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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
[edit on 26-11-2004 by Nygdan]