Evolution is FACT!

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Green crabs caused North East snails to have thicker shells.

www.sciencefriday.com...

www.icr.org...

Cange over time. Evolution.

nuff said




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Green crabs caused North East snails to have thicker shells.

www.sciencefriday.com...

www.icr.org...

Cange over time. Evolution.

nuff said


Minor adaptation. Small change over time. Doesn't explain the big jumps that ARE quite evident. Look at the link I provided above on Intelligent Design if you want to educate yourself.

nuff said



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


We've observed speciation in the lab, and in the real world. Evolution = proven.

The website you linked to made a whole slew of spurious claims about the use of various words, then proceeded to sink into a mire of nonsensical wishing about the scientific method. Reading that site would give one about the same educational benefit as dropping bricks on one's head. Avoid.

Nice try.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


We've observed speciation in the lab, and in the real world. Evolution = proven.

The website you linked to made a whole slew of spurious claims about the use of various words, then proceeded to sink into a mire of nonsensical wishing about the scientific method. Reading that site would give one about the same educational benefit as dropping bricks on one's head. Avoid.

Nice try.


Speciation huh? So, man has seen a new, never-before-seen biological mechanism form in the lab? Hmmmm, well that could not have been through billions of years of random mutations, so that doesn't count... BUZZZZ! Sorry! My guess is, that process had INTELLIGENT help from HUMAN BEINGS!


Nice try!
I'm nearly falling off my chair on that one!

You evolutionists will try any kind of absurd "experiment" to desperately "prove" your highly-assumptive postulations...
Good Luck!


That website made all the sense in the world, so why don't you quote specific things you'd like to contest? Come on, that is how debate is supposed to work. Show us how the issues of cell-knowledge are false, or how ATP-Synthase could come about by small incremental steps, considering that EVERY SINGLE living thing has that same molecule. I'm really looking forward to your attempt



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
I'm completely with you. Though the theory truley doesn't explain everything, it's better than blind faith, something I would like to see destroyed. I believe in God (not Christian or Judaic), but to see a man working with only faith would prove you're working without a hammer. It's a complex system and it's yet to be completely worked out.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   


Speciation huh? So, man has seen a new, never-before-seen biological mechanism form in the lab? Hmmmm, well that could not have been through billions of years of random mutations, so that doesn't count... BUZZZZ! Sorry! My guess is, that process had INTELLIGENT help from HUMAN BEINGS!
reply to post by downisreallyup
 

From a completely balanced and neutral point of view that I can imagine.
I see atheism, evolution and creationism all looking very unbelievable.
In equality. Intelligent design leaves them all in the dust from the same point of view.
Any normal thinking person would say so.
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset


[edit on 5-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Aaah - ok. We're dealing with someone who doesn't understand what the scientific method is. That makes a lot of sense.

We have observed, in labs, one species becoming two separate species that can no longer interbreed. We have observed, in real life, two species also becoming to separate species that can no longer breed.

I don't have to contest a website any more than I have to contest a crazy person walking the streets with bananas for shoes, who is making claims that the sun is made out of pizza and the core of the earth is Mozzarella. It's up to the person making the incredible claims to back up their claims with actual evidence, not baseless conjecture.

It would help you no end to actually know about things before you try to trash them, as it will help you not look so foolish in future. Clearly your biology education was rather lacking, so here are two links to two Wikipedia articles about evolution and speciation.

Evolution
Speciation

Read those - it's in your best interests.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Are you off your rocker? Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. That's not unbelievable, that's the default position of every human being that has ever existed. You were an atheist before your parents told you about god.

Evolution has also been demonstrated by countless experiments, by DNA existing, by how sexual reproduction works, and by statistics.

And yes, everything is an accident. A beautiful accident that has bought billions of atoms, created in the heart of stars, together to form you, and I, and every other human being either past, present, or future. That doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. To say that is nihilistic and patently false, as it requires people to not mean anything, which, clearly, they do.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. The vaunted banana Ray Comfort keeps slinging about as being excellent evidence of intelligent design was designed by humans, not God. The whole ID movement is full of people perverting science to their ends. It's disgusting. It makes no sense. It has no supporting evidence.

This is the science and technology board. Please keep your baseless assertions out of it, preferably in a religious board, as they are not science, but theological guesswork of the most tenuous nature.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


I believe in intelligent design too, as well as evolution. But I more so believe in an intelligently designed universe to allow evolution.

We know now life is probably common in the universe, but looking up, we see only planets like ours, not perfectly like ours. IE, only earth can support complicated earth-like life. Everywhere else will have some serious changes that either make life too diverse for intelligent life to fit in, or too little diverse, thus creating intelligent life with no respect for diversity. humans, and earth, are unique. There's not much chance for this world to form again elsewhere. You'll only get radically different things. I for one love that, but fairy tales of greys and reptilian are dead.

