we call home.



[edit on 26-11-2004 by Masonic Light]




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, not really I dont think. but mutation or error, whatever it is, its a very vauge sense and still doesnt explain how it could lead to a different species. and the "or" u put in their... just like I could say "everyone is God, or they are human" when in reality there would only be one God, hence basically the first statment isnt even correct, but as long as the second one is with an OR it makes the whole thing correct. but weather those things are true, doesnt really matter, and it depends on what an "error" is. we dont full understand the brain or human body, and what may look like an "error" may not be an "error" or "mutation" at all. and yeah, it is annoying when people asks why their are apes around if they evolved, because theoretically IF apes evolved (which I doubt they did) they wouldnt ALL have evolved at the exact same time, it would have been one ape, then another, at different times. so the real question should be, why arent they in their half ape/man stages now if they did evolve??!


There are in the form of fosiles also if we did not evolve how Would you explain the 2 now extended subspecies of man? Neanderthal and cromagna. We have complete fossils of all of these.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, not really I dont think. but mutation or error, whatever it is, its a very vauge sense and still doesnt explain how it could lead to a different species.


I dont see how mutations are vague. I could see how it would be hard to see how new species evolve, but, if you break it down and look at it one by one, you can imagine over the course of long periods of time, its enevitable. Just to clear things up, Evolution states absolutely nothing about the cosmos, or how we got here, it talks about how new species evolve through natural selection and mutations. Read up on Abiogenesis if you're interested in their theories of how we got here. Anyways, take it for whats its worth, but here is an example I have of how species evolve. In Africa, lets say that a long time ago, the food on the ground was getting extremely scarce, but the food on the trees was still good. Through random mutations, say an individual has a longer neck, this trait then gets passed down generations to everyone in the community, its beneficial, so they dont die off, as opposed to the individuals with shorter necks. So now every generation, the necks are getting taller and taller until the point where they no longer need long necks, because they are fully capable of getting food out of the trees as well as the ground. Over this long period of time, they've become a whole different species. The reason humans arent evolving today (or less dramatic, I should say), is because we have no need to, we can manipulate the environment to the point where we dont directly rely on our bodies to sheild us from the elements. Hope that helps at all. I might also add, that you can believe in evolution and still believe in God, even the Christian God. A lot of Christians believe in evolution. Darwin rechanting evolution on his death-bed is just a myth. Understand though, that even if he did, it wouldnt make a difference, because the theory of evolution is tried and true.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts.

Any actual examples to support this baseless claim??


I couldprobably find more evidence for why Santa Claus has a secret laboratory in the north pole and thats where all the presents comes from on Christmas than of Evolution.

Merely because you are incapable of finding the evidence for evolution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


I have looked into Carbon 14 dating

In case you didn't know, most evolutionary thinking was done before anyone knew about or used Carbon 14 dating.


, and this is what the science books say is used to date dino's back millions of years.

No, thats completly and totally wrong. C14 dating can not date things back to the age of dinosaurs. It can't date things back particularly far at all. I guess this is an illustration of just how much 'research' and 'searching' on teh subject you have done. This also makes your claim that evolution doesn't occur because you haven't been able to find the evidence rather meaningless no?


they took a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old.

So? What does that demonstrate other than that Carbon dating isn't supposed to be used improperly. No one expects it to work on improper samples.


Ive heard reports of dinosaur bones being carbon dated and coming out to be only 26K years old, when evolution states all dinos become extinct 65M years ago.

They propably got an erroneous age because you can't use carbon dating on dinosaurs.



Another article in a scientifc magazine did samples on Volcanic rock just formed from the Hawaiian Islands a few hundred years ago and it came back millions of years old. obviously, Carbon 14 dating isnt entirely correct,

Obviously the people doing the dating on modern eruptive lava didn't know what they were doing if they actually thought it could be used that way.

But enough of Carbon dating,

Since its got nothing to do with evolution in general that might be a good idea.


they say we came from monkeys, but that is scientifically impossible.

How? Man and ape are extremely similar. There aren't very many changes required for it, so how is it immposible?


No one can argue with that, DNA reconstruction wasnt nown untill the man in 1980's developed the DNA trace and won a Nobel Peace Prize for it.

Is this a joke post? An attempt at trolling? THe nobel peace prize for a scientific accomplishment? Either you are trolling everyone here or haven't the faintest clue as to what you are talking about. WHich is it?

and just for a simple celled organsim its self to pop up from the "soup" that was eternal in the universe, the figures are so astronomically high.

