Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
I think the major problem with scientists is that their arrogance is clouding their judgement...

Sounds like a quote from Star Wars

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
they get very offended and angry if someone even mentions intelligent higher power

Like a 'sith lord'?

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
and NATURE IS INTELLIGENT HIGHER POWER no matter what scientist say or do...

The force?

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
I think that scientists are simply, sorry to say this: dumb

Everyone's dumb to be quite honest. A good scientist knows his/her limits. In fact, that's the very thing that drives them further. Lack creates want, want creates knowledge, knowledge creates power. Knowledge is a power that everyone seeks but many people shorthand themselves by thinking they already know the answers. A good scientist doesn't do that.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge a whole group based on a path you don't understand.

reply to post by Yoda411

First of all I'm NOT a creationist. I don't believe that the world was created in seven days, nor that God snapped his fingers and Adam appeared out of a bunch of clay. So now that I've taken away your simple arguement that anyone who disagrees with random evolution MUST be a creationist, we can move on to address the merits of random evolution.

If random evolution is science then it's BAD science. Everything I'm saying now is based on comments by other scientists. There are experts in the field of evolution who have said that if the theory of evolution was judged by the same rigorous criteria as any other scientific theory, it would fail dismally. Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists will publicly defend evolution because they fear for their careers if they didn't but privately amongst themselves they are saying that there's a huge problem with random evolution because if it worked the way it's supposed to, they wouldn't be seeing some of the biological and genetic evidence that they're seeing.

I'll give you the one example among others that really clinches it for me. Apes have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46. What this really means that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. When geneticists compare ape and human DNA on a chromosome by chromosome basis, they find that one of our chromosomes seems to have been made up from two ape chromosomes stuck together. That's something that is so rare that I have not heard of it happening to any other species of animals OR plants. It appears to be unique. Consider that hominids have been around for millions of years and yet as far as we know, this has only happened once in all that time. But wait, it gets even more interesting. The two ape chromosomes didn't just stick together. NO NO. A little bit of DNA from the end of one chromosome disappeared along with a little bit of DNA from the end of the other chromosome and then a big chunk of DNA that has no obvious origin somehow managed to work it's way in between the two 'shaved' ape chromosomes. No one knows where that in between chunk of DNA came from because it's not missing from any other ape chromosome. Can random evolution explain this? NO! They don't even try because they can't. It certainly appears as though someone and I'm not going to try to guess who, deliberately tinkered with ape chromosomes by adding the chunk of DNA in between two modified ape chromosomes. WHY? Well maybe because it would have prevented the new 46 chromosome hominid version from being able to interbreed with the other 48 chromosome apes, thereby keeping any changes in DNA from being lost in the larger ape gene pool. This is the problem with random evolution. It can't explain these biological and genetic anomalies. There's no excuse for believing in a bad theory just because it's the only theory around.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


evolution isn't random.

two lines

people are so ignorant gentics has been tampered with since the beginning of time

reply to post by Solomons


So you agree with me. Great. Just in case you're trying to say that the theory of evolution as it's commonly conceived of, isn't random, you're wrong and you obviously don't understand how evolution is supposed to work. Look up the definition of evolution. No one (except creationists of which I am NOT one) disputes that there is some kind of evolution at work. The question is...are the changes as a result of random mutations or are they part of a deliberate design?

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Solomons

 

So you agree with me. Great. Just in case you're trying to say that the theory of evolution as it's commonly conceived of, isn't random, you're wrong and you obviously don't understand how evolution is supposed to work. Look up the definition of evolution. No one (except creationists of which I am NOT one) disputes that there is some kind of evolution at work. The question is...are the changes as a result of random mutations or are they part of a deliberate design?

The genetic mutations are random but not natural selection...theres a difference.

wait im reading your posts wrong...

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Solomons]

It depends whos design your talking about, just to let you know despite what my name says Im not a religous puppet more a science man. These are just words, we do not know the history of our own planet, you can see from the destruction of the dinosaurs that it paved the way for major changes, as do floods, changes in ozone levels hence changes in life spans. I do not believe we are told the truth, there ha sbeen genetic tampering with human beings for years, the ufo phenomenan or demonic nephilim whatever its real. true eveolution is within your mind and my friend that hasnt changed since the beginning people still think the same.

reply to post by Solomons

Your splitting hairs. It's the changes in the DNA that is the basis for (random) evolution. Darwin didn't know about DNA so he couldn't say how evolution worked other than by survival of the fittest but how did the fittest get to be the fittest? THAT'S THE QUESTION! I don't have a problem with survival of the fittest. I have a huge problem when fossil records show that proto-human brain sizes stayed the same for millions of years and then all of sudden for no apparent reason increased by 50% which for evolutionary biologists is what's called a 'quantum leap' which is something that random evolution isn't supposed to produce because it isn't necessary for survival of the fittest. Antelope don't have to be twice as fast, twice as big or twice as smart to be able to avoid being eaten by lions. They only need to be a little bit faster, a little bit bigger or a little bit smarter. The amount of DNA that has to change for the brain to be 50% bigger is huge. You don't get that with changing just one base pair of amino acids in a DNA chain.

