And Evolution is OUT of the Picture!

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Genetisists have reviewed the DNA of dogs and found that they ALL come from the same animal...The Wolf

that was 200,000 years ago. How the hell can u explaint he evolution of all the different dogs we have in the time-frame of 200,000 years? Especially when only the Alpha's of the Wolves are the only ones who reproduce. And any genetic mutation from the wolves, are usually left weak, or die, and the wolves sense the weak and leave the to die.

200,000 years for all the different dogs we have. Give me a break. It wasn't evolution.


Bad example man. It is easily explainable, and in fact documented. They can tell you exactly where some of the breeds were bred and when. It is rather simple to do and people do it all the time. They take the ones that are fastest and breed them with other fast ones, or the ones that are smallest, or most or least hairy. We do it with fruit and vegetables. We do it with horses.

They are not different species, they are different breeds. Similar to how we have different races of humans.

Keep in mind that 200,000 years for dogs is over a million years for humans, if you take into account sexual maturity and the ages of reproduction. On top of that, dogs have litters of puppies so it is easier to find ones that have the characteristics you desire.

At any rate, scientists do not claim to know all there is to know about evolution, but they are learning. When people can't explain things it is human nature to say it is caused by gods or some other higher power. People used to think that lightning was caused by the gods throwing lightning bolts and the sun was carried across the sky behind a chariot. We now know how those things occur and we laugh at the silly explanations people used to give to simple everyday things. Some day people will laugh that many educated people thought evolution doesn't exist.




posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:47 AM
link   
maybe, but until then it should not be taught as fact as it was in my science class.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Maybe I should make yourself clear.
It is Chrisitans that mainly disaprove Evolution.
I dont disaprove Christians.

dir.yahoo.com...

Go through this, and tell me if it is not mostly the Christian bias that is against Creation.
Deep




Deep: I havn't made myself clear.

I COULD NOT GIVE A # IF IT'S MOSTLY CHRISTIANS WHO ARE BIASED AGAINST EVOLUTION!

U are bringing Religion into a topic that doesn't need Religion in it. What the hell is going through ur mind when u say "christians are the most biased ones , etc.

There are many people in this world. Different religions,different belief systems. Who cares?

You are not bringing anything important or worthwhile..or anything at all for that matter when u say that.

Does this topic need any religion in it? NO!

So Dont bring any into it.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 10:16 AM
link   
And Greenkoolaid: The wolves/dog description hasn't been disproved.

YEs selective breeding, etc....

But when did us as a Human race start doing this selective breeding? Aparently we were "cavemen" and hunter/gatherers not that long ago. And what the hell good would a poodle be in hunting?, or a sausage dog? Or a chiwowa or whatever they are called.

A Chiwowa, from a wolf, 200, 000 years ago. And all dogs came from wolves.

Yeah right.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 10:21 AM
link   
In that case, what do you propose is an alternative to evolution darage? If we arent using religious arguments in here...

Evolution is the best we got at the moment, I'm curious as to what you think is a feasible alternative.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 11:48 AM
link   
DaRage, new breeds of dog can be created within decades. The same with cats. My dog's breed, german shepherd has been around only since 1895.

gsdreviewed.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGEThe thing is that Genetics proves to us that we lose our genetic material, not evolve it.

The body wont make new genetic material


Patently false. Duplication creates two identical copies of a gene. Mutation alters one or both so that they are distinct. Voila, new genetic material.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by STOLENSCRIPTURE
maybe, but until then it should not be taught as fact as it was in my science class.


Evolution is fact, as much as anything in science. The theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection explains the fact of evolution as observed in nature.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by STOLENSCRIPTURE
zerodeep, getting back on topic, have you seen the physical evidence of the missing link?




Note that, with the exception of the first, the skulls are arranged in order of age. They are not intentionally ordered by similarity. The fact that both orders are the same can only be explained by evolution.

Of course, finding a missing link only creates two more gaps to fill...

[Edited on 2-12-2003 by KibagamiJubei]



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by longyforlife
you could go back and back and back to the big bang theory. that's all well and good but hen what caused this "big bang"? some perticles? where did they come from?


There are multiple possibilities. The fact that we don't know which is correct does not invalidate them.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

It has been proven that MicroEvolution does occur.

It hasn't been proven that MacroEvolution occurs


Suppose you have two groups of initially identical organisms. Somehow, they are separated so that they cannot (or simply do not) interbreed. Then mutations in one gene pool cannot pass to the other, and so the difference between the groups must increase.

What mechanism do you propose to prevent these differences from becoming arbitrarily large?



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Whilst this is a good intellectual post - did anybody actually point out that the "piltdown Man" has been exposed as a fake for many years ?

The BBC article was actually promoting a programme they had just made not any new information.

