It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 10
96
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

As a note, I was at a local hospital and read a pamphlet that said when breast feeding became more popular recently, that there was an increase outbreak of ricketts(sp). This was due to the fact that our milk supply is fortified with vitamin D to prevent ricketts from occuring.

That would make sense if it became less popular.. could you elaborate on this please? Can too much ViD cause ricketts? Sounds interesting.
[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]

Milk from the human breast is not fortified with vitamin D like diary milk and milk formulas(Thank you mister obvious)((I'm just making fun of what I said)). Thus, when mothers started to breast feed more, certain infants were not getting enough vitamin D. I do not know if vitamin D is present or in what concentration in human breast milk. It may vary in ethnic groups. It is the lack of vitamin D that can cause ricketts.




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

That would make sense if it became less popular.. could you elaborate on this please? Can too much ViD cause ricketts? Sounds interesting. Quote by Riley
[edit on 30-1-2006 by riley]


Milk from the human breast is not fortified with vitamin D like diary milk and milk formulas(Thank you mister obvious)((I'm just making fun of what I said)). Thus, when mothers started to breast feed more, certain infants were not getting enough vitamin D. I do not know if vitamin D is present or in what concentration in human breast milk. It may vary in ethnic groups. It is the lack of vitamin D that can cause ricketts.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
It'll take time to read all of this but, one problem I noticed in several places as I was scanning it - there is the near constant refrain of "it must be false because we haven't yet discovered it".

If every field of science has now concluded that everything that can be known is already known and science is pretty much finished all its work, then I somehow missed that announcement. Can you help me find that memo?

Thanks!


What does this say about God...the same thing, that just because some folks don't think He exists does that make Him non-existant (see what I mean?). The negative of a thing does not prove its existence (or something like that) no?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I dunno...I mean, doesn't Tinkerbell die when people say they don't believe in Fairies? hehe just kidding



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Quote " Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.

There was one signal picked up years ago commonly known as the Wow signal.A strong radio signal for space which was received but died out and did not reappear.It cant be proved what it was but was a strong signal from space.

None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit radio signals yet cos we havent checked them yet.

In fact we have not even checked a high proportion of our own galaxy yet.

I once saw a program which stated that if if our galaxy was the size of the empire state building, we aint even checked the first floor yet, and thats just our galaxy never mind Billions of others.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by breano]

[edit on 2-3-2006 by breano]

[edit on 2-3-2006 by breano]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
No radio signals no life? On this you've decided the rest of the entire universe must be completely void of life and evolution must not be true. Does this mean life didn't exist on this planet before the invention of radio signals?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
There might well be alien civilizations out there that haven't detected us yet because our radio waves only radiate about 80-90 light years around us. That's a tiny percentage of the Galaxy. As for their radio signals - it all depends on a huge number of factors. They might not have developed to the point where they can use radio yet, or they might have become extinct (The Universe is very old, so life might have risen and then fallen on countless worlds) or they might not be looking. And we still haven't even started to properly focus on the likely parts of our galaxy, let alone other ones!



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Seeing as this thread has reached 10 pages... I don't really have the time to go through every single post or point of argument since the OP. But, after reading the OP, here's my quick thought on the subject:

Creationalists and Evolutionalists bickering back and forth about how exactly we came to be is quite honestly just a "Look I'm right and you're wrong!" for both sides.

What it all comes down to is the faith that BOTH sides put into their own beliefs on the subject. Sure, Creationalists can poke at Science to say that Evolutionalists are contradicting themselves... Evolutionalists can poke at religious teachings to say that Creationalists aren't making any sense...

YET, both sides have a distinct amount of FAITH that they hold to their beliefs, the thing that keeps them believing what they believe. Simple as that. BOTH of them are just theories. One thing I hate hearing is Creationalists saying that Evolution is just a 'theory'. They're right - but they use it as a point of argument to show that what they believe ISN'T a theory - that creationalism is FACT when in reality creationalism is just as much a theory as Evolution is.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

I just love how hard people will work to defend the status quo.

Evolution cannot explain missing links and until it does it doesn't work.

Take a look in the mirror, you are the proof of the failure of Evolution.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
There are no such thing as 'missing links'.


The theory has changed since darwin's day and it would do those of faith a great many of wonder's if they'd just stay up to date with current evolutionary theory and all the discoveries made. You guy's, it's not a wham bam thank ya ma'am spontaneous generation of a new species in a one night stand event. Google is your friend, and I'd also suggest the science section at your local library where you can find a great deal of many books on the subject. News website's are another excellent source of information if you'd like to stay on top of current affair's in regards to evolution.


