Why is evolution still relevant?

Originally posted by SantaClaus
reply to post by six67seven

 

Created all at one time? That sounds like less of a fact and more of an opinion.

What if I created a thread called "Why is creationism still relevant?"

This has degraded, as probably most of us suspected, into less of a discussion and more of a preachy, uninformed mess of opinion. Please don't come here thinking you'll turn people with real thoughts in their heads into mindless zombies who go to church and thump a book written by people.

I am not against religion, I am against organized religion, because they don't allow for anything other than their word.

I would never question your belief in God, but your logic has sadly gone missing.

are you saying planets get pieced together? if so, that is also just a theory as well, not fact in the least bit and has never been seen in any form

Originally posted by six67seven

are you saying planets get pieced together? if so, that is also just a theory as well, not fact in the least bit and has never been seen in any form

No, there's pretty standard evidence that we were smashed with flying space debris for many years.. Have you seen the shape of the gulf of mexico? Look at the moon for evidence of it being pelted.

After that we started spinning on an axis.. We continued to be pelted with rocks for many more years. The spinning density eventually gave us our spherical form, as with any other planet. Then there were erupting volcanos for many years, which almost turned the earth inside out and created our crust. Our poisonous atmosphere settled and helped create a newborn version of the planet we know today.

I'm probably a little off on some of it, but that is my amateur knowledge working again.

This all takes billions of years, but you think the earth was made in one week (or one moment maybe?) by some omnipotent being.. Fine, you're allowed to believe that.

The difference is that I'm trying to show you a different viewpoint and all you can tell me is that I'm wrong without providing any evidence against it.

reply to post by six67seven




Surely you're joking. The link you sent me has stuff about Astral Projection in it. Its a pseudoscience site. Science doesn't allow for cover-ups and secrecy, its a peer review process and claims of suppression of evidence are made by the biased enemies of the scientific method and people who don't know how to do legitimate research. Sure science has its flaws but thanks to peer review they are usually found out and corrected.

Originally posted by six67seven


Youre talking about Micro evolution. This is not what I'm addressing. Micro evolution within the species is real, its nothing more than adaptations. But one KIND producing a totally different KIND (macro evolution) does not happen and will never happen. It has never been observed in science. Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible

I'm sorry but I have to say this.
You my friend do not have the slightest understanding of evolution.
This post proves it. Really... You should re-educate yourself. ( no offense )

Before you will start ranting.
I believe in creationism.

PS.
You now what is funny tho ?

Ape to human is impossible PERIOD Cat to dog is impossible Cow to horse is impossible

This part you are are actually right.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


You see, by the way you provided your argument, I have nothing really to argue.. Why? Because you accept that there are two sides and given human will, its quite a difficult discussion.

Having said that, it depends on what form of creationism we're talking about as far as my opinion. If you're talking about Adam and Eve, I'll probably just roll my eyes and go elsewhere for a conversation.

However, I will say this. Of all the world's religions, and how utterly ridiculous I think they are, the most ridiculous train of thought is that some sort of infinitely dense object burst into what we know today. I mean, there's more questions than answers there.

I think we all have a soul. I believe in a power greater than ours, but not necessarily our spiritual host. I think something bigger perhaps started the UNIVERSE... And through the universe's symphony, we sprang.. So I do think I believe in some form of creationism, probably just many billions of years before most.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas



I have to say I agree with you.

According to the devotees of evolution theory, this is the order of appearance of life forms on Earth:

* Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
* Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
* Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
* Simple animals about 600 million years ago
* Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
* Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
* Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
* Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
* Insects showed up 400 million years ago
* Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
* Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
* Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
* Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years
* And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.

You may or may not agree with the above but that is what evolution scientists tell us.

But this timeline of evolution exposes a FATAL FLAW IN DARWINISM.

If we apply a logical mind to scrutinize the hidden details of this timeline, we come upon the following insurmountable problem for evolutionists to try to explain:

Either the timeline is backwards or the Theory of Evolution is backwards and fatally flawed. Here is why:

Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved". But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own. Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive. It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies. If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit.

To put it all another way:

Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.

Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".

How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?

reply to post by Loken68


While darwinism shares some values of basic evolutionary design, it is certainly not the precipice on which it resides. Darwin was wrong on A LOT of things.