Oh, you've done the calculations and reviewed the abiogenetic literature and found that to be the case? And who the heck siad that it sprung from nothing? Evolution works by small successes and building on them. There's nothing on the face of it that says its immpossible or that the odds are too great.


The chances of evolution happening all together is a number so high, if you could write a few billion zeros a second, it would take you a few million years to complete the number.

Man, you just made that up completely. I am really thinking that this was just some stupid attempt at trolling the board. You do know that they'll just reovke you account, ban you, and then erase the messages and trash the thread right? That statement you made above is so ridiculous and preposterous and unfounded as to be laughable, and demonstrates a complete ignorance of anything about evolution, if you think that it is a process that is controlled by 'chances of happening' or something silly liek that.


And if we evolved from an ape like type animal, why isnt it still evolving now?

Every natural population in existence now is evolving, man, monkey, chimps, whatever.


and the pairs needed for a DNA replication, (just a single cell in DNA, which we have BILLIONS of cells mad from DNA) in a medium advanced animal, is about 2 corect pairs in a 1 with 260 zero's folowing it. and thats not even the chances of DNA replication happening, but only the pairs of DNA in a medium sized animal in a single cell, which has billions of them. so a monkey is more advanced, but billions of cells and a genetic mutation needed in the monkey/ape whatever we evolved from the chances of that happening are out of this world.

Dear god, this is bordering on gibberish. I ask again, and I am being completely honest and genuine here, is this or is this not merely an attempt at trolling? On the off chance that you are serious, I'll try to answer what I think you are asking. First off, a mutation doesn't have to happen in every cell of every animal, it merely has to happen in a sperm or egg cell in order to result in an organism with all its cells having the mutation. ANd what does it matter if there are lots of base pairs in dna? YOu seem to think that this should prohibit the replication of dna, but no one doubts that it happens, indeed its observed in the lab, and, agian, why shoudl dna being complex matter?



it would take a VERY long time for this to happen obviously.

No, it would take a single generation for a mutation to arise (hell multiple mutations are going to arise in individual that is created, and then there are hundreds or thousands or more individuals produced each generation in any given population). And given many generations, lots of mutations arise and result in lots of variation for natural selection to work on.


And just as we have different X and Y Chronosomes in our bodys than monkeys, if humans were to have a kid with an extra or short chronosome, the kid would be mental, or a defict in his body, he would be worse off than his parents, not better as evolution states in our evolving.

Since 'evolution' does not state that all change is the result of chromosome duplication this is hardly relevant. Its also wrong since in plants entire sets of chromosomes can be duplicated and result in perfectly healthy individuals that can breed with eachother or members of the parent generation and thrive.


Just about everything evolution is scientifically impossible to happen,
You have failed to mention a single thing that is either improbably or immposible.


sinc in order for soemthing to be declared scientifically impossible the chances have to be 1 in a 1 with 40 zero's following it.

Since when? Where are you getting that from???


DNA is just one aspect of why evolution doesnt make sense,

DNA is on aspect of why evolution makes perfect sense. It shows how variation arises and how heredity acts.


but rather a fairy tale. evolution is not a science, but a theory and will never be proven right.

All science is theory. All science is theory. No theories are ever proven right. So this can hardly be a complaint against evolution. And how can being a theory make something unscientific? That doesn't even begin to make sense.



in order to be a science, a theory has to be observed,

No. This is not how science operates. Any science. Theories are not actual things running around the world, they are ideas, and hopefully approximate the truth, but theories are not observed. Science is theories.



and evolution was never observed,

Not only has it been observed that the allele frequencies in a population change over time, but speciation has been observed. Thus, evolution has been observed. It is theorized that it operates primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection (that is Darwin's theory)


If we evolved from our ape ancestors, ther should be literally thousands of fossils since the chances of anything evolving from an ape to human is so slim, millions and billions (and even more) of half ape/man fossils should be here,

No, there shouldn't especially since there is so little that needs to be changed from ape to man. And why should the fossil record preserve any fossils in the first place? Everyone is lucky to have the thousands upon thousands that do exist, not complain about there not being enough of one particular type. There shouldn't have been billions of 'ape men' in the first place, and one shoudln't expect very many of them to be preserved as fossils either.


but yet all I see is a crushed head that is "reconstructed" to look like an ape/man, and when the DNA comes back not even proving it really is half ape/man, but rather in my oppinion a "big foot prank" and desperate drive toward proving evolution, when their is none.