Also, I find it interesting that the bible never says the 7th day ended, and that if you interpret 65 million years as 6.5 days, then our world began and was created after the world of the dinosaurs ended. And seeing it that way, every species evolved into it's modern form around the day of its creation in the bible. Also, humans were created on the 6th day, and the 6th day ended 5 million years ago, when the first break off primates began evolving into humans.

But I'm still a man of evolution. I simply don't see how it's impossible. We were created from dust, and the first humans evolved out of the dust of a great disaster.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Aaah - ok. We're dealing with someone who doesn't understand what the scientific method is. That makes a lot of sense.

We have observed, in labs, one species becoming two separate species that can no longer interbreed. We have observed, in real life, two species also becoming to separate species that can no longer breed.

I don't have to contest a website any more than I have to contest a crazy person walking the streets with bananas for shoes, who is making claims that the sun is made out of pizza and the core of the earth is Mozzarella. It's up to the person making the incredible claims to back up their claims with actual evidence, not baseless conjecture.

It would help you no end to actually know about things before you try to trash them, as it will help you not look so foolish in future. Clearly your biology education was rather lacking, so here are two links to two Wikipedia articles about evolution and speciation.

Evolution
Speciation

Read those - it's in your best interests.


Sorry bud, but splitting an existing creature into two incompatible species is not evolution. No, that is not introducing anything MORE COMPLEX. That is not introducing any NEW USEFUL MECHANISMS. Come on man, we thinking people are not fools. And here's the clincher... where are all the failed attempts? Huh?

Let's say I want to open a safe that has a 10-digit combination. Opening this safe represents a SINGLE biological improvement. Now, I try every combination randomly, and every time I try a combination, I write it down and throw the paper on the ground. I keep trying a new combination and throwing the papers on the ground. Finally, as the law of averages would dictate, I open the door after about 5 billion tries (half of 10 billion). So what does the record show? An open safe (new single mechanism found by chance), and 5 billion fossils showing the failed attempts.

Now, that is only a single opening of the safe. But, in this REAL world of ours, there are literally billions of these functionally useful and increasingly complex biological mechanisms existing. So, if we have to open the safe billions of times, there will be a literal ocean of pieces of paper burying the world... where is this mountain of failed, deformed, monster-like creatures? Where are the creatures with legs jutting out from their bodies? Where are the creatures with 5 eyes? Even 3 eyes? I'm talking about MORE than 2 eyesballs, not compound insect eyes that work on a completely different principle. Show me a creature that has 3 or more eyeballs, because certainly, when random chance was rolling the dice of eyeball count, there must have been many attempts that produced 3 eyes, or eyes in vertical alignment, or eyes located SOMEWHERE else besides the head. Mutations know no bounds, since they are random, remember? Mutations are mistakes. They happen because of a malfunction in the DNA processes. They can happen to any part of the DNA, so any kind of weird result can occur.

You can't have random and intelligent at the same time. Intelligence knows how to avoid the useless and hindering mechanisms, but chance MUST produce them. So where are they? Come on, I'd love to believe your stupid theory, but I just can't avoid the sheer lunacy of the what you evolutionists are proposing.

The fact is, when a mutation happens, it is nearly always harmful, and in the rest of the cases, it is harmless. But harmless is not the same as beneficial. Plus, mutations don't typically get passed down to subsequent generations, since it was a mistake in the first place.

There are two things which serve to make evolution unworkable for me. I can accept that evolution explains how small adjustments can happen to creatures. It explains how you can have dogs with short legs, and long legs, short snouts, and long snouts. Those are like adjusting the dial on a radio, and I can see that and accept it as a means of adaptation.

What I can't accept is that a radio somehow turns into a television. A television has entire new circuits and electronic components. Using electronics as an analogy, let's just try to see how the picture tube, added piece by piece to the radio, could possibly result in a television.

Okay, so we have a radio, and let's say through some "radio DNA mutation" a small glob of glass appears in the radio. Now, if that can happen at all, I would also expect to see radios with all kinds of other globs in them... globs of clay, globs of plastic, globs of mold, etc. But, let's say that these globs do appear. Well, first off, the likelihood that the glob would be located in a place that interfered with the radio's operation is high, since there are more places it could prevent operation than not. But, let's say that one particular radio has the glob of glass located at a place that doesn't hurt it. That won't cause more radio sales of that model because there is no advantage. But, let's say that the little bit of glass caused an increase in radio reception some how. Okay, I can see how that might cause more people to buy that radio...oh, but wait...that bit of glass was just an accident, remember? So, if that mutation was somehow passed onto to the "baby radios" of the next generation, you would also expect to see the same thing with the other mutations. So, there should be lots of radios with all kinds of extra globs of something in them.

