Why is evolution still relevant?

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by six67seven
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want, and no one is going to change anyone's paradigm.

But here is what evolutionists have trouble admitting... You worship your "god" called science and your religion is evolution. Religion has a few definitions, one being - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Admit that you must have faith, because you can't prove we came from apes, or a rock, or primordial soup, or from the big bang.

Have faith evolutionists!!

I'll be back in a few days to clean up your mess again.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by six67seven]

Call evolution a religion all you want.
As long as it's a religion of logic and reasoning, and using evidence to prove theories, then I'll gladly take it.

Evolution is a theory within itself so how can you prove a theory with a theory.... ? If that is your science, i want nothing to do with it.

You can't completely prove something in science, it doesn't work like that.
There is enough evidence to show that we know that SOME THINGS evolve, this is undeniable, so why is it so hard to believe that little changes can lead to big changes?

Again, you are using "evolve" loosely. things evolve, within the species. This is because a mother does not give birth to duplicate... its impossible. Both the father and mother pass on genes, so its always different, always evolving, which is called microevolution. But once again macroevolution is impossible. You cannot find a frog birthing a lizard or a fish. Yes, over many many years, some frogs adapted to become poisonous and some are just tree frogs.... but they are all frogs. Apes cannot mate with apes and adapt into human beings, with a spirit, mind, and soul.... even if you throw 3.8 billion years in the middle.

Oh, I see, so it's about us being special somehow and exempt from evolution, that must be why you constantly harp on about human ancestral fossils, I'll leave you to it then, nothing I can do to convince you when you can back it up with spirits and souls.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
reply to post by six67seven

 

lol you don't know about Ardi? Where were you last year... BTW that wasn't just some random dudes blog, it was the Discover Magazine's blog. I thought, like most people, you would have heard about Ardi. Ardi takes a crap all over Lucy in regards to evidence presented.

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Ancient Skeleton Could Rewrite the Book on Human Origins

www.washingtonpost.com...

'Ardi,' Oldest Human Ancestor, Unveiled. "Ardi" dates to 4.4. million years and may be the oldest human ancestor ever found.

news.discovery.com...

www.time.com...

Ardi Is a New Piece for the Evolution Puzzle

from the Time article:

In a series of studies published in the Oct. 2 special issue of Science — 11 papers by a total of 47 authors from 10 countries — researchers unveiled Ardi, a 125-piece hominid skeleton that is 1.2 million years older than the celebrated Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and by far the oldest one ever found. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-leader of the Middle Awash research team that discovered and studied the new fossils, says, "To understand the biology, the parts you really want are the skull and teeth, the pelvis, the limbs and the hands and the feet. And we have all of them."

That is the beauty of Ardi — good bones. The completeness of Ardi's remains, as well as the more than 150,000 plant and animal fossils collected from surrounding sediments of the same time period, has generated an unprecedented amount of intelligence about one of our earliest potential forebears. The skeleton allows scientists to compare Ardipithecus directly with Lucy's genus, Australopithecus, its probable descendant. Perhaps most important, Ardi provides clues to what the last common ancestor shared by humans and chimps might have looked like before their lineages diverged about 7 million years ago.

Dude its an ape. Use your head.

From your blog article - "Ardipithecus probably moved carefully through the trees, using its hands and feet all at once to grip branches." -- AN APE.. News flash: Human don't dwell in trees!

He and his colleagues argue that its pelvis could support its upper body during bipedal walking. "Argue" so maybe it could support its body, maybe it couldnt. This whole article is nothing more than assumptions and theory. Its nothing close to a human, but it sure is close to an ape... or chimp like Lucy... as they say in the article over and over.

reply to post by six67seven

Not sure if I keep reading it wrong, but "I'm sorry if you already mentioned it but can you point me out where you replace macro evolution with. ( except faith )" doesn't make sense. I think you mean "what" rather than "where", so I will address that.

Ohh... Sorry about that. English isn't my first language. Thank you for pointing that out.
I will try to do better.