Remember folk's, science isn't religion. We don't have ALL the answer's, nor do we claim too. It take's abit of a leap of faith to decide to learn and discover those answer's.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.


The first wing was developed because the organism currying it needed an escape route to the sky. Many fish escape from their predators by jumping out of the water, then flapping their body quickly so they can stay more in the air out of the water.



The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


There are evolutionary chains in books for almost all species.



Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


The fact that we are unable to create a living cell does not mean that the cell is created by a supernatural force. 100 ago we could not fly, and nowadays we go to the moon. Maybe in the next 100 years, we can create a living cell.



The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


I have read the above many times, but I can not make sense of it. It is all a bunch of non-sensical talk (for example "her body can not go into the eggs".



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


No. DNA changes either naturally (i.e. cancer) or in the lab, as it has been proved many times.



The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


Wrong again. The second law of thermodynamics only proves that entropy increases, and that energy transformations are one-way. It has nothing to do with organization of matter, which is a chemical process.

In fact, if you study chaos theory, you will see that many times through chaos patterns emerge. This property of chaos have been used in cryptography applications.

To put it with an example, so you can understand it: a broken vase can never be "unbroke", i.e. spontaneously go back to its previous state of not being broken; but if you live the pieces of the vase close enough, chemical processes over centuries will melt and unite the pieces.



There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


There is also no scientific evidence that the number of chromosomes can not change. Maybe the number of chromosomes has changed, we do not know about it yet.



Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.


If something can not evolve from nothing, then how God was created? Because God is certainly not nothing.



Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


It is not a scientific fact. Maybe when Mars supported life, its atmopshere was much denser and temperature was higher.



Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


Ha ha ha, very funny. "The entire universe". "No galaxy has been found."

How can you make claims for the whole universe? have you seen it personally? do you know someone who has seen it? because no one has ever said that the whole universe has been studied.

The SETI program has mapped only 3% of the sky, and that in specific frequences only.



Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.


How can you claim that we humans can not produce granite? we can not produce granite NOW. Remember that we have electricity for 150 years only, and computers for 40 years. With this rate of technology, in 10000 years we would be able to travel to any part of the universe, create our own universes, teleport things around (this one is for the next century!) etc.

Your arguments are illogical and easily shot down.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   


This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

Well, if you misstate the theory of evolution, it certainly makes it easier to say it doesn't work. That's not what the theory says at all. But what the hey.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by ghost
Just for a point of relivence, How many scientist with degrees in biology do you personally KNOW?

Tim


4 PhD
16 Master Degrees


Only 4 PhDs!!!!!! You realize that is not that many, right?



I have a teacher with his masters in Geology as well as Biology, hes 56 and still taking college classes because he is a man of study. And as he has said on the first day of his classes every year to every student he has "What I teach is only Ideals created by man to put an order to the natural world, I can neithor prove without a doubt what I say is correct, but if you plan to tell me what is only is because "God made it so, and thats a ABSOLUTE fact" I'll ask you in the same way of if there is a god, how can you prove there is without disproving scientific ideas with opinions based on your faith."

PS. In his 20+ years of teaching, no student has been able to do this on a scientific basis, only on abstract thought.

Thats the lovely thing about true scientific thought, the scientific method was setup to automatically throw out any ideas realing on faith, it does not disprove them, but sets them in the realm of theology and not science. Nor does it prove without a doubt that what is scientifically shown is the absolute truth, thus its a Theory. An Idea.

As for something that came to mind throughout reading this thread on the talk of "Since this is wrong my idea MUST be right" well... think of it like the flip of a coin, there is a much larger change it will land on heads or tails, BUT theres also the chance, no matter how small it is, that it will land on its side, thats my idea of scientific thought, we use all logic and tools available to us as men at the current time to put an order to what is in front of us knowing that there is the side chance we all are wrong. It also applys to faith, in the history of the Human time, how many cultures with beliefs in gods have there been? hundreds? maybe more? the chances of yours being the currect one are 1/??? I've found it that the reason people put the unexplaned to the supernatural is the same drive that drives science, our strong urge to put order and a purpose to everything that happens.

Im sorry if this seems like a jumble or a run on sentence, my brain has a habit to meander and split almost as much as the Amazon.