Now, let's say that the radios with better reception somehow are able to multiply more, and this extra bit of glass gives better reception, but only in the position it is located. Alright, that can then make for a greater number of radios that have this random bit of glass. But since this was a mutation, it is highly unlikely that the same mistake would happen over and over and over again. This mutation happened because of damage to the DNA mechanisms.

Now, this situation, with many radios having small globs of some foreign substance produces a mountain of junk radios. For every radio that has a harmless or beneficial glob of glass, there are many others that have a detrimental glob.

Now, this is just a small glob of glass. Think of how many steps would be necessary to product an actual picture tube. All the glass, in the just the right place. The metal parts, in just the right place. The vacuum. The phosphorous in just the right pattern. The electron gun. The deflection coil and circuitry for the sweep pattern. Now, for every one of those enhancements, which must all work together perfectly, there would be a gazillion mistakes, failed mechanisms, partial mechanisms, all piling up in the fossil record, and also hindering any further progress.

Let's take a single example in the body. The joint of any limb. This is a mechanism that moves, with limited range of motion. It REQUIRES a layer of lubricated material (cartilage) in order to work smoothly and pain-free. It also requires carefully-placed muscles to allow for motion within the range. No cartilage layer, no joint. No muscles, no joint. Muscles connected differently, no useful movement. Now, if you can imagine this mechanism coming about slowly, piece-by-piece, you would quickly see that any intermediate version would give the creature a disadvantage, not an advantage. That's the problem with evolution, right there. While a complex mechanism is being evolved slowly, it actually serves as a detriment to the creature, thereby preventing its further development.

Now, where is any creature that has a limb with muscles connected at a wrong point? Where is a creature that has a leg that bends the wrong way? Where is the creature that has an extra joint, or a useless joint?


[edit on 5-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
You guys will be surprised how well Macroevolution proceeds in hundreds of millions of years.

Go take a basic biology course at an university.

The prof will show you enough examples to convince you.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day
You guys will be surprised how well Macroevolution proceeds in hundreds of millions of years.

Go take a basic biology course at an university.

The prof will show you enough examples to convince you.


Sorry, I did that, and was not convinced. In every example, I could find the flaw in thinking. And, they could not produce actual explanation for the lacking in the fossil record, or in the actual world for that matter. If evolution is real, then it is not finished, ever. That means we should see lots of mistakes even now in the animal kingdom. You are actually wanting a thinking person to accept that order emerges out of chaos, while at the same time leaving no traces of the process. Go ahead, address that for me... the professors and scientists I've talked with can't. They just accept it all on faith, which means evolution is a religion and not science.

Go ahead, take your best shot at explaining what I've asked. Don't shirk your answer off on a professor. You answer the question. I can give you hard, tangible reasons why I don't believe in evolution. Why can't you explain to me yourself where the mistakes are? Remember, the longer you say it takes for evolution to happen, the BIGGER the ocean of mistakes must be. And no, if you actually do the math, which I have, even in a quintillion years there would not be enough time.

The more time, the greater the number of non-beneficial mistakes. The greater the non-beneficial mistakes, the worse the environment and the longer it would take. This is the basic logical reasoning you all seem to miss.

Your belief that macro-evolution occurs in the time-frame you mentioned is based on false assumptions and incomplete logical thinking. You guys are so zealous to believe this crazy theory that you set aside sound and complete reasoning. You are just like religious people who can't accept that their "holy writings" may have flaws. And when you suspect a flaw, you zealously go about trying to "prove" the flaw doesn't exist by using all manner of twisted logic and ignoring basic common sense. No matter how much someone brings up the flaws in your theory, you ignore those comments, and launch back with "Well, what about this?" Or, if you are unable to actually argue your point, you say things to demean the other person like "why don't you go take a university course."

Well, I say poppycock to you deary. Believe it or not, there are actual respected university professors that see what I see, and who do not believe in macro-evolution. I guarantee that any "example" your professor would give me, I could easily see the flaws he would make. Just like the guy above who thinks that splitting a species into two incompatible species is the same thing as macro-evolution. There is no evolving taking place when all you are doing is splitting, and if man has anything to do with the splitting, it is unnatural and thereby useless to "prove" anything.


[edit on 5-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
By the way, my biology professor hated me because I regularly pointed out the fallacies in her thinking and presentation right there in class. Unlike you, I was a real thinker in college, and not just a sponge.