Darwin made up most of his theory while on ONE island, so he only got a gathering of the most exotic examples, really.

Sometimes the strong survive, and sometimes some really odd designs occur, and we need to find out why they have. Anomalies are sometimes just our inability to understand.

reply to post by SantaClaus


I wasn't pointing to Darwin alone. I was implying that the whole theory was wrong.

The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction ' success for some, death without offspring for others ' and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.
National Geographic November 2004 Vol 206 No 5

From the above outline, it is easy to understand that the Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". Also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.

Therefore, according to Evolution, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring

According to Evolution, certainly after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring.

But Evolution wrong, which is why most mammals and birds give birth to fragile babies that are totally helpless. The fact is that most baby mammals and birds are helpless and fragile. There is no way Darwinism can explain infantile fragility. Therefore THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FATALLY FLAWED.

We are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy. Pretty much like the Global warming conspiracy. It's just another money making racket spawned in hell.

reply to post by Loken68


However, with not only the host evolving, would the diseases evolved just as much?

Also with genetic factors, you assume that our genes are always guessing right according to the environment. But also consider that the environment changes as fast if not faster than our own evolution sometimes. I would think that some major natural occurrences can cause a major shift in the ability for species to evolve. It depends on where you live.. Is it strange that the ecosystems in deserts and jungles have not changes in millions of years, and thats where we find our oldest relative species still surviving?

The entire basis of what I am saying is that evolution DEPENDS on some sort of genetic malformation. Those with the longer legs, or the stronger bones, or the small cilia that protect their arms (which could eventually evolve into feathers over many millions of years) are the ones that survive. These could be malformations now, but in thousands of years, could be the norm.

Its CAN be about changing quickly, but imagine the vast change over that incredible amount of time..

Ugh, I'm done.. My brain doesn't work anymore. I hope anything I said above even remotely regards what you said.. If not, I'm sorry.. I just got off a 32 hour shift at work and my grey matter is falling out of my head...

I bet if all my offspring work 32 hours at a time for the rest of eternity, that eventually we'll all hibernate like bears.. Probably not.

reply to post by Loken68

Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved". But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own. Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive. It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies. If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit.

And you think that magical creation by a giant sky Daddy is a better answer?

Over the course of mammalian evolution we have developed instincts and social dynamics that are inborn in order to ensure the survival of our species. These inborn instincts include the natural affinity toward children and the distinct social bond between parents and their offspring. This social bond is lacking in some other animals most of which are evolutionarily unchanged (Sharks have changed little in millions of years and some still devour their young). Obviously having a nurturing instinct gives us an advantage that less intelligent animals lack and makes it so we do not need to have whole litters of offspring. Also remember that most organisms, if not all, are helpless at birth. Surely the mothering instinct found in mammals is far preferable to the way a Sea Turtle does it, abandoning entirely helpless young on a beach under the sand.

Here is part 1 in a great lecture on the Evolution of Morality:



Here is another great video explaining the Evolution of altruism:



Once again if you'd take the time to research Evolution in depth you'd find that most of what you are claiming is a flaw in Evolution has been explained in whole or in part. And even the conclusions that do not yet have the evidence to be accepted by the entire scientific community have more evidence than the "God did it" belief.

When a bacteria divides itself and reproduces it can only achieve so much genetic variance. Sexual reproduction increases the size of the gene pool allowing for great genetic drift, the more genes in the pool the higher the odds of survival. The greater genetic variation also makes evolution easier.

Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.

Darwin is not the authority on Evolution, he's been dead for a very long time. Evolutionary theory, since his death, has changed a great deal due to new evidence being found to support it. If you take the time to do the research you'd see the evidence, unless you're mind is pushing the evidence away in order to maintain its religious bias based in blind faith.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I thought you were done?

The average ape gene has 100,000 base pairs (a base pair is essentially 2 amino acid molecules). How can 100,000 base pairs suddenly materialize inside of an ape's sperm? And even if 100,000 base pairs can materialize out of thin air, how could all the base pairs be perfectly sequenced so that they form a gene that actually helps the ape evolve into a man?

