Alternate THEORIES of evolution:

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
I'm just saying that as far as we can tell, a global flood never happened. Not only because it would have been impossible, but also, because we don't see any signs of such thing having ever happened. The only thing that says so are some old myths, which are accompanied by other myths like talking snakes and flying camels, which sort of questions their factual basis.


A planet covered in water and a global flood never happened.
Right.


Originally posted by rhinoceros
Back into the ecosystem, i.e. the seas, the glaciers, the lakes, the atmosphere, and the biota. Sea levels are higher now than during the ice age


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Went back into the oceans where it came from...Remember that thawing out took 1000s of years. Lowering of the oceans help spread man around the world as areas that are water today were bridged by land with sea levels about 400 feet lower.


So we're in agreement that it melted, correct?

The oceans receded as the ice formed.
If this is true, then the inverse must also be true: the ice that formed over land must have melted and run south, increasing the flow of rivers and flooding areas below sea level.

It didn't just "go back to the ocean", it had to flow back to the ocean, just like all rivers do. Water is not magic, it doesn't ignore gravitation. All that frozen water didn't just mystically sublimate and end up in a cloud only over the Pacific.

But there was no flood. Of course not, because it's in the bible it must be false.

I've lived in Arizona... it doesn't take much rain to flood a valley and the washes fill fast, especially near large mountain ranges.

---

Is it so hard to believe that it rained for 40-days in the time of Noah, flooding his valley?
edit on 4/21/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by amnislupus

Is it so hard to believe that it rained for 40-days in the time of Noah, flooding his valley?
edit on 4/21/2012 by amnislupus because: (no reason given)


Actually I believe there were localized floods that led to the arc story, just not a global flood.

There was one in America that was an ice dam and when it broke it was so vast it pretty much extinct all life across much of the country. The Columbia river near Portland was 800 feet higher with ice burgs floating down it.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Oh I know we are able to have complicated abstract thought, but I've seen instances in the animal kingdom that hint at the abstract. Ever see the lion in the wild that took care of a baby antelope? Apparently the lion had lost a cub, and the antelope had lost its mother.

Now, an antelope can't possibly smell like a lion cub, and by the way the lion was licking it I could tell that the antelope tasted more delicious than it did a lion cub. lol So, for the lion this had to be an abstract thought on some level, wouldn't you think?

Also, I watched (and laughed at) a young squirrel playing with a stick. The darn thing was wrestling with it. I have no idea what that stick represented, seeing as I've never known squirrels to chase or do anything with a stick, but the stick had to be an abstract replacement for something.


These stories are nice, but they still cannot think abstractually, just do not have the brain power. Chimps don't have the brain power either, so your birds are truly # out of luck when it comes to thought.

Oh the loin thing... YOU are the only one with the abstract thought there...the lion had instinct of a new mother, oh BTW what happen to the antelope?
edit on 22-4-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Oh I know we are able to have complicated abstract thought, but I've seen instances in the animal kingdom that hint at the abstract. Ever see the lion in the wild that took care of a baby antelope? Apparently the lion had lost a cub, and the antelope had lost its mother.


He's saying our ability to abstract is different in degree not kind:


Distance? Velocity? Change of sign? Angle? Force? Component? What incredibly sophisticated calculations took place in the untutored brain of the hunter, let alone the cat? These are technical concepts that one ordinarily first meets in college physics textbooks. Where did the cat learn to gauge not only the velocity of its prey but also, more important, the relative velocity? Did the hunter take a physics course to learn the concept of force? And trigonometry to reckon the sines and cosines for computing components? The truth, of course, is that all complex life-forms have built-in, instinctive physics concepts that have been hardwired into their nervous systems by evolution.] Without this preprogrammed physics software, survival would be impossible. Mutation and natural selection have made us all physicists, even animals. In humans the large size of the brain has allowed these instincts to evolve into concepts that we carry at the conscious level.
edit on 22-4-2012 by imherejusttoread because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

He's saying our ability to abstract is different in degree not kind:



Lets look at it a different way....