What dna studies? THe only genetic evidence from 'ape men' that I am aware of is a single mDNA sample harvested from a neanderthal skeleton, not a 'crushed head' that had to be reconstructed, and it clearly showed that they were very closely related to homo sapiens but hadn't interbred with them.


show me da proof, gentle men,

The 'proof' is there, you apparently are making stuff up and refusing to look at it, claiming that dinosaurs are carbon dated or that there've been dna studies on ape men that contradict evolution.


this is a theory untill proven

Evolutionary theory, along with every other theory in science, never gets proven. Theories don't 'graduate' into facts.

Darwin himself said he made the whole thing up and repented on his death bed and became a christian.

Absolutely untrue. Darwin never 'recanted' his theory and became less religious throughout the course of his life. This 'deathbed' story is apparently pretty well widespread, and ofcourse completely and utterly baseless. When you repeat it, you are repeating a lie.


show me the evidence guys,

Why don't you show the evidence instead of making up falshoods.



I dont see any

Apparently, from the terrible lack of information that you've displayed here, you haven't been looking very far, and infact where ever you have been looking have been absolutely horrible sources, making up stuff about deathbed recanting and c14 studies on dinosaurs of all things.


EDITED: By the Society for the Advocation of Paragraph Employment
[edit on 26-11-2004 by Gazrok]

Much obliged Moderator.


tsuribito
Creationism on the other hand is the other theory that we have

Creationism isn't actually a theory. It does nothing that theories do and wasn't arrived at in the same ways that theories are. Creationism is just 'genesis is real' and other variations of that, not a coherent theory.


What scientists actually do all day is trying to prove that our current theory of evolution is false.

I would like to say that I think this is an excellent description of what scientists do and what science is all about.


jukyu
I believe what Darwin did was renounce his theory on his deathbed because it was being taken out of context as it is today and he felt it better to denounce it then allow it to be his work in the state it had become

Darwin never recanted his theory or anything like that. And keep in mind that 'Darwin's Theory' is that evolution happens primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection. The occurance of evolution had been recognized before Darwin and Wallace.

jukyu
It doesn't completely invalidate the Darwin /deathbed recanting thing though

So lets get this straight. No one heard darwin recant his theory, he never wrote anything that he did recant it, and infact there is no evidence, anywhere, to suggest that he did in fact recant it, but thats just not good enough and he may well have recanted it? Sure, its possible, I mean, one can say almost anything about something one has absolutely no information on, heck by that reasoning one could say anything happened about anything. Thats not particularly reasonible tho is it?

slicky1313
well a numerous amount of sources, including hard core aithest sites of how Darwin took back his theory of evolution. and of course he made it up

What 'hard core aethist site' is promoting this complete fabrication and lie?


"well, ill be darned, this DNA sample says we all came from a single celled organism"

Since he didn't have dna evidence of anysort thats rather preposterous isn't it?


u dont think he just guess what happened when some big explosion in the matter or soup happened, flying everywhere.

Again, you sources are horribly mis-informed. Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with 'the big bang', and for that matter has nothing to do with abiogenesis research. He had no idea where life came from originally and hazzarded what he felt was a reasonable guess about a 'primordial soup'. He didn't need to explain where life came from in order to understand how it operates in the here and now.



I dont get it yo, dont think u no what yer talking about there. all a flu shot is the virus u dont want being injected into your body so the body knows what its up against, it doesnt go into a big mutation like changing its chronosomes in reproduction or DNA reconstrucytion

The poster was refering to the fact that the flu virus, you know, the thing that gives people the flu, is evolving, and thats why flu vaccines are changed year to year, because the virus is evolving.


but Darwin also founded the basis of how the universe was made

Darwin did soem pretty incredible stuff, but that most certainly was not one of them.


but mutation or error, whatever it is, its a very vauge sense and still doesnt explain how it could lead to a different species

Mutations are the source of new variation, upon which natural selection acts and results in adaptation. Speciation results from populations becoming reproductively isolated.

it depends on what an "error" is. we dont full understand the brain or human body, and what may look like an "error" may not be an "error" or "mutation" at al

A mutation is an error. When a mistake is made it dna replication, that is a mutation.

so the real question should be, why arent they in their half ape/man stages now if they did evolve??!