But my main point is simple, notice the words used closely. Scientists believe evolution is true while Christians KNOW there beliefs are "facts". Notice the fact that scientists will change what they hold true if a more solid theory comes along, while people realing on faith will never change theirs, no matter the evidence against it.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I love reason 10.
We've scanned like, 0.01% of the universe for radio signals, and since that TINY percentage doesn't have radio signals there's no life in the universe.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
rocks, created by god, on this planet, that couldn't have formed naturally, on this world.

are we forgetting that this world, and maybe a few others, have had 'other worldly' contacts? like comet and meteor impacts, made of materials 'unnatural' to this world, that may, 'react' oddly at impact velocities with native minerals and elements?

i'm just a stupid petro physicist. one mans 'theroy' is what i base ALL my knowledge on, so you have proven me, and all my 'science' wrong.

thank you.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by GeoPetroEngGuy]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   
FACT 6:

The actual 2nd law of thermodynamics is "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

I studied thermodynamics for several years at uni and I didn't recall it having anything to do with chaos, so I looked it up and surprisingly it is about thermal energy transfer, i.e., thermodynamics.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I am.... like... captain Kirk...

I speak... as if... every word.... is... its own sentence...


sorry about that.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I am a Christian. I do not believe in Evolution. But it has nothing to do with my belief in God. God and Evolution can both exist right?

But anyway. There is a lot of "proof" of evolution, but none of it is proof. It is just evidence that supports it. Not evidence that proves of it.

Studying evolution I've asked my self a couple of questions.

I am not supporting Creationism, I'm just questioning evolution.

And I am not trying to say it doesn't exists, I'm just trying to find answers to questions that I find go against evolution.

1. If evolution exists how would a certain animal like a zebra evolve it's stripes. Unless a group of Zebras some how all evolved the same way at the same time this zebra will be a black and white target. There would need to be more than one zebra for it's stripes to be an advantage.

2. If evolution takes sooooooo long to take place wouldn't the climate change, thus the environment change before evolution takes place. What if the animal slowly evolves for it's environment and then there is a drought, and this animal was made to survive the cold. Wouldn't it die off and many of the original stay alive? I mean if evolution takes up to millions of years there'd have to be an ice age or drougt or atleast a hurricane that changes the climate.

3. On Galapagos Island, the marine lizards are always nearly extinct whenever El Nino occurs. If it could change so much, and it's been there so long. Wouldn't atleast one of the lizards be atleast naturally selected to stand warmer waters?

4. Okay suppose the mass evolution of animals into Zebra's do occur, Or They are marine lizards that can stand warmer water, and the climate doesn't change. And it does manage to survive and reproduce.... Theres only 50% of a chance each time it's offspring will carry the gene. 25% if the trait is recessive. And less than 13% if the trait is carried on the Y chromosome and is recessive. And what if it does get the trait? It's offspring can still die.

But this doesn't PROVE EVOLUTION IS FALSE. It just supports it.

There is no PROOF of evolution just evidence that supports it.

I have not seen PROOF of creationism or evolution yet. Just evidence that supports it.

Hell, I could find EVIDENCE that supports spontaneous generation.

Please don't be childish and poke fun at my grammar. I'm here for an intelligent debate.


Evolution could exist, but I'd doubt it'd be the origin of species according to how rare it'd be possible for something to seriously evolve into something distinctively different.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by RDouglas]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by RDouglas
I am a Christian. I do not believe in Evolution. But it has nothing to do with my belief in God. God and Evolution can both exist right?


yes, only certain forms of christianity do not accept evolution.


But anyway. There is a lot of "proof" of evolution, but none of it is proof. It is just evidence that supports it. Not evidence that proves of it.


This applies to all scientific theories.


Studying evolution I've asked my self a couple of questions.

I am not supporting Creationism, I'm just questioning evolution.

And I am not trying to say it doesn't exists, I'm just trying to find answers to questions that I find go against evolution.

1. If evolution exists how would a certain animal like a zebra evolve it's stripes. Unless a group of Zebras some how all evolved the same way at the same time this zebra will be a black and white target. There would need to be more than one zebra for it's stripes to be an advantage.


There are several theories for zebra stripe evolution. Confusing predators, sexual selection, temperature regulation etc. I don't think any theory would expect there to be one step from all black/brown to stripes. The Quagga was a good example of what may have happened (half stripes-half brown).


2. If evolution takes sooooooo long to take place wouldn't the climate change, thus the environment change before evolution takes place. What if the animal slowly evolves for it's environment and then there is a drought, and this animal was made to survive the cold. Wouldn't it die off and many of the original stay alive? I mean if evolution takes up to millions of years there'd have to be an ice age or drougt or atleast a hurricane that changes the climate.


Environmental changes are one of the driving forces of natural selection/extinction.


3. On Galapagos Island, the marine lizards are always nearly extinct whenever El Nino occurs. If it could change so much, and it's been there so long. Wouldn't atleast one of the lizards be atleast naturally selected to stand warmer waters?


Isn't the probem due to increase in certain algae and reduction in the algae they actually eat?


