Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by chr0naut
 


How can seeing the beauty of the universe be anthropomorfic?
How?
Seriously dude, explain that one for me.
And undestanding, knowledge is an evolutionary advantage mate.
It is what makes us human, and able to ponder these things and rule the Earth.

If you see the universe as directed, it is your choice.
No one is denying your choice.
It is your belief.
Even then evolution is the vechicle of this direction.
It is in essence the god of god.
Evolution is NOT about or anti religion.
Only creationist made it so!
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


I never said that seeing the beauty of the universe is "anthropomorphic" (sic). There were several sentences between talking of beauty and talking of the anthropic principle.

Nor did I say that I support Intelligent Design as it is currently envisioned.

Neither Evolution or Intelligent Design in their current forms are fully adequate in describing the observed biological diversity. Each has merit as theory, each is flawed.

Please do not misquote me.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The evidence is undeniable dude. IMO people that call evolution a theory simply haven't researched it enough.

Why Evolution Is True is a great book that proves it as undeniably factual.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by BBalazs
 


What evolutionary advantage is there in us seeing "immense beauty" in the structure and process of the universe?

We don't need to see beauty, form, color or anything like that to survive.

It would appear that the human race is directed towards an outcome that goes beyond both genetics and selection pressures.

If you balance the results of random chance and compare that to the observed universe, and apply a little mathematical and statistical nous, you have to admit that it is highly, ridiculously impossible that things would be so anthropocentric.

In that mindset, I see the universe directed to achieve specific results.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


Let's for a minute focus on creationism.

Too much focus is spend by creationists being on the offense of the debate lately; For a bit, this evolutionist here wants to go on the offense regarding your creationist "theory."


Your Bible, it says something like "God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Sooo, than, who created all the other planets in the Universe.

If your going to include all the other planets in your definition of "the Heavens", that I would ask, so does that mean
God's first planet he created was Earth? If not, than why does your Bible mention only one planet?

Also

When was the Universe made, and how?

When where Galaxies formed, and how?

When where stars, "dark matter", "dark energy", etc. made?

What causes Supernova's and etc.?

When where the first solar system's made? How long after the Universe was made?

When was our solar system made? How long after the first solar system's appeared was ours made?

How was the moon made, and when?

edit on 24-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)
The single sentence "God created the heavens and the Earth" does not necessarily imply the chronological order of the creation. It could also imply simultaneous creation of heaven & Earth.

Big Bang cosmology, however dictates that the Big Bang occurred first, the universe inflated rapidly, stars and galaxies came into being as gravity caused the clumping of matter into accretion disks around significantly large amounts of matter. From the accretion disk around our proto-Sun, the planets (including the Earth) formed. This is not inconsistent with the Heavens being formed and then the Earth.

The oldest book in the bible (the book of Job) written in what we would call the bronze age (or earlier), mentions that the constellation of Orion is different than the other constellations because its stars are bound together gravitationally, which is the case. One has to acknowledge that there is no way back then that they could even have understood the significance of what God was telling Job about the universe.

Perhaps in light of the fact that both science and the Bible are in accord on the matter you posted about, you should adjust your opinions to fit the facts.

edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I am sorry if you feel i misquoted you, i was refering back to your previous post, which was a reply to my post.
I though you were writing to me directly, not in general.
It is misunderstanding.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by chr0naut

The assumption by Evolutionists is that Intelligent Design and Creation theorists think God did what he did, and walked away, so any change therefore MUST be evidence of Evolution.

Well, what if God is still in the process of messing with life on the planet, directing it towards particular outcomes?

Then each of these "proofs" actually become proofs of Intelligent Design rather than of Evolution by Genetic drift and Natural Selection.
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Astonishing. Jaw dropping. Although exceptionally interesting to note that since creationists are having to "encompass" genetic changes into creationism they KNOW they have lost the argument but just don't have the guts to admit it. Typical psychological cognitive dissonance, well done, thank you......but at least have the decency to admit even to yourself you are getting desperate with that argument. You will sleep better


Please feel free to explain how the examples of "far too rapid" genetic change, that I gave in my previous post, are in any way explained by Evolutionary Theory.