About macro evolution.
I can accept your reasoning cause you are right. There is little hard evidence in existence. However there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence. This is what the theory of evolution is based on. ( Did I use 'what' right in this sentence ?)

I've already tried to explain in a reply to a post by loken on page 3.
Of course this does not proof the theory but it does create a firm foundation and by doing so, I don't think you can simply discard the theory.

I personally am convinced that we miss a large part of human history and I think the you tube link you posted worth watching... There comes a time when science must accept it has a lot of errors to correct. Simply denying macro evolution for a lack of evidence is not a wise decision.
I can come up with a lot of evidence that can not be explained otherwise.
I am interested about your confidence that it does not exist whatsoever. ( macro evolution )
Especially because it's not because you are a die hard fundamental religious 6 day or 6000 year believer.

I would like to hear specific arguments from you. Who knows... Maybe you will convince me.

reply to post by six67seven


You do know humans are apes, don't you? We are not monkeys, we are apes.

Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Humans.

How do you explain the closeness between humans and Chimps?

If we were created, how are we genetically so close?

news.nationalgeographic.com...

(i made sure not to get the link from a blog to make sure i did not upset you)

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Genetic Blueprints

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Now please, give me your opinion on this. How is it that we are so closely related to the chimp?

The only way i can buy the theory of creationism is if Aliens took chimps and added a bit of intelligence some how to them. This makes sense. Evolution makes more sense though.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
reply to post by six67seven

 

You do know humans are apes, don't you? We are not monkeys, we are apes.

Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Humans.

How do you explain the closeness between humans and Chimps?

If we were created, how are we genetically so close?

news.nationalgeographic.com...

(i made sure not to get the link from a blog to make sure i did not upset you)

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

Genetic Blueprints

To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

Now please, give me your opinion on this. How is it that we are so closely related to the chimp?

The only way i can buy the theory of creationism is if Aliens took chimps and added a bit of intelligence some how to them. This makes sense. Evolution makes more sense though.

Dude, I'm not upset, just pointing out a fact. And once again, I'm not trying to prove creationism or make you believe in creationism.

Your quote says it all..."The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats." So that means that the genetic differences between humans and chimps must be X times greater than that between chimps and rats. So how is it that the chimps are so closely related to the rat?

reply to post by six67seven


you read that wrong. Between mice and rats, not mice and chimps.

Mice and rats are different species. It's like apes and moneys. We are closer related to chimpanzees, and chimpanzees are closer to us than they are to some other type of monkey with a tail.

Mice and rats cannot interbreed though they are related. Evolutionary biologists believe the two species share an ancestor, much in the same way that tigers and cheetahs are probably related. Each type of animal evolved differently, selecting certain characteristics that appear to have been of most help in ensuring survival.

Does anyone here know the scientific conclusion to this possible young dinosaur discovery?

Young Tyrannosaurus Rex… only a few tens of thousands of years old
Discover

To OP: Just admit that you dont know wnything about evolutionary biology and go educate yorself: en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Even if we completely ignore all paleontology, there is still plenty of evidence in other sciences (biochemistry, comparative anatomy, genetics..) to prove evolution without a doubt.

Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
reply to post by six67seven

 

you read that wrong. Between mice and rats, not mice and chimps.

Mice and rats are different species. It's like apes and moneys. We are closer related to chimpanzees, and chimpanzees are closer to us than they are to some other type of monkey with a tail.

Mice and rats cannot interbreed though they are related. Evolutionary biologists believe the two species share an ancestor, much in the same way that tigers and cheetahs are probably related. Each type of animal evolved differently, selecting certain characteristics that appear to have been of most help in ensuring survival.

The National Geographic link you provided previously about Ardi raises nothing but questions. They even state under "sex for food" the counter argument. Then they and in their story like... she was trampled by hippos, how do they know that? The fossils were very fragile so you know they filled in the gaps with reconstruction which will be subjective to say the least.