Chimps can learn 100s of sign language and picture language AND can used them correctly. The problem is they can only string at best 2 or 3 words together and the vast majority of the time they just do one word/picture/sign at a time, so though they can communicate in a very basic way they have zero ability to use grammar, and grammar is a purely abstractual thought process.

Chimps are smart with about 1/4 our brain and better brain blood flow compared to other primates, but they have extreme limits compared to our abilities. This is the top of the food chain in thinking outside of us with maybe elephants, whales and dolphins too somewhere in the loop, but any other animal is extremely limited to think only in the concrete world they live in.

Also people should also not confuse abstract thinking with innate abilities and instinct. A bird flying does not process any abstratual thoughts like math to do it for it is all innate, but for man to fly it was ALL abstract thinking.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I am still waiting for the creationists to tell me what is their definition of a "species". I keep on hearing that one species cannot change into another, but no creationist can tell me what they mean when they talk about a species.

Is a species any creature that can mate with another and have offspring?
or is it a any creature that can mate with each other and have fertile offspring?

if so, what about creatures that reproduce asexually, with self-fertilization, or with parthenogenesis, etc, etc, etc.......?


One species cannot mate with another and have fertile offspring. Simple definition regardless of belief.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm understanding more and more.

But still having trouble imagining it happening with nothing directing it.....

The mathematical odds of such things occuring on there own are astronomical....I just don't think it's possible....

Can you link me to more article of primite life forms? This is interesting stuff......


Actually, I think mathematical odds don't play a role in evolution as we know it. If the formation of the very first living cell was a matter of all the right materials coming together at one time, then it was simply a fluke. The mathematical odds would only come into play when pondering if life could spring forth again on its own on another planet.
edit on 4/21/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


Statistics and probability do come into it.

DNA is a chemical which obeys the laws of physics. Populations are numbers. Despite some chaotic details, we know mutation rates and can bound the areas and time-frames that are maxima and minima for genetic change to be likely to occur within.

In all other branches of Biology, statistical study of population is one of the primary tools. This is even more so in the study of genetics. Why would Evolutionists seem to be ignoring this method?

Perhaps Evolutionary theory, in its current form, has a major problem with these numerical and statistical analyses?

In every case I have analyzed, the rate of change is too fast (admittedly all cases I have analyzed come from Biology textbooks and Internet science news feeds and are held up as examples of Evolution occurring).

Also, where are all the devolved creatures that are not affected by selection pressures that would be expected to be produced by random mutation? There should be hundreds of times more 'damaged' genomes being passed to the next generation and some of them should not be a survival liability. You know, extra eyes, extra arms or legs, double noses & stuff. We should have hundreds more of these mutations than the few that are successful. Where are they AT ALL?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
YOU are the only one with the abstract thought there...the lion had instinct of a new mother, oh BTW what happen to the antelope?


I know, I know, you're right. I was reaching.

What happened to the antelope? Another lion saw it as more than just a baby. The mothering lion knew it couldn't save the baby, but she kept on adopting new baby antelopes.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by gymbeau2000
75% of this thread is what's wrong with the world today. A select few screaming out against pure ignorance and the ultimate control and manipulation tool - religion.

If you believe we got down to 8 people ...and I know your talking about the folk tale of Noah....then I guess you believe in a flat Earth huh? Sun and Moon circle us against a perfect celestial sphere too...correct? Oh, wait...that would mean there are no satellites...so no cell phones or internet.

I had this old lady back home who would scream at us that there was no outer space and all that hog wash...but would watch the 700 Club on her Direct TV.

Ignorance.

Oh, and the person who said God is a good God. Tell that to the people of Darfur. Hell, tell that to lady getting beaten every night by her husband. Tell that to the millions of people starving to death in AMERICA. How about this, get your head out of your ass and realize - it's all a myth to control you!! Obey the laws or you'll go to "Hell". Listen to us, the boy raping priests or you'll go to "Hell".

Science can be proven. God and the myths can't. In face, in many cases, the myths can be dis-proven. Just remember Occam's Razor. But since there are so many simple minded good christians in here, you'll probably have to google it.
Occam's Razor? It doesn't pertain to this subject. Occam's Razor is something I talk to my 7 year old about when he's lying to me. I was going to reply to the rest of your stuff, but it's the same old God is mean stuff.