[edit on 5-1-2010 by downisreallyup]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


She probably hated you because you interrupted her class with half-baked, unfounded accusations.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Yet evolution fails, at the core, fabric of matter.
Simply put particles, atoms remain the same and have not changed.
Were made out of atoms, if we evolved why have the atoms remained the same? If you can say mutation then it's possible.
Deformation in shape is not evolution, simply put matter" the same atoms" had assembled toghether in a different way to give us a different look, but I would not call that evolution. Evolution is change on all levels.
To evolve implies to change everything including the fabric from what we are made.

The mainfraime, matrix was the same, it never changed, just like the laws of the universe don't change?

So in conclusion it's true, evolution is a myth.



[edit on 5-1-2010 by pepsi78]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


She probably hated you because you interrupted her class with half-baked, unfounded accusations.


Come on DAVE... stop with the short little cheap-shots and give us some real meat. I took the time to give solid examples of why I don't believe evolution is correct. If you think my arguments are invalid, then state specifically where they are wrong. All of you people that talk about evolution don't put forth any fact, only cheap insults and ad hominem attacks, which EVERYBODY knows means that you CAN'T argue your side from facts.

I challenge you DAVE... just take one point I have said and show where the logic is faulty. All of you like to say my logic is half-baked, and yet you provide no proof or assertion that can be countered. Come on, don't be a sissy. Tell me a specific thing. Dave, where are all the failed attempts? Tell me Dave! Come on... just one of you tell me! Where are they? Half-baked huh? Well I am asking a very basic and logical question, and all you have are insults? I know why my teacher didn't like me... she admitted I had good and valid questions and that she did not know the answer. She didn't like being shown that her entire argument fell apart when subjected to that little thing called LOGIC and REASON.

Any takers? Anybody care to tell me where the vast ocean of failed mutant creatures are? I also want to see the vast number of dogs that SHOULD exist that have some kind of partially developed evolutionary mechanisms developing in-progress. Certainly, if this crazy theory is correct there must be some creatures that are still evolving, where we can see these partial mechanisms "in the oven" so to speak.

Let's see, how about a dog that is developing wings? No, wait, how about a wolf that can climb trees... that would be quite useful and certainly in all these billions of years, there must be a dog that can climb trees. I really want to see a creature with an odd number of limbs, say five limbs. Certainly a creature with five appendages, each with an opposing thumb, would be much more beneficial.

Also, please show me a create that has a single eye, or three eyes. In a random world, it is totally unbelievable that eyes could develop over time, and the only number of them on any creature would be two, that happen to work in tandem to provide stereoscopic vision. That odds of that go beyond impossible, no matter how many gazillion years you have.

Do you know why none of you will take up my challenge? Because in your heart of hearts, you know you CAN'T! Nope, you can't and that is the plain truth. No evolutionist I have ever talked with has been able to, and I've debated with plenty.

You can hide behind your college professors skirt-tails all you want, but I know they can't defend their position to close scrutiny any more than you can. You are all like the wizard in Wizard of Oz. You want everyone to cower at the loudness and fierceness of your bellowing flames and adamant clamouring, but in the real in-depth analysis, there is a man behind the curtain pulling the levers, and you DON'T want us to look at him!

Well, I do look at him very closely indeed and he is not scary in the slightest. I really do feel sorry for all the otherwise intelligent people that fall for this load of horse-#e called evolution. It is nothing more than a bunch of people blindly and desperately clinging to a half-baked explanation that fits in with their predisposed beliefs in a God-less universe.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





Are you off your rocker?


Does that matter?



And yes, everything is an accident

So life is not only a space between two nothings, it came about through one long series of random accidents. the randomness of which being not only the highest of improbabilities by itself. You must also come to the conclusion that this randomness has performed a constent in succession.
A separate yet equal to the for mentioned improbability. All the while
we must believe two completely different species are the result of one
common ancester. Who out of randomness came along at exactly the right time, but for some reason, didn't fair as well as the two results of this common ancester and on and on and on.

Maybe you see where I'm going with this? You shoud hope so, cause it's
where you and everyone who believes in this tripe pile are going.


NOWHERE






So little time, so much to know.





[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by die_another_day
 





The prof will show you enough examples to convince you.

I really don't see why I should go there but why not bury you.
In what kind of an environment will these examples of my convincing be performed in?
Yes. I would love to meet your professor, if you think I can keep from laughing in his face.



[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


No, you're making very little sense.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 





No, you're making very little sense.

Well you've caught me on a day that my patience has some longevity.

So basically, take one hand full of corn, throw it up in the air.
If all the pieces of corn do not form an absolutely straight line with equal spaces throughout.
Keep grabbing handfuls of corn and tossing them until they do.


How many handfuls will he need?

[edit on 6-1-2010 by randyvs]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum