Case for Evolution.

I know this may be inevitably moved, for the mods, or one mod, mainly disagreeing with it being here because it provides youtube videos, but nonetheless.

These youtube videos, are one of the few and far between knowledgeable youtube videos.

It explains quite nicely the way of evolution, and done so in almost over a decade ago, which should be common knowledge today!

Which is not.

Evolution goes under intense, I stress INTENSE scrutiny, for being a 'random' chance, yet this video explains how it is just not so.

He mentions in it, If I was to try to unlock a safe, I would fail at the first try by mere chance, but say I was to get one number right, something would fall out, a few hundreds, yes, I am right, so something is going well, we will try again using trial and error, and you can only imagine more ways it can be proven wrong yet R.D proves you otherwise in this.


The funny thing is though, 'creationist', still might today, in nearly a modern day personality treat the bible, as a nostradamus type of way, as well maybe evolution is right, but perhaps, maybe god created evolution to test your faith, or whatever it is they will say.

The bible and god himself, albeit not always biblical will be take out of context into their ways of thinking, which is another thread in itself.

I hopefully will get some of those, probably in the first to second post who will critic me at first and mostly.

Then hopefully those who can add to the thread, and those who will get against it. I will add more to the post below, if it is not interrupted.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Republican08]

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Republican08]

The skin is acknowledging light, we know this.

Now say the skin inverted itself and can now tell which way the light was coming from, and can steer itself.

Now say we invert it even more! It can now tell where it is, and where more appropriatley the light is coming from, this species would ultimately tell more where the light is coming from.

Now more inverted we can tell where the light is pin pointed and can make out vague images.

The cells excrete mucos, collects into a blodge, and lodges into the pinhole acquiring it into make a pinhole image!

Now skin over the eye and harder, now it can focus through the skin, and hold a greater focus and resolution!

And Richard Dawkins, has the audacity to even tell you of the species this can be done in!

you believe SCIENTISTS!?!?!?!
WHAT A JOKE


just messin' with you. theres more proof for evolution than people are willing to admit. im repeatedly surprised at how many members here know nearly nothing about evolution and mock it and misuse the terminology associated with it.

reply to post by Republican08

---

I watched the first part of the videos, I found it rather boring. I don't blame the creationists for holding tight to their beliefs, especially with how poorly evolution is typically presented and how arrogant scientists like to be laughing behind the backs of and insulting believers (both religion believers, and believers in fringe phenomenon such as UFOs, ghosts, etc) but I suppose its a welcome change for the scientists since a few hundred years ago they were being tortured and accused as heretics.

I think the doubt of evolution has to do with how badly its presented in schools and elsewhere I was always confused about it growing up because we were constantly being taught all the dinosaurs went extinct in science class and on Discovery Channel and such, constantly being led to believe they all died out and then they would turn around and be like "remember those dinosaurs, the ones we said all died from a calamity? Well it turns out they survived and evolved into birds." And then after explaining that some dinosaurs did survive they make fun of the Creationists for thinking that man and dinosaur may have coexisted, just seems very badly presented. Evolution was also taught at the same time as the origin of life and so Evolution and Abiogensis are lumped together which leads to confusion.

It seems the more we learn about the Universe the less we know about it for certain, this doesn't prove or disprove the existence of a divine being but it certainly means we have a lot to learn about the origin of life, the Universe and everything. I don't think there's anything scientifically unsound about believing in God, the problem comes from believing the Bible as a literal account of human history. I think both the idea that this whole Universe appeared out of nothingness seemingly randomly and just happened to produce life is just as ludicrous as the idea some mysterious Father figure deity did it all in 7 days.

Evolution needs a PR campaign to better explain itself to the masses, I just hope for something a bit more interesting than this video

In your arguement, for or against mine, i've gone onto to only read the first part of your post

It does seem boring I acknowledge that, but it's more 'realistic'.

Although it's boring and scientific, ugh, no faeries and dragons, they oppose why faeries and dragons don't exist, yet, the dragons and faeries are still believed in and it is astounishing, how many believe it in it still.

Possibly because we are all ignoring a seemingly boring lecture.

reply to post by Republican08

---

That's fine, but if they can't explain evolution in the first 9 minute segment in at least a mildly interesting/compelling way then they can forget EVER getting the Creationists to take a second look at evolution.

I definitely believe in evolution, because after reading through the Bible, scriptures, going through my science courses, and discoursing with religious people and scientists alike, I find that there is no case for a "God created the universe" theory.

It's pretty assertive to assume that the entire universe, boundaries unknown, would be created by a singular being understood only by a select few in humanity, i.e. only a medium-sized proportion of Westerners.