As for not believeing evolution - well ill let you guys and the Flat Earth people get together and become extinct. Why ? - because the evidence pointing to evolution far outweighs a collection of folk tales cobbled together then translated and "interpreted" - I can believe those any more than I believe the "Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe"



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:03 PM
link   
As tempting as it is to go through the whole thread, I should stop here for now. To go back to the OP briefly:

Piltdown man was discredited 50 years ago. It is not taught in schools as genuine today, so no need to revise the textbooks. Even before it was found to be fake it was regarded with suspicion, since it contradicted what was already known about hominid evolution. So, hardly a great conspiracy to promote evolution.

Besides Piltdown man, I know of precisely one other fraudulent fossil - Archaeoraptor. It was created by fossil hunters trying to get rich, and was believed by no one in the scientific community. The most impact it had was an article in National Geographic - embarrasing for them, but hardly important.

So, we have one hoax perpetrated on the scientific community, uncovered by the scientific community within a few decades, and another hoax perpetrated on the scientific community, uncovered by the scientific community within a few months. This is the best you can do? Two hoaxed fossils out of thousands?

No, this won't cut it. By any scientific standard of evidence, evolution stands - as the single most fundamental theory of biology.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
Whilst this is a good intellectual post - did anybody actually point out that the "piltdown Man" has been exposed as a fake for many years ?


Heh. It appears I've been pre-empted...oh, well. It bears repeating.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Kibagami -

sorry bout that

but the point should be made - anti evolutionists tend to jump on the ONE single piece of fake evidence and create a a raft of false accusations. Whereas a true researcher weighs all the evidence and discounts the fake or dishonest. In science its called a false positive. But despite the evidence of one or two false positives the weight of evidence must be taken.

To give a real world scenario - a man shoots another man - murder ?

If he was seen doing so is evidence

Fingerprints are another

so is DNA

but if the evidence says DNA collection is flawed - do we discount the finger prints or the witness ?

I dont think so



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
They are not different species, they are different breeds. Similar to how we have different races of humans.


Infact, the variation in the DNA between different kinds of humans, let's say African and European, is way too small for us to be talking ablut different races. The marginal differences in skin color or nose shape etc. are strictly family related, and would be like difference in fur color and family facial personality characteristics between two dogs of the same race. The fact is that I, a white European, is just as black as a black African man genetically, only his gene for black skincolor is turned on where mine is put on hold. We are all the same breed, one big happy family so to speek, only happy is perhaps not the correct word to use, for popular misconceptions like this one has brought about much idiocy and made many fools presidents. We are just different branches on a family tree, and all of us have DNA that has remained virtually unchanged over the last couple of tens of thousands of years, something which initself debunks the evolution theory. Man did not come from the monkeys. If anything monkeys evolved from a special breed of scientists, who are now trying to make up for their mistakes by hanging from trees, that would have made sense.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by KibagamiJubei

Originally posted by DaRAGEThe thing is that Genetics proves to us that we lose our genetic material, not evolve it.

The body wont make new genetic material


Patently false. Duplication creates two identical copies of a gene. Mutation alters one or both so that they are distinct. Voila, new genetic material.


If biological life produced rather than reduced themselves, wouldn't the Earth have been much bigger now then, after billions of years with more or less advanced creatures and plants etc.? Wouldn't this whole system have been overthrown by poop and soil? The way I see it, life transforms energy in order to walk and talk and do the thing. It's a circle. Man eats fruit, gets energy, then poops, and the poop gives life to the seed inside it, which grows up and yields fruits which the man eats again and the whole thing starts again. It's like magic. An eternity machine.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius
and all of us have DNA that has remained virtually unchanged over the last couple of tens of thousands of years, something which initself debunks the evolution theory.


That does not debunk the evolution theory one bit.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The following is a site that scientifically explains the creationism beliefs..

www.icr.org...



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 02:18 PM
link   
To say that DNA has not changed is slightly flawed - again to use a real world example - the core systems creating this device we call the internet themselves have not changed - but their capacity has evolved - its a well known therom that computing capacity doubles - but we still require the same base technology - the DNA of the computer. That is at least in my eyes evolution.

And our capacity to intereact with these devices - mouses, keyboards, voice etc are again evidence of evolution- though many might deny it. Maybe a prehistoric man would have been able to pilot a 747-400 - i doubt that - but we evolved enough to build the plane - design the avionics and fly it - something the pre Darwinians said was impossible.

It is actually easy to refute evolution if you exclude the use of technology - yep we still have two hands, eyes etc - but you then ignore the fact that we developed technology to advance ourselves.

And for any anti evolutionists out there - just how are you contributing to this thread without taking advantage of an evolutionary advance ?.



top topics
 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join