There is no evidence that it ever happens

Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene.

Both common sense and logic tells us it is impossible to add a gene to a chromosome.
Mutations Do Not Add Genes

Evolutionist claim they have tons of evidence mutations occur and this is genetic evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution.

There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.

I have explained that if Evolution works, organisms have to have a way to add a gene, because an organism has to increase the number of genes in its genome in order to advance to a more complex organism. Mutating is not a way for any organism to add a gene. A single gene could mutate forever but it would never change the gene count.

And this brings an end to my input into this thread. The argument was good but in truth flawed science will never stand in the face of properly researched study. This is the era of copy and paste scientist in which anyone can be a professional. I've answered most critics with sound reasoning without adding too much "religion". Sort of like winning on the opponents home field. All the answers to the creation of this Natural world and it's contents can still be found and explained in the 1611 KJV.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by six67seven


There are plenty of "creation myths provens" that have turned out to be wrong or a hoax. If what you listed disproves all of evolution then I suppose these would disprove all of creationism?

reply to post by Loken68


Thank you. for your reply. I will try to explain.

Evolution is all about survival. Survival caused the sexes to appear. This didn't happen in a hurry tho. It took billions of years and it was all about the genes. when this happened evolution became more complex because sex is added and only the strongest, healthiest and those good looking would be in favor of the female.

Take for example a peacock.
The beautiful feathers of a male peacock make him an easy catch. They also tell female peacocks how healthy he is. The result is that over time like hundreds of generations, a peacock has evolved into an easy prey. But only because it it simply passed the genes that made it attractive to females. As long as their is a balance it will survive. The female preferable choice still goes to the one with the nicest feathers. The need for beauty is in this case more important to survive then anything else.

You talk about genes and that you cannot simply add a new gene to the mix.
You are right. The fact is, we are genetically not really different from a flower or anything else living on this world.
There are however countless of genes and most of these genes or off. They don't work. The genes that are on are what makes us what we are. 1 key gen can result in a totally different animal. ( This is the easiest explanation and in reality it's far more complex.)

Lets talk about helpless babies.
Over time animals got smarter and started to work in groups and packs. They survived by protecting there offspring. This was useful cause it's quite demanding to give birth to a fully developed baby. When they get born before they are fully developed they need a lot less energy from the parent what makes the parent survive longer.
It isn't a big deal because simply protecting has been proven, works good enough.
For example the the giant octopus.
It does give birth to fully developed offspring. It dies after it.

Now for humans.
Humans did not evolved from apes. This is not what the theory of evolution teaches us.
It tells humans and apes shared millions of years ago a common ancestor.

You will never ever find a missing link either.
Cause every living thing is when it existed or still does, a fully formed best fit animal at their time.
Just like you will never ever find the majority of all the animals and plants that ever existed all together. It takes a specific situation for anything to become fossilized.
99 % of all life ends up as food for other life.

Any change in an animal what could lead to a new species happens so slowly it isn't visible at all. Only in an ecological bottleneck you will see a change happen faster cause only genes from the survivor pass on.

The most important thing is the time where evolution takes place. It is so unimaginably long we can not even start to get our fingers around in the short time we walk the Earth...
A genetic change ( no adding or erasing anything, just switching on or off of genes that are already in the mix.) takes ( statistically ) place every hundred generations or so. ( or it won't happen at all when all is perfect as it is ). For humans this could mean only 1 genetic change every 7000 years, what could be as simple as cause my skin to be white, yellow , black or red. )

Micro evolution can be observed because in perfect conditions a bacteria can produce 40 to 50 generations in a single day. A virus can go even faster cause they are much less complex. They are not even regarded as living and are made of RNA. A simpler version of DNA. Along with only 10 genes it's easy to see any change because it has a direct result on the virus.
For comparison.
The Mimi virus which has the capacity to reproduce on it's own and it's the biggest virus known( bigger then the smallest bacteria), brings a 1000 genes to the game.


I've given the most simple explanations I could think of , it can all be found and backed in science. Yet for something like macro evolution we can probaly never find prove unless we walk the Earth for yet another few million years while we do not destroy our knowledge of the Earth. It simply takes to long.