Why should they? Why should there be any half man half ape things walking around? And just what do you think that would look like anyway? A half man half monkey should like like, well, a chimpanzee no? All species undergo their own rate of evolution because they are being subjected to their own circumstances and pressures and have distinct gene pools. If you think that they are supposed to 'evolve together' then you have seriously misunderstood what Darwin's theory was all about. Which, apparently, you have, since you thought he discovered what teh universe was made up of.


id say the evidence points toward the world being created.

What evidence points torwards the world being created by any god, let alone the god of the bible?


which theoretically it would have took more than trillions of half ape guys to have lived before the full man would have come out

No, it wouldn't have. Evolutionary theory does not make this claim.


I see a workd of art in the universe that was created, not by pure chance

Demonstrate that the universe was created by an intelligent metaphysical designer.

and evolution is accepted so people dont have to suck up to da facts that they can never be their own God

Evolution is accepted because its in agreeance with all the known facts.


"my, it evolved from the scrap metal in the junk pile from the fire in just a thousand years" but rather it was placed there by people who were there thousands of years ago

However, pots and pans don't interbreed and form variable populations that run around the world and evolve. Animals do.


so how do we really no the world is billions of years old

You would suggest that it isn't? Carbon Dating is not used to demonstrate that the world is billions of years old.

it will always be proven wrong in some form of fashion since no one really knows what happened.

Evolution has yet to be refuted or 'proven wrong' so what is this about it 'allways' being proven wrong? No one has been able to do prove it wrong.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TPL
Religion and Evolution can work together, after all couldn't God have set evolution in motion.

[edit on 26-11-2004 by TPL]


DING DING DING!! We've got a winner!

That's my theory.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Perhaps it would be better to but it like this. Science operates without reference to any supernatural entities. Not ghosts, not gods, not god. It doesn't say that they don't exist, and rather says that it can't say anything about them. At most, science is able to show how things happen without gods or ghosts.

Religion, of course, can say anything about anything, so it can say that the world formed in the way its literally presented in Genesis, and just has the appearance of being formed in a different way, and basically be entirely safe from refutation, especially since it can allways claim some other 'miracle' or divine event happened to explain any inconsistensies.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I would like to point out the basic fact that gets lost in these debates but was mentioned by the first poster: evolution is mathematically impossible. Period.

When the evolution hypothesis was devised, they didn't know about DNA. If you change a letter, most chances are the organism becomes non-viable. So to go from viable species A to viable species B, you need to go through non-viable intermediaries. Viable species are like peaks in the probability landscape, separated by abysms of astronomical improbability.

Another analogy is like: DNA is compressed information, therefore little changes have huge consequences. Also, like compressed information, meaningful changes in the result need to have come from many little changes, seemingly unrelated, spread all over the genome.

What we find (what we have proof of) is that "evolution" actually selects for stability, not for change. The case of viruses doesn't contradict this, because: 1, viruses are not so complex as large organisms and 2, viruses are built to withstand larger degrees of change.

There is another perspective where evolution doesn't add up. Where does the information come from? Information in the universe can only be created by consciousness. An ecosystem may seem like a series of self-reproducing automatons, but who put them there?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
@Originally posted by StarBreather
Nothing you said has anythingot do with reality.
It sounds like stuff you made up in your basement.
If what you said was true then you wouldn't be alive, as you have a mutation in your DNA right now.
As your alive, that mean snothingyou said has any validity.
Nice try though.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
You seem to have latched onto the litteral meaning of the word "mutation".
We all have mutations, but we are alive in spite of them. Others are not so lucky. Plus, you didn't contradict my points.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
well, not really I dont think. but mutation or error, whatever it is, its a very vauge sense and still doesnt explain how it could lead to a different species. and the "or" u put in their... just like I could say "everyone is God, or they are human" when in reality there would only be one God, hence basically the first statment isnt even correct, but as long as the second one is with an OR it makes the whole thing correct. but weather those things are true, doesnt really matter, and it depends on what an "error" is. we dont full understand the brain or human body, and what may look like an "error" may not be an "error" or "mutation" at all. and yeah, it is annoying when people asks why their are apes around if they evolved, because theoretically IF apes evolved (which I doubt they did) they wouldnt ALL have evolved at the exact same time, it would have been one ape, then another, at different times. so the real question should be, why arent they in their half ape/man stages now if they did evolve??!