I can't watch the videos, because they are sooo long and I really don't have the time, but I would like to recommend everyone read up on "string theory" and about the theory that they are different "branes" on one "string", and multiple "strings" that make up the universe. In short, there is no such thing as "creation", and that the universe has existed ever since the beginning of time (I wonder why humans always search for the "beginnings" of things?) and The Big Bang was an event that resulted in OUR brane (i.e. the Milky Way) emerging from the mainstream "string" of our universe.

There are also other universes, tangent and parallel, etc. and that is what the theory tries to prove. It certainly fits in with the observational behavior of black holes, though. It's very fascinating.

To Titen:
Creationists WON'T ever take any looks at evolution. My friend always says this, "Creationists are born into their beliefs. Their parents have taught them all that they feel are true, and without confirmation these creationists just take these as FACT. And as we all know, it's hard to reject what you have perceived for so long as FACT."

These creationists were "created", in a sense, by their parents, and they will go on to "create" more creationists in their children.

It's great if people had a chance to learn all the religions around, all the theories, and pick the one that makes most SENSE to them. If that were to happen, you'd find science would have more supporters than creationism. A perfect market of religions, if you will, and I am glad that I have been born into a family who decided to let me choose my own "beliefs" and path.



[edit on 23-7-2009 by KarlG]

My father's been doing genetic research for over 25 years (hundreds of papers), you ask him for evidence for evolution he won't even answer you. He thinks it's a waste of time to convert creationists by pressure and we should just leave them alone.

[edit on 7/28/2009 by die_another_day]

yeah evolution is obvious and not even suprising, 99.99% of mutations are lethal, its the ones that survive that make up the evolving species as i understand it

however looking at the universe as a whole its also obvious to me that this place was most likely created....it reminds me of sea monkeys with thousands of eggs in the water....just like eggs, only some planets will be able to breakout and support life, therefore i do not see why they have to be mutually exclusive

Also i cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe that the world is only 6000 years old, if anyone believes that here please tell me why other than just pure faith

reply to post by awakeningaussie

---

Actually the majority of mutations are completely neutral in life. Much of DNA (about 90-95% of ourown) is redundant, ie. it no longer does anything. It's vestigial DNA. It means that 90-95% of mutations in us are neutral and harmless.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

---

I have a more interesting vid featuring the concept of the blind watchmakerm just 10 minutes aswell. I rather like it.

YouTube Link

Waddaya think?

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard

---

Incredible video, thanks for sharing! Once again logic overcomes, how anyone can deny that is beyond me

reply to post by refuse_orders

---

It's rather tragic, is it not?

reply to post by Welfhard

---

Your right it is. I think the fact it drew a clear line between the evolution and creation is one that needs to be made clear a lot more also.

I really like Sir David Attenborough. Here is a pretty cool interview he did regarding Darwin and Evolution. I remember seeing a show where he went out and dug up fossils right out of the side of a mountain. I thought it was pretty cool. Fossils to me are irrefutable evidence to at the least ABSOLUTELY verify the length of time that the Earth has existed is way way beyond the 6,000 years that many die hard religious fundamentalists claim.

www.youtube.com...

If we cannot even get things like Erosion and Fossils to be considered fact there is no way that Evolution could even begin to be discussed.

Heck until we can actually begin to get Creationists to describe a theory of how the Earth was formed other than "God did it" there is NO CHANCE to explain Evolution!

HOW did God do it? Did God use an army of nanomachines? Did he have Angels with Matter replicators? Describe HOW God did it!

Did God Bring all of the elements together from different corners of the universe? HOW did he do it?

You have to show your Work.

How did we go from God decided he was going to do it to how God actually did it.

Saying "god did it" and then accepting that without even the most basic attempt to describe how is a devastating blow to reason.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

---

Another is the concept of extinction.

Since things go extinct everyday, how is it that after all this time, the world is not devoid of life? Where do all the new species come from to keep the world lush? And why is it that new species appear rather similar to their predecessors?


Puzzling.

reply to post by Welfhard

---

Well according to wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org...

I guess they must be in on it to, heathens!

Here is a really great video for anyone that wants to understand Evolution. It was made by someone named cdk007 who has some really good informative videos to help spread the understanding of what Evolution really is. I find that his/her videos are not rude or leaning to make fun but rather a really amazing effort to teach. The video is aimed for the common laymen (like myself) and it is very easy to understand.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by refuse_orders

---

I find it rather astonishing that the creationists claim that we've never witnessed a speciation event. I'm guessing that they have all had a cold in their lives, something which would only occur once if it were not for speciation.

My favourite example is Dogs. From the days when we lived in caves, we domesticated wolves. These wolves, under selection pressures from their masters lifestyles, became all the breeds of dogs we have today.

Some breeds of dog are so varied now that they are unable to interbreed. This means that the dogs at the fringes of variation are incompatible. That is speciation in action.