Otherwise, if you actually have no answer, it indicates that you are the one spouting an unsupported opinion that you hold to religiously. Simply repeating, over and over, "it's a fact" does not make it so.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Evolution doesn't in anyway exclude the possibility of creation...

When we create an AI program, we create it also to learn and adapt, evolve.
It was still created no?

God...such a human concept!
At once might feel so true and feels so impossible

How can we create and not have been created?
How can the devil exist without God?
Light without darkness?
Perpetual life without evolution?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Please feel free to explain how the examples of "far too rapid" genetic change, that I gave in my previous post, are in any way explained by Evolutionary Theory.

I think you had better first explain why you think they are not.

We have only your word for it that 'current evolutionary theory is inadequate to explain these changes.' Substantiate your claim, and after that we shall see what we shall see.

edit on 24/1/12 by Astyanax because: of Capodistria.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut The single sentence "God created the heavens and the Earth" does not necessarily imply the chronological order of the creation. It could also imply simultaneous creation of heaven & Earth.

I guess you're not too familiar with the bible. It clearly says "IN THE BEGINNING, god created the heavens and the earth". In the beginning DOES indicate chronological beginning. Either way it matters not, as this version of the beginning of the universe is demonstrably wrong.


Big Bang cosmology, however dictates that the Big Bang occurred first, the universe inflated rapidly, stars and galaxies came into being as gravity caused the clumping of matter into accretion disks around significantly large amounts of matter. From the accretion disk around our proto-Sun, the planets (including the Earth) formed. This is not inconsistent with the Heavens being formed and then the Earth.

But we know for a fact that the earth is much older than the universe. If the bible was accurate it would have said that god created the heavens, then the earth much later. Then you've got all the nonsense about separating night from day, mentioning nothing about the sun.


The oldest book in the bible (the book of Job) written in what we would call the bronze age (or earlier), mentions that the constellation of Orion is different than the other constellations because its stars are bound together gravitationally, which is the case. One has to acknowledge that there is no way back then that they could even have understood the significance of what God was telling Job about the universe.

Where does the bible mention gravity? You got a quote for me? There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the gravity in Orion is different than any other constellation. That statement is flat out wrong. It's kind of amusing that you would use a blatantly wrong statement, cherry pick one part of it and claim it means anything.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


No it is not semantics. Science works through falsification that is the framework it is built upon. In regards to the earth being a sphere.. Is that a fact? I do not think so
. Truth is always relative and there are a number of ways to look at the earth and they can all be correct and incorrect. Saying the earth is a sphere is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

My direct experience of the earth is that it is not a sphere. It is made of mountains and ravines and the such. The earth from space can be seen to take on an egg shaped appearance as the two tidal systems counter each other and turn around the earth.

The earth appearing as a sphere would be relative to your position in relation to the earth and the speed you were travelling at. Would the earth appear a sphere from a 4d perception. No it would not.

Anyhows what is a sphere. Science cannot create the correct abstract for pie. We cannot mathamitcally define a perfect circle. Let alone a sphere. If something cannot be defined it cannot be a fact can it.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



Just because you cant explain something or because ot seem difficult, doesnt mean it is. But again, this is all evolutionary theory. It is getting worked out. However evolution is still a fact. Things change. Are you debying that?

the mutation rates confirm that evolution cannot occur. even if you accept their explanation (for which there is no evidence) you STILL have to assume that every human female HAS AT LEAST 40 KIDS!

the test for facts is verifiability. so has macro-evolution been witnessed? no, never. what do mutation rates suggest? that evolution cannot occur. nope, sorry. not fact.

do you even know the biological definition of evolution, and the mechanisms through which it is supposed to occur? there are many different kinds of evolution relating to many topics:


Evolution can also refer to stellar evolution, chemical evolution, cultural evolution, spiritual evolution or the evolution of an idea.
en.wikipedia.org...:Evolution
proving that "things change" does not equate to proving that biological evolution happens. it doesn't. i've given plenty of evidence that shows there is no empirical evidence for biological evolution, and i've given evidence that shows that biological evolution cannot take place.

stating over and over "it's fact" does not make it so. you sound rather childish repeating the same mantra, and i'm guessing you're rather young. what would it take to disprove evolution to you?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



But we know for a fact that the earth is much older than the universe.

really? do we know that the earth is much older than the UNIVERSE?