Hey
Was just reading this and kind of annoyed me. If apes evolved then they should all evolve at same time we same mutations. That like saying we all should learn at same speed we should all have same illnesses (basically everyone should have say cancer).
Evolution had to of taken place there no other way for us to be on this place at our current technological scale.
Sure I read some where about apes in the congo which may have been a new spcies as they acted and had evolved to be physically and sociable differnet to the average ape to take to their new suroundings.

Also if you do not belive in it what do you think happend.....We got dropped here when the earth was like a over heated oven and just stayed the same never advancing or evolving.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
evolution is mathematically impossible. Period.

Evolution is most certainly not mathematically immpossible. THere is nothing 'immpossible' of natural selection acting upon variation to result in speciation and adaptation.


When the evolution hypothesis was devised, they didn't know about DNA. If you change a letter, most chances are the organism becomes non-viable.

Actually most changes to DNA are entirely neutral. Then come 'bad' mutations and only then below that come 'good' mutations. So what? So good mutations are rare. What does that matter?


Plus, you didn't contradict my points.

He certianly did contradict your point that the vast majority of mutations are harmful.


So to go from viable species A to viable species B, you need to go through non-viable intermediaries.

No, you don't, that was the entire gist of Darwin's idea. You can go from a dinosaur to a bird in little steps, not by having some freak of nature squirming about with no function.





What we find (what we have proof of) is that "evolution" actually selects for stability, not for change. The case of viruses doesn't contradict this, because: 1, viruses are not so complex as large organisms and 2, viruses are built to withstand larger degrees of change.

Viruses and bacteria and 'normal' populations of animals undergo evolution, the frequencies of their alleles vary from generation to generation, and that selection acts upon this variation. Sometimes stabilization is selected for, other times adaptations are selected for.

Where does the information come from? Information in the universe can only be created by consciousness.

Since when? Please demonstrate that the sort of 'informatio' in DNA proteins, crystals and minerals can only come from intelligence.



An ecosystem may seem like a series of self-reproducing automatons, but who put them there?

Thats what is so great about natural selection. It explains why there are ecosystems. The different organisms interact with one another, populations diversity, species evovlve and co-adapt and new niches form while populations are 'selected' to 'enter' those new niches. Without evolution one has to say that all these things were 'created' because of some divine plan, because of the benevolence of the creator, as they used to say. Darwin himself noted this idea, and thought it strange that the 'benevolent' creator woudl make wasps that immobilize catepillars and impregnate them with their own larvae, which hatch in the still living wasp and devour it from the inside out. Natural Selection shows that there need be no benevolent reasons for any of this.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   


Evolution is most certainly not mathematically immpossible. THere is nothing 'immpossible' of natural selection acting upon variation to result in speciation and adaptation.

I was pointing out the difference between "a little improbable" and "astronomically improbable".



Actually most changes to DNA are entirely neutral. Then come 'bad' mutations and only then below that come 'good' mutations. So what? So good mutations are rare. What does that matter?

1. Most mutations look neutral because what we observe are mostly viable results. The non-viables died in the womb, or the seeds didn't grow.
2. Neutral mutations are neutral as long as they vary around an attractor, which is the designed being.
3. If all mutations in general were neutral, then the most DNA would be "junk", but this is not the case. Functions are being discovered now for the so-called "junk".



He certianly did contradict your point that the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

The vast majority of mutations, occurring randomly (and spanning the ones we see and the ones we don't see because of non-viability), ARE harmful, especially if they accumulate into a deviation from the pattern.



No, you don't, that was the entire gist of Darwin's idea. You can go from a dinosaur to a bird in little steps, not by having some freak of nature squirming about with no function.

That's where the analogy of the compressed information comes in: there is not a linear relation between the space where the mutations take place (the DNA) and the result (the living organism). So the series of "small steps" is very elusive. What look like little steps in the built organism has to come from huge rearrangements in the compressed information.



Viruses and bacteria and 'normal' populations of animals undergo evolution, the frequencies of their alleles vary from generation to generation, and that selection acts upon this variation. Sometimes stabilization is selected for, other times adaptations are selected for.

