Believing/Not believing in evolution - Does this have to mean what we define it as?

a reply to: Servant of the lamb
www.pbslearningmedia.org...

humanorigins.si.edu...

www.wired.com...

www.agiweb.org...

I brought mine. Where is yours?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fossil record proves evolution. You can track life on earth from single cell organisms to more and more complex life.

Science popped up in spite of religion. Yes the early scientists were religious ( almost none are now) but almost all were persecuted. The dark ages were doily caused by society giving absolute athority to the church.

Lol show me that evidence intw fossil record . single cell to land dwelling with lungs

How about whales. They have fingers, femurs and a pelvis. Now if you saw what they used to look like compared with what they look like now. You would understand. Further more, if you had both around today, they would not be able to produce viable offspring. That is what makes species to species evolution.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

You see the problem I have with Evolution is people try to say Macro-evoltuion is supposedly micro-evolution over a very lengthy period of time. Problem i have with that is nothing of the sort can be observed now or in the fossil record. A true change of kinds has never been observed, but rather what we see is that there seems to be some form of species limitation. Lizards stay lizards. Apes stay Apes. People stay people. Are their genetic modifications to these species yes, but do they ever change from being the kind of animal they were? As far as we can observe no. Macro-evolution attempts to explain major morphological novelties most of which are still unsolved.

Hi! I am an Agnostic, a spiritual one who believes we are much more than just this flesh and bones and I am open to all kind of theories (I like to challenge my beliefs). I do believe in evolution as it's been clearly proven to be correct.
After reading your post I have a question for you:

If man and everything else don't have on common ancestors, how do you explain that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas? And 98% with monkeys?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fossil record proves evolution. You can track life on earth from single cell organisms to more and more complex life.

Science popped up in spite of religion. Yes the early scientists were religious ( almost none are now) but almost all were persecuted. The dark ages were doily caused by society giving absolute athority to the church.

Lol show me that evidence intw fossil record . single cell to land dwelling with lungs

Servant. I have personally shown you several examples. It's not our place to educate you. It takes years of study to be able to discern what your asking. How about you do some research so that you can understand. Then when your done, you post what you've learned. But i know that wont happen, because you don't want to change your mind.

Lol it takes years of research to discern a picture of the fossil record from single cell to land dwelling you said that evidence existed I can't find it why don't you help m out if its fact

I can feed you all day long or i can tell you to learn how to fish. You have to take every step of your education for yourself. I literally cannot bring all of that information here. I have brought info to you many times and you don't take it. You rarely even acknowledge it. You just change the subject.

I brought up whales what do you have to say about that? a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

a reply to: Agartha

Why would I have too? 2% of DNA is a lot more data than you are acting like it is. The commonality of lifes code could be because it came from a common designer. DNA works exactly as a language. It has what is called a semiotic dimension(it carries meaning) just as the words you are reading now have a semiotic dimension. They portray an abstract idea to an interpreter. DNA and amino acids carry the message of how to build a protein. It is an abstract idea conveyed to an interpreter. This is a semiotic dimension. Now every instance in the natural world in which we see something with a semiotic dimension we immediately assume a top-down causation. For example, You are walking along the beach and come across a book, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, now you pick it up and examine the information inside and by the title you assume a top-down causation; that is that the information present within the book is impossible to account for without first assuming it was created my the more complex mind of Richard Dawkins. You do not assume that information is the product of chance purely because you recognize the semiotic dimension a message from a messenger. So why wouldn't one do the same with DNA and RNA?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I can feed you all day long or i can tell you to learn how to fish. You have to take every step of your education for yourself. I literally cannot bring all of that information here. I have brought info to you many times and you don't take it. You rarely even acknowledge it. You just change the subject.

I brought up whales what do you have to say about that? a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Whales are still wells and all the lowest whale fossils show they were aquatic from the time they appeared .

Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’ However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own. The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3 The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’: Mesonychid (55 million years ago) Ambulocetus (50 million years ago) Rodhocetus (46 million years ago) Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago) One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)

The second in this ‘transitional series’ is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans (‘walking whale that swims’). Like the secular media and more ‘popular’ science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists' imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale?6 This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil: Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.7 Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. Zeuglodon) is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for ‘king lizard,’ but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size (above)—it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series. However, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out: The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales. Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Stahl points out the following regarding the skull structure in both types: … shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.8 Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’9

I believe in Mirco-evolution. Lets look at Miller's experiment in the 1950's. Miller showed that amino acids could come into existence by chance, but there are some major problems with this experiment. For example various amino acids must link up in a precise order to form a functioning protein. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule wont work. No where has it been shown that amino acids can bind together by chance and proteins.

Not only that, Miller also had something protecting the amino acids as they were, and if not for that the amino acids would have disintegrated by the other factors within the experiment. There is also no chemical reason for amino acids to bond.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I can feed you all day long or i can tell you to learn how to fish. You have to take every step of your education for yourself. I literally cannot bring all of that information here. I have brought info to you many times and you don't take it. You rarely even acknowledge it. You just change the subject.

I brought up whales what do you have to say about that? a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

im not asking you to feed me. I am asking you to back up your statement that we have transitional fossils from a single celled organism to land dwelling. I have yet to see you do that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Do you understand how many fossils i would have to bring back here to fill in that gap?

Is that even what your asking?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Do you understand how many fossils i would have to bring back here to fill in that gap?

Is that even what your asking?

we dont have them..

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Do you understand how many fossils i would have to bring back here to fill in that gap?

Is that even what your asking?

we dont have them..

Who doesnt have them? Ive seen thousands of fossils. With my own eyes? Its plain to see the changes. All you have to do is look at them.

Take horses and follow the fossil and genetic record back and you will find animals that dont look anything like horses. All animals have genetic sequences that are particular to their kind. Look up mitochondrial dna These patterns can be easily identified in animals that have similar relations.


Are you trying to be obtuse and claim that we need each and every fossil of each and every kind to establish relations? Because thats not the case at all.

Anyone denying evolution at this point is displaying willful and spiteful ignorance. Whatever argument you bring here against evolution i will gladly re-educate you. So what is your problem with the idea of evolution?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Agartha

Why would I have too? 2% of DNA is a lot more data than you are acting like it is. The commonality of lifes code could be because it came from a common designer. DNA works exactly as a language. It has what is called a semiotic dimension(it carries meaning) just as the words you are reading now have a semiotic dimension. They portray an abstract idea to an interpreter. DNA and amino acids carry the message of how to build a protein. It is an abstract idea conveyed to an interpreter. This is a semiotic dimension. Now every instance in the natural world in which we see something with a semiotic dimension we immediately assume a top-down causation. For example, You are walking along the beach and come across a book, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, now you pick it up and examine the information inside and by the title you assume a top-down causation; that is that the information present within the book is impossible to account for without first assuming it was created my the more complex mind of Richard Dawkins. You do not assume that information is the product of chance purely because you recognize the semiotic dimension a message from a messenger. So why wouldn't one do the same with DNA and RNA?

this is the watchmakers fallacy ..... Again. Every example of a book you have ever seen has been the product of a human process. You have never seen a book come about by natural means. We know where they come from and we know the process by which they are made. This argument has been made with watches, buildings, paintings, but all of thise arguments failed so why not try a book...... Because you never learned the lesson the first time. Books, watches, buildings, they were all built by humans.

Dna and rna on the other hand are self replicating. They have been proven beyond any doubt that they CAN be formed by natural means.

That is the difference. It is called the watchmakers fallacy. Now don't ever use it again. People will laugh at you.