I hear you kind of like the industrial revoluton isnt it, we go from riding horses to all of sudden what you see today in little over 140 plus years that doesnt make sense. As far as the human brain Im not sure there are all sorts of inconsistineces unknow human species etc... we dont have enough information but i can telly you nothing in the universe works random there is an order.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than most of us...and even today its can change dramatically from person to person.Actually it probably did change our dietary habits i should say because a bigger brain would require more energy..

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Solomons]

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Solomons]

has nothing to do with brain size, its thoughts how you think about the world, surivial of the fittest etc are primitive processes whats good for one is good for all people dont get that yet when it comes to humans

reply to post by donhuangenaro

ok, I can start with human brain, a biologic computer that scientists know very little about...

The brain certainly is the most mysterious organ in the human body, but it's far from a complete mystery. Abstract concepts such as consciousness, yes, or the very definition of what is life - I agree... but the actual workings of the brain?

High resolution brain scanners are improving all the time. We're able to communicate with our brains outside of the normal sensory organs. We can both read output from, and translate input to the brain - such as new generation cochlear implants which circumvent the auditory nerves and translate sound directly into the brain. We have optical implants capable of constructing simple pixelated images to the brain to circumvent the optical nerves. We have Brain Computer Interfaces capable of remotely controlling robots, operating computers, moving prosthetic limbs, limited forms of telepathy. Although primitive, we even have BCIs that are capable of extracting images from your mind. Within a decade, we'll have dream recorders - as well as a system to implant dreams so that you can record, upload, and share your dreams.

It's really quite amazing. Ultimately, it will rely on how fast nano-technology advances - but we're on the cusp of the paramanout of virtual reality technology. Within the next 50-80 years we'll be able to send a swarm of nanomachines into your brain that can map your brain and place themselves between your synapses. They can then induce a sort of sleep paralysis while stimulating the areas of your brain which interpret nerve signals - giving you the sensation you're still up and walking around. By blocking synaptic activity and firing it's own signals, the nanomachines can simulate any environment, feeling, emotion, activity. Ever wonder what it felt like to be a completely different person? You will be able to do that. Imagine being with a lover and being able to "swap" sensory information? Essentially, to swap bodies. It's coming, and a lot sooner than people think.

Why would the brain be so complex? There are trillions of connections and chemical interactions in the brain and it'd be a horrible mess trying to figure it all out from just looking at the outside. However, remember, we have the blueprints for the brain already decoded via the human genome project. We understand the principals of how the brain forms and how it arises in complexity from very simple (comparitively) instructions. Basic rules that shape the interactions of cells in developing organs that leads to complexity. So yes, we can reverse engineer and understand the brain. We are doing it, and we'll continue to get better at it.

Laypeople generally don't understand just how far along we are. Most of the public still believe the urban myth that we only use 10% of our brains. So just because YOU can't wrap your head around such concepts, don't assume that humanity as a whole cannot. Just because YOU can't understand the universe around you, don't assume that humanity cannot.

Now, I would agree, in a way, that it would be exteremely difficult - if not impossible - to understand the universe in the way we do without our tools and our technology. Our technology serves as an external augmentation to the human body, human senses, and the human mind. We are artificially smarter than we normally would be via the application of external human augmentation via our tools. So it's not even a matter anymore of whether or not humans can understand the universe, but can our tools augment our intelligence to the point where we can. Computers have been a godsend in this regard, as they allow us to crunch numbers and produce simulations and models which our brains simply are not up to the task to accomplish. A man on his own could never sequence a length of DNA, but a man with the proper tools and education to use those tools can sequence it easily and reliably.

Give me a lever long enough, and a place to rest it, and I shall move the world. ~ Archimedes

like you said chemical reactions etc... try not having sex for a long period of time youll see what a mean its absolutley basic and yet everyone cant figure this one out

Originally posted by jesus78
I hear you kind of like the industrial revoluton isnt it, we go from riding horses to all of sudden what you see today in little over 140 plus years that doesnt make sense.

If you believe that technology progresses linearly, then no - it doesn't. However technology doesn't progress linearly, it progresses exponentially. We use the latest tools to discover new tools, and use those tools to discover the next generation of tools. It's a snowball effect.