Variation happens within a certain range. Outside this range, there is a very steep climb. What has been observed in the wild is only adaptation within that range. Evolution has never been observed in higher forms of life. This is why it is important to establish the difference between higher forms and viruses. Even viruses have very strict limits within which they work. Usually viruses have a stable part and a variable part. Because they are so simple, the variable part is proportionally much larger than in higher forms of life.



Since when? Please demonstrate that the sort of 'informatio' in DNA proteins, crystals and minerals can only come from intelligence.

Crystals: their growth is a mechanical process.
Minerals: their properties are causal results of the properties of matter.
Proteins: they are the mechanical result of DNA programs.
DNA: it is a set of interlocked programs, much more complex than any human creation.
The thing to understand, is that between crystals, minerals and proteins on one side, and DNA on another side, there is an increase in the level of complexity. Whereas matter moves mechanically and entirely subject to causal laws, it does not spontaneously configure itself into higher forms (higher, on a totally different level). Spontaneously means "irrespective of it taking seconds or ages". Therefore, there had to be an influx of organizing information coming from somewhere.



Thats what is so great about natural selection. It explains why there are ecosystems. The different organisms interact with one another, populations diversity, species evovlve and co-adapt and new niches form while populations are 'selected' to 'enter' those new niches. Without evolution one has to say that all these things were 'created' because of some divine plan, because of the benevolence of the creator, as they used to say. Darwin himself noted this idea, and thought it strange that the 'benevolent' creator woudl make wasps that immobilize catepillars and impregnate them with their own larvae, which hatch in the still living wasp and devour it from the inside out. Natural Selection shows that there need be no benevolent reasons for any of this.

To simulate the workings of creatures and all their ecological interactions takes the computing power of planets and stars. By this route we can prove that there is no time, not even in a billion years, for life to adapt to its environment on earth by the random steps of evolution.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
quote: they say we came from monkeys, but that is scientifically impossible.

"How? Man and ape are extremely similar. There aren't very many changes required for it, so how is it immposible? "

yo holmes, I never said it was impossible, I said it was "scientifically impossible" if you ever looked into the laws of science, something that that the odds of a 1 with 40 zero's following it is declared scientifically impossible. that doesnt mean it can never happen, but it is still scientifically impossible. and yes, if you ever actually did do the chances of evolution happening, they would be HUGE. if you wrote a million zero's a second, it would take u a few billion years to complete. and DNA re construction to create a whole new species is scientifically impossible, and I doubt it could ever happen anyway. And how do we no the Era of when dino's lived, huh? how do we date these creatures that lived bak in da day, and how do we no they werent around just a few hundred years ago, or thousands of years ago. look at some of King Nebakanezers documents, he reported raising dragons to pull his chariots, the word "dinosaur" wasnt invented till the 1800's, "dragon" was the word meant for dinosaur back then. if you look back in weather reports of the US in the 1700's they reported a flock of dragons flying different directions for weather patterns. and as far as the christian God and evolution goes, they dont mix. evolution states that if you kill another person, that is ok because they are weaker than you, its no different than a dog killing and eating a mouse. and evolution states that people are stupid and get smater, when the christian God, or the Bible states that God made Adam, and he made him "perfect" does God make a perfect human stupid?!?! you say God and evolution can mix, but for the christian God they really cant. if Adam and Eve is made perfect, than the generation slowly gets worse, and as you can see for yer self God orders people so many generations down fdrom Adam not to marry close relatives because the genetics get worse thruour the generations, and people get stupider thru the generations. evolutuon states people get smarter thru the generations, and better, and first man was as stupid as my door bell and didnt have any tools for farms or anything. and when we look at Cane, he had built a city and lived there. u no what it takes to build a citie, a lot of brains and power. Adam had sewn fig leaves together when he relized he was naked for gramets. lets you try to sew leaves ogether, he was obviously very smart and intelligent. also, take note that back in the day of the beginning of creation acording to the Bible, people made wood wind instruments for music, and to make that from scratch takes a lot of skill, and if they new how to make a flute ud think they wuld no how to make a rake and shovel and build a house for the city and all that good stuff. this in no way implies I belive in the christian God, but im simply stating some things on how evolution and christian God doesnt mix to well.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
What are you talking about? Christianity and evolution can mix. Evolution does NOT say anything about it being acceptable to kill the weak!! Its fine if you cant comprehend evolution, or a godless universe, but dont go spouting off stupid remarks about something you have no clue about.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I disagree, in evolution, it IS acceptable to kill the weaker. we are just animals that are more complex. nuthin wrong with a lion in Africa killing a gazelle, no matter what the Lion wants to kill it for, just as that, in evolution it would be ok to kill the weaker species of a human. Darwin's own words, of how he was weak, therefore he must die. now that doesnt mean u should go around killing everyone weaker than you, but it would be ok to kill a person in evolution cause their weaker. well, not in Christianity is it ok to kill someone without a good cause, such as death penalty.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
To me, evolution is a fact, just because it's happening all the time. Whether we came from apes or not I couldn't tell you. But evolution is happening all around us. Evolution is actually my theory on why the majority of people LOVE to have sex, and why homosexuals are the minority. That sounds weird, but think about it: a long time ago, probably when humans/homosapiens first came into being or whatever, we had the first homosexuals. They didn't do the dirty deed with members of the opposite sex, so they didn't procreate and pass their homosexual genes onto their offspring. So every once in awhile, (I heard it's about one in ten), a baby is born with this homosexual gene. (Please let's not get into the whole "you're not born gay you choose to be gay" conversation.) He/she may or may not procreate, but the majority of them don't, so the homosexual gene in a minority of people.