If the bible was accurate it would have said that god created the heavens, then the earth much later.

i thought you just said we know for a fact the earth is much older than the universe?

i smell a troll.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Haha, whoops, mistype. I meant "not older" not "much older".

Now that you've got my attention, could you please post your scientific data that shows the known rate of mutation and that it's been proven to apply to all oganisms? I've always understood it to be random, ie no set rate. Evolution can be accelerated, not from mutation rates, but from big environmental changes. Last I checked the rate of mutation cannot be observed besides in certain lab conditions, and therefor inconclusive. If you've got something to show otherwise, I'd be interested.


No it is not semantics. Science works through falsification that is the framework it is built upon. In regards to the earth being a sphere.. Is that a fact? I do not think so
. Truth is always relative and there are a number of ways to look at the earth and they can all be correct and incorrect. Saying the earth is a sphere is both correct and incorrect at the same time.


The earth is technically an ellipse because it is wider at the equator than at the poles. Flying from east to west along the equator would take longer than going north to south. Obviously the earth isn't a perfect circle or sphere. That would be silly, but looking at the overall shape, yes it is round and sphere is the best non technical way to describe it to a layman. When you talk about mountains and ridges, you are not including the atmosphere as part of the earth, which is much more well rounded, although probably not a perfect sphere or perfect ellipse.

Scientific facts are not relative. One's interpretation of them might be, but the facts themselves aren't up for debate.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think people are just taking liberties with terms.
Evolution IS a theory (people should look up what a scientific theory is)
A Theory does not go on to become a "fact", it becomes a LAW

But the very term evolution is very broad, and using the theory is explain how a bird's beak will change to fit its environment is not the same as saying that it proves a common ancestor.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


What I was saying was that the sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is also possibly equivalent to the sentence "In the beginning God created the Earth and the heavens".

Sentences are like that. They usually encapsulate a single specific concept.

You have assumed word order = chronological order, but there is no indication of if the intention of the writer was to place them in chronological order, or if they were merely referring to the heavens and the Earth as a grouping of objects.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Job 38:31 "Can you direct the movement of the stars--binding the cluster of the Pleiades or loosening the cords of Orion"? (New Living Translation).


This was the verse in Job, that I referred to, that speaks of the gravity that ties together the stars of Orion.

They did not use the word "gravity" in the Bible as it is an English word and fairly recent.

The sentence does, however, have limited alternate interpretations and could be understood by those who read it.

Wikipedia: Orion (constellation) the stars and nebulae that make up the constellation of Orion are close enough to gravitationally affect each other.

None of the other ancient constellations have all stars close enough to be gravitationally linked.


edit on 24/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by andersensrm
 


No it is not semantics. Science works through falsification that is the framework it is built upon. In regards to the earth being a sphere.. Is that a fact? I do not think so
. Truth is always relative and there are a number of ways to look at the earth and they can all be correct and incorrect. Saying the earth is a sphere is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

My direct experience of the earth is that it is not a sphere. It is made of mountains and ravines and the such. The earth from space can be seen to take on an egg shaped appearance as the two tidal systems counter each other and turn around the earth.

The earth appearing as a sphere would be relative to your position in relation to the earth and the speed you were travelling at. Would the earth appear a sphere from a 4d perception. No it would not.

Anyhows what is a sphere. Science cannot create the correct abstract for pie. We cannot mathamitcally define a perfect circle. Let alone a sphere. If something cannot be defined it cannot be a fact can it.