4. Okay suppose the mass evolution of animals into Zebra's do occur, Or They are marine lizards that can stand warmer water, and the climate doesn't change. And it does manage to survive and reproduce.... Theres only 50% of a chance each time it's offspring will carry the gene. 25% if the trait is recessive. And less than 13% if the trait is carried on the Y chromosome and is recessive. And what if it does get the trait? It's offspring can still die.


Yes, but if the trait is selected by sexual selection, predation, environment, then it will eventually be the norm.


But this doesn't PROVE EVOLUTION IS FALSE. It just supports it.

There is no PROOF of evolution just evidence that supports it.

I have not seen PROOF of creationism or evolution yet. Just evidence that supports it.

Hell, I could find EVIDENCE that supports spontaneous generation.

Please don't be childish and poke fun at my grammar. I'm here for an intelligent debate.


Evolution could exist, but I'd doubt it'd be the origin of species according to how rare it'd be possible for something to seriously evolve into something distinctively different.


Applies to all scientific theories. But ToE does have evidence, 150yrs later the theory still exists, the only controversy is in the minds of those who wish there to be. Strict YEC Creationism is falsified. Evolution is both a theory and fact. Evolution does occur, given enough time there is no reason to doubt that something will evolve into something distinctively different - the fossil record, genetics, and morphology suggest they do.


[edit on 25-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   


God and Evolution can both exist right?

That's what I believe. I find it hard to blieve that something natural started everything, the big bang, the first form of energy or whatever. Something outside of any natural laws got the ball rollin', imo



I am not supporting Creationism, I'm just questioning evolution.

You said you're Christian, if you're Christian you support Creationism, imo. That does not mean you support the young earth idea or any of the other BS out there.



If evolution exists how would a certain animal like a zebra evolve it's stripes.

FYI, Zerbras are losing their stripes, Evolution is not always a fast process.

How a Zebra lost it's stripes
Yale.edu
www.eurekalert.org/
ScienceDaily
Google - How a zebra lost it's stripes



If evolution takes sooooooo long to take place wouldn't the climate change, thus the environment change before evolution takes place.

You right. Sometimes evolution speeds up and sometimes it's slow as dial-up....slow to the point to where entire species' become extinct.

Example: Humans (genus - Homo) have been around for about 8 million years (that's when we branched of from apes) and ever since humans have survived ice ages, droughts and many other climate changes. Migration is not limited to Humans.



What if the animal slowly evolves for it's environment and then there is a drought, and this animal was made to survive the cold. Wouldn't it die off and many of the original stay alive?

That happend to humans. At one point after one of the ice ages there were only an estimated 10,000 humans remaining, and that's homo sapiens, modern man....now that's on the verge of extinction.



I mean if evolution takes up to millions of years there'd have to be an ice age or drougt or atleast a hurricane that changes the climate.

That's happened many times, and many times species become extinct or they migrate, or maybe evolution speeds up.

[EDIT - Bad info, what was I thinking
]

In the past 50 million years there has not really been a "huge" climatic change....at least not huge enough that the change produced conditions that we do not already have on earth today. It's been the same climate for a long time....

Note: The ice ages did not cover the entire earth, only a good portion of the hemispheres.



On Galapagos Island, the marine lizards are always nearly extinct whenever El Nino occurs. If it could change so much, and it's been there so long. Wouldn't atleast one of the lizards be atleast naturally selected to stand warmer waters?

There is no definitive point that an evolutionary change takes over. It's a process.

And maybe it's just time for the species to become extinct. Ofcourse, that's gonna be hard with human intervention.

Panda bears would have long been extinct. There are only 1000 left today. Sometimes there is no current explanation for why evolution does what it does.

A panda cub is no larger than a new born kitten, no hair, eyes are closed....way under developed unlike most bear cubs. With or without evolution it's a mystery why they lasted this long.



Okay suppose the mass evolution of animals into Zebra's do occur

what do you mean?



Theres only 50% of a chance each time it's offspring will carry the gene. 25% if the trait is recessive. And less than 13% if the trait is carried on the Y chromosome and is recessive. And what if it does get the trait? It's offspring can still die.

This link might help, there's some good info in there.
evolution.berkeley.edu



Please don't be childish and poke fun at my grammar. I'm here for an intelligent debate.

How about you not poke at my grammer. Yeah my grammer sucks too


Evolution does always take the best route or the most efficient route. Many times it takes the "good enough" route (zebras, pandas, etc..)







[edit on 25/3/2006 by SportyMB]

[edit on 25/3/2006 by SportyMB]

[edit on 25/3/2006 by SportyMB]







 
96
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join