Kind of the same as how everyone loves to have sex. If you didn't like to have sex, you probably wouldn't do it. So from the beginning of time only people who LIKED to have sex would procreate and pass that trait on down to their offspring.

I mean seedless oranges are pretty good evidence that evolution is a fact. We took trees that had less seeds in their fruit, bred them with more like that, and continued to do that until we came up with a tree that produced seedless fruit. That kinda stuff is going on in nature all the time, just at a much slower pace. (Yes, we could make a "went from one fruit to another fruit" crack here, but let's leave the gays alone, k?)


Evolution is happening all the time, survival of the fittest and all that. Does that mean we came from apes? It's possible. I dunno.


[edit on 26-11-2004 by an3rkist]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
I disagree, in evolution, it IS acceptable to kill the weaker. we are just animals that are more complex. nuthin wrong with a lion in Africa killing a gazelle, no matter what the Lion wants to kill it for, just as that, in evolution it would be ok to kill the weaker species of a human. Darwin's own words, of how he was weak, therefore he must die. now that doesnt mean u should go around killing everyone weaker than you, but it would be ok to kill a person in evolution cause their weaker. well, not in Christianity is it ok to kill someone without a good cause, such as death penalty.


No, evolution NEVER states its acceptable to kill the weaker. It doesnt tell anyone how to live their lifes, its SCIENCE. Nature is brutal, species kill other species, this is how it is. No matter what you say, evolution never makes any moral claims, its about how species evolve over time. Perhaps YOU find it acceptable to kill weaker humans.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Evolution is the ablity of a animal to adapt and evolve to it surroundings a perfect example of this is the crocadile as it was hell lot bigger than it is today and is so adaptiable to it suroundings and changing enviroment that it has managed to exsist to this day. With out evolution it should of died out millions of years ago when it was so much larger required more food and was less evolved and agile than it is today.

Everything has changed nothing is the same as it was million years ago.

To say we stay the same as basically you do means we were like this at the beginning and nothing else inbetween which means we are techniqually thick as we should be far farther ahead tech wise than we are today as our brains are an amasing piece of evolution that has adapted to allow us astonishing thinking reasoning and moral abilities.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
so does anyone have any real proof, or shall I say evidence to suggest the earth is billions of years old? yeah, ive heard the expanding storie, and the star storie of how if a 20M light year away star could be seen, theoretically and logically speaking, the star is obviously 20M years old, but what if God placed the light on earth from the star as he made the star, just as the sun, if God did make the sun it would seem logical to place its light here instead of waiting 8 minutes for it. and the expanding universe, what if the universe is only 6 or 7K years old as the Bible claims, and it was made expanded already, not over billions of years to a single point. so is there any real evidence of a billion year old earth, and carbon 14 dating doesnt work there either, and how do we no dino bones are X million years old? how do we find this out, id like to no, since Carbon dating theoretically doesnt work after 50K years, and even then it can have errors in the carbon as dillution as stated i science magazine of a freshly shed snail shell dated 26K years old when in reality it was only a few hours old.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts. [edit on 26-11-2004 by Gazrok]


Creationism, where is the evidence???? I see none.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join