If you think the last 140 years of progress were astounding, you haven't seen anything yet. The next century and a half will completely transform humanity.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh? Rly?? Tell us enlightened one, when does a species "get their own" branch on the tree?

This will be easier to understand if we use an example...

Amphibians claim their branch:
With slow improvements in the lungs and legs amphibians evolved from lobefins (fish). This happened because to these newly adapted amphibians, the Carboniferous swamp forests were a paradise of no predators to speak of, abundant sources of food, and a warm moist climate. Thus dawns a new species amphibians versus fish.

Dinosaurs claim their branch:
As the conifers were evolving on the fringes of the swamp forests, a group of amphibians was also evolving adaptations to drier conditions. These amphibians ultimately gave rise to the reptiles, which had 3 major adaptations to life on land.

1. Evolved shelled, waterproof eggs
   
2. scaly, waterproof skin to prevent loss of body water
   
3. improved lungs that were able to provide the entire oxygen supply for an active animal
   

As per the example in which I stated, "Reptiles do not simply give birth to a hairy mammal one day", they very well could have given birth to a hairy reptile; a trait which would have been one of many evolved over hundreds of millions of years producing what we call today a mammal. Because the uterus, mammary glands, and hair do not fossilize, we may never know when these structures first appeared, or what their intermediate forms looked like.

[edit on 12/20/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Solomons

And your point is what exactly?

As an on-going theory, evolution is the best we have got.

For me it cannot be perfect (or perfectly proved) as the amount of evidence to prove this in certain areas is actually extremely limited (How many neanderthal skeletons is there in the world?) and like any other theory will be extended and progressed.

Red/Grey squirrels in my time have shown that evolution can act extremely quickly and when you read Richard Dawkins who can prove that all eyes has evolved from 23 basic models, then you must respect the scientific proof - particlualry the genetic proof.

Greetings Yoda411~!

Its a frustrating battle huh? You can offer up facts, and links, sources and true science! You did a good job with this thread and I applaud you for your effort.
However, no matter what you say, or how much proof you offer up.
Those who are set in their ways.. WILL not belive you.
While the whole time, You did not once say.. There is no such thing as God.
ITs not like most of us are trying to say.. There is no God, deal with it.
Its not like that at all.. Infact, I would hope science would help prove that there is a God.. Yet most think its totally the other way around..
Like the evil science folks are trying to disprove God.. No thats not true at all for the most part..

Faith is a very powerful tool used by those in places of power to manipulate and control others.

This is a battle no one can win. It only furthers our mental state of divsion.
One man says this, yet one man says another thing.

There is NO coming together on this issue sadly enough.

I sit back and watch this unfold.. And to me it makes me sad.

But your effort was noted.. And this thread has taught me alot..
Not only about the subject manner, but also about people in general!

Keep up the good work.. Yet understand.. You can not get others to belive you, when they have faith..
Faith is the tool.. And you can not defeat that no matter how much you know, and how much you can offer.

Those who honestly belive that Satan put those fossiles and all that to trick us.. Are dead set.. And will NOT belive any of us..

Its sertinly flustrating!! And this subject use to get me so fired up!

And I would put days and days worth of work into something.. Just be be shot down.. Becasue they said its all about faith, and God.
And nothing to do with science..

Good luck to you!!!

I leave you with this... [Warning strong words are used in this video]


As the only thing I have left after such topics is a good laugh..
I mean really..
You think God put fossiles here to mess with you?
What kind of God is that? What kind of God would try to trick you?
Oh thats right its Satan who put the fossiles there?

Ive heard both.. It was God who put them there, then Ive heard it was Satan who put them there..

Okay Im done here.. hehe

[edit on 20-12-2008 by zysin5]

reply to post by Yoda411


You can't fight faith with science, that is the issue here. No matter how much logic, reason, and science stack themselves against the belief in God they will not be able to overcome the closed minds.

If God created the Universe than science should support that fact and yet I've seen no evidence that God exists. I get my belief in a higher power from my philosophical musings about the nature of the Universe. I believe a force called God exists but unlike the overly religious I allow for science to teach me about God's Universe.

Science is meant to be a peering into the mind of God, the Universe, and everything but Creationists too oft assume science is attacking their beliefs... Good stuff Yoda...

The real issue (imo) isn't that the argument is unwinnable, it's that the solution isn't compatible with the egos of either extreme. The solution, when or if truly applicable, is in forsaking the culture of official secrecy in general, as much of a stretch as that may sound to many these days. Everything is science. There is no "magic" or "supernatural."

(add an hour later): Or real magic is love and pleasant surprises.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Lightworth]