There is nothing convincing from this find. they found 125 "pieces" of the skeleton, not bones. And what is the name of the bone in the tendon of the foot that allows her to walk upright? Every bone in our body has a name. Once again, they are fitting pieces in. Like I said before, the foot creates a huge problem for evolutionists so its no surprise they happen to find a bone (amongst crushed, fragile bones) that they THINK allows her to walk upright. Once again they try to claim they found the missing link. Every skeleton is the missing link. Stop falling for it every time.

Originally posted by Maslo
To OP: Just admit that you dont know wnything about evolutionary biology and go educate yorself: en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Even if we completely ignore all paleontology, there is still plenty of evidence in other sciences (biochemistry, comparative anatomy, genetics..) to prove evolution without a doubt.

And you know what you are talking about and what you believe to be true is fact because you found and read to websites? Those websites are based on theory... thats the best you will ever have with macroevolution. What the talkorigins site talks about is microevolution with changing coat colors or scale color in fish which they call "morphological change."

Nothing new here

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Maslo
To OP: Just admit that you dont know wnything about evolutionary biology and go educate yorself: en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Even if we completely ignore all paleontology, there is still plenty of evidence in other sciences (biochemistry, comparative anatomy, genetics..) to prove evolution without a doubt.

And you know what you are talking about and what you believe to be true is fact because you found and read to websites? Those websites are based on theory... thats the best you will ever have with macroevolution. What the talkorigins site talks about is microevolution with changing coat colors or scale color in fish which they call "morphological change."

Nothing new here

What's wrong with evolution being a theory? Creationism isn't even a theory.

Originally posted by six67seven
We have a problem here, NO ONE is countering macro evolution!

I already addressed this.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
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.

it all comes back to this, everyone has an opinion and backing it up with theoris isnt enough for god fearing polititions

Originally posted by hippomchippo
What's wrong with evolution being a theory? Creationism isn't even a theory.

Don't even say that, you're misleading them. Evolution is not a theory, it's a proven process. The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory.

reply to post by six67seven

how can there be earlier years of strata. the earth was created all at one time, not layer by layer, year after year. anyway, over 270 cultures throughout history have a story of a flood that covered the earth. water can rip up and deposit layers of sediment very easily.

I love the flood charade. In some cases the floods are local. In some case everything dies. In other cases it isn't even a flood of water. Sometimes little happens. Yet, creationists pretend that the stories must all be true. There is no geological evidence of a global inundation.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Evolution presupposes naturalism. The origin of life problem is a defeater for naturalism. Intelligent agency has more explanatory power in accounting for specified and sometimes irreducible complexity of some physical systems, biological entities and the existence of the universe as a whole.

Not true. Evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with the diversity of life.

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

I had skipped over this nonsense. It just shows a lack of understanding of evolution and any attempt to understand what it is you are debating.

I've been to a number of creationist lectures and I have to say this sounds like some of idiocy they preach up there on stage. The speakers know they cannot tell the truth and win the debate so they get on stage and give out obvious lies that the believer audience can repeat. It reeks of a lack of education. But that is the garbage the lecturers dish out to their audience.

reply to post by Loken68

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".

The success of mammals and birds in occupying almost every place on the planet shows how well they are adaptable to a wide range of environments. What is a mistake to claim is that evolution is goal oriented. The goal of evolution is not complexity. It is not intelligence. It is not anything other than survival.

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.

This is clearly a failed analysis. You make a prediction. It is wrong. The next step is to go back and figure out where you went wrong.

according to Evolution

You keep repeating this phrase. It's simply not true. You need to say "according to Loken68." Evolutionary theory does not make these claims. These are your claims. The evidence shows that your claims are wrong.

Therefore THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FATALLY FLAWED.

When we fix your post this now reads "Therefore THE INTERPRETATION BY LOKEN68 IS FATALLY FLAWED."

reply to post by Loken68

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.

Really? Back to school with you.

Origins of New Genes and Pseudogenes

reply to post by six67seven


Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a fact. What science discusses are the theories of evolution that provide a mechanism for the observed fact.

In the mean time I was wondering which of the 2 creation myths in the bible you favor.