Every time a new strain of disease appears, it's proof of evolution at work. MRSA evolved because antibiotics killed off strains of bacteria that could not resist them, leaving only the resistant strains to reproduce. This is an immediate and relevant proof of the principle of "natural selection." People who scoff at evolution simply don't understand what it really says, and fail to understand just how very long three billion years is.

Let me guess, the OP accepts some of those flaws in the evolution of theory as absolute proof that God created the universe...right?

OP should read this imo.

Don't believe in evolution? Then how do you explain how certain bacteria suddenly build up a resistance against anti-biotics. Let me guess, God gave em that resistance

[edit on 15-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

reply to post by SantaClaus


Hi thank you for your reply.

I completely understand you here.
I don't think the theory of the big bang is cutting it either.
To make it work right after it happened they have come up with sudden inflation. It sounds beautiful but it has absolutely no evidence that supports it. They simply imagine this happened because without it the theory doesn't work.
Next to a few other things the theory has been proven remarkably solid. Well... that's what they say.

I don't really understand this whole drama with and evolution and creation anyway. Evolution has nothing to do with creation at all.
Unless you believe at all happened in 6000 years of course. Then it becomes a problem.

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

Both common sense and logic tells us it is impossible to add a gene to a chromosome.
Mutations Do Not Add Genes

Evolutionist claim they have tons of evidence mutations occur and this is genetic evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution.

There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.

So they NEVER result in actually adding a gene? And you know that because you spent millions/billions of years observing things...right?

Just because something doesn't happen in a timeframe we are able to examine, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Either way, the theory of evolution has a gazillion times more evidence in its favor than the creationist approach. They have NO evidence whatsoever because in order to prove creationism, you'd have to prove the existence of a CREATOR. And guess what, that hasn't happened

I always have to grind when creationists attack evolution and the science behind it...just to then claim their theory of a giant space daddy creating the world in 7 days is the only proper truth. It's like discussing the stock market with a clinically insane person.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

Originally posted by six67seven
Kind - any of the original created types of organisms that can bring forth offspring. For instance, the horse and zebra might be different species, but they can interbreed.
Microevolution - variation within a kind, i.e. dog, wolf, coyote are all different species but the same kind.
Macroevolution - change from one kind of animal to another kind, i.e. bird to reptile

do i need to define species for you too? maybe variation?
[edit on 14-5-2010 by six67seven]

The word "Kind" is not a part of scientific vocabulary, it's a word used by creationists. Because "Kind" does not have an actual scientific definition, I cannot even begin to refute what you are trying to say. The concept is inherently fallacious.

However, I can say without a doubt that Macroevolution occurs, but not with "Kinds", which don't exist in science (akin to using the word "elephants" as a unit of measurement for energy). Macroevolution is evolution that happens at the species level or above. This includes speciation, of which there are many recorded instances. Not only are there modern examples of it, but it's shown in the fossil record as well as in genetics. Microevolution and Macroevolution are part of the same process.

Originally posted by six67seven
are you saying planets get pieced together? if so, that is also just a theory as well, not fact in the least bit and has never been seen in any form

Not quite, there is a lot of evidence to show how planets form. For example, Protoplanetary disks have been observed. We can literally see planets forming, though we wont see the finished product in our lifetimes.

Originally posted by six67seven
[www.unexplainable.net...

That might be interesting if there was documentation or citations for those claims.

reply to post by six67seven


I appreciate your radicalism.

However.

I never stated what my exact beliefs were, only that I doubt we just appeared from thin air. That's a fool's folly to believe such rubbish.

Instead, I take more of a view that if there is a creator deity out there, he/she/it created the spark which started the evolutionary process.

I'll take scientific, empirical evidence over the words in one book any day.

Cheers!

We have a problem here, NO ONE is countering macro evolution! Everyone keeps bringing up the fact that bacteria adapt in certain conditions. THIS IS MICRO EVOLUTION. IT ADAPTS BUT IS STILL BACTERIA. IT DOESN'T, ISN'T, AND NEVER WILL EVOLVE INTO ANYTHING ELSE. This is only evidence of micro evolution. Why is that so hard to understand?

You have no argument if you only say, 'well if evolution is false, then so is creationism.'