Yea but see it is semantics, this is what I am getting at. We are using the exact definitions of every word, like the word sphere, any one I go and ask right now, will agree with me that the earth is indeed a sphere. But because you want to play semantics, your going to say "no its not, because of the mountains, and the ravines, and the bulges of the oceans due to the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon" but if we go about life doing this every step of the way, we'll have a hard time communicating with each other, so for a matter of talking in lamens terms, we can say the earth is a sphere and evolution is a fact. It is just that simple, however if you want to go into semantics you could argue both of those. But just to let you know, 99% of everyone you talk to isn't going to care about how the earth isn't really a sphere because of x,y, and z. We just recognize that the earth is a relative sphere, of course we all know it isn't perfect, but thats not the point. The point is we all get it, unless we dive into semantics, which is what science teachers love to do, pushing away massive amounts of people from the scientific field.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

the article i posted several times is based on human mutation rates. the research was done by three evolutionists, and they didn't like what they found.

at the current mutation rate for humans, we have 125,000 years before the y-chromosome becomes too damaged for males to live. men will go extinct, and the human race will follow. this is based on the work of Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes.


Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get: B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!

evolutionfairytale.com...
evolution requires information-adding mutations that are also beneficial. yes, deleterious mutations (mutations arising from a loss of genetic information) can be beneficial (though it is still very rare for them to be beneficial), but they would not account for variety, nor would they let life progress very far.


According to standard population genetics theory, the figure of three harmful mutations per person per generation implies that three people would have to die prematurely in each generation (or fail to reproduce) for each person who reproduced in order to eliminated the now absent deleterious mutations. Humans do not reproduce fast enough to support such a huge death toll. As James F. Crow of the University of Wisconsin asked rhetorically, in a commentary in 'Nature' on Eyre-Walker and Keightley's analysis: "Why aren't we extinct?"

www.onelife.com...

these problems would require statistically 40 kids per female to produce one who didn't gain any new harmful mutations. and that is just maintaining equilibrium. you also have to assume the 39 other children died, and the one child met another who was at the same equilibrium to have 40 more kids, then 39 must die. it isn't mathmatically feasible, nor has this happened.

we couldn't have come from monkeys. this means nothing has ever evolved. it is a fact that evolution is wrong.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Yea but there is one thing that we might not be taking into account, and that is will, or conscious or spirit or whatever you want to call it, the drive a being has to progress and evolve to be better. What if this factor could explain how beneficial mutations arise more often, than in others.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Please feel free to explain how the examples of "far too rapid" genetic change, that I gave in my previous post, are in any way explained by Evolutionary Theory.

I think you had better first explain why you think they are not.

We have only your word for it that 'current evolutionary theory is inadequate to explain these changes.' Substantiate your claim, and after that we shall see what we shall see.

edit on 24/1/12 by Astyanax because: of Capodistria.


Taking the last case that I mentioned, that of "clumping" yeasts that simulated multicellularity in 60 days:

Here's the link

In this case, there was no actual genetic change at all!

The experiment only highlighted that the experimenter had the ability to filter out the yeast cells which already had the predisposition to "clumping".

There was no true natural selection going on. The selection process was entirely un-natural.

There was no genetic drift going on.

All that was done was playing around with existing population numbers.

The "change" (if any) was entirely behavioral.

If you put the "evolved" yeasts back into their normal environment, they would revert to their normal single cellular behavior.

Nothing even remotely looked like evolving through the processes of genetic drift and natural selection.

Therefore, the mechanisms through which Biological Evolution is supposed to occur, were absent in this case.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Yea but there is one thing that we might not be taking into account, and that is will, or conscious or spirit or whatever you want to call it, the drive a being has to progress and evolve to be better. What if this factor could explain how beneficial mutations arise more often, than in others.


So you are saying that a there is a supernatural force that drives genetic change.

Sounds to me like your reasoning supports Intelligent Design but that you don't like the applying the description for other reasons.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join