Maybe you'd prefer the word "parsimony"? Go look it up.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm understanding more and more.

But still having trouble imagining it happening with nothing directing it.....

The mathematical odds of such things occuring on there own are astronomical....I just don't think it's possible....

Can you link me to more article of primite life forms? This is interesting stuff......


Actually, I think mathematical odds don't play a role in evolution as we know it. If the formation of the very first living cell was a matter of all the right materials coming together at one time, then it was simply a fluke. The mathematical odds would only come into play when pondering if life could spring forth again on its own on another planet.
edit on 4/21/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


Statistics and probability do come into it.

DNA is a chemical which obeys the laws of physics. Populations are numbers. Despite some chaotic details, we know mutation rates and can bound the areas and time-frames that are maxima and minima for genetic change to be likely to occur within.

In all other branches of Biology, statistical study of population is one of the primary tools. This is even more so in the study of genetics. Why would Evolutionists seem to be ignoring this method?

Perhaps Evolutionary theory, in its current form, has a major problem with these numerical and statistical analyses?

In every case I have analyzed, the rate of change is too fast (admittedly all cases I have analyzed come from Biology textbooks and Internet science news feeds and are held up as examples of Evolution occurring).

Also, where are all the devolved creatures that are not affected by selection pressures that would be expected to be produced by random mutation? There should be hundreds of times more 'damaged' genomes being passed to the next generation and some of them should not be a survival liability. You know, extra eyes, extra arms or legs, double noses & stuff. We should have hundreds more of these mutations than the few that are successful. Where are they AT ALL?


There is a huge flaw in your argument. There is no such thing as "devolution." Creatures do not suddenly revert to more primitive forms. Natural selection doesn't depend on increasing advances in complexity but in the most efficient and effective use of resources for better reproductive success.

Here's an example. The loss of eyes or vision in species that inhabit dark places like caves or the deep ocean isn't a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. It is an adaptation to their environment.

In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Where are your calculations showing that the rate of mutation is too fast?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

I know, I know, you're right. I was reaching.

What happened to the antelope? Another lion saw it as more than just a baby. The mothering lion knew it couldn't save the baby, but she kept on adopting new baby antelopes.



That is actually quite interesting....



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

There is a huge flaw in your argument. There is no such thing as "devolution." Creatures do not suddenly revert to more primitive forms. Natural selection doesn't depend on increasing advances in complexity but in the most efficient and effective use of resources for better reproductive success.

Here's an example. The loss of eyes or vision in species that inhabit dark places like caves or the deep ocean isn't a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. It is an adaptation to their environment.

In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Where are your calculations showing that the rate of mutation is too fast?


If we look at fossil records from 1 billion plus years ago there were 1 to 6 or more eyed creatures. It seems that evolution was in the experimental phase of what would end up mostly 2 eyed creatures. One thing to remember, and why it seems only humans have the big brain, everything takes energy and if we give evolution enough time it will progress down what is the most efficient path since less efficiency means extinction. Two eyes have become the most efficient number it seems, or what is also plausible in the big reset of life from snow ball earth 650 million years ago advance life that did survive most likely had just two eyes and all advance life today is from that pool.

Back to our brain...it uses 25% of our energy so it is really an over kill when dealing with evolution. The fact that we are weak and slow to other animals may mean we had to gain some advantage, and it seems our brain was it, but it is still a rather wasteful user of energy, and most likely why we do not see a lot of other big brain animals. A large part of our genome is dead weight, so if something mutates and doesn't fit it just becomes dead weight. To have another eye would be an extremely advance mutation process of a big part of our genome all at once and that just would not happen. Our genome is rather robust and copies very well with extremely small changes, but give it 50 million years and we can see what changes take place.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
you still have failed to show evidence for intelligent design... your creator god is hardly intelligent.. the andromeda galaxy is on a collision course heading straight for us, and once it reaches us, we will be demolished into absolute nothingness.. why would a creator create something only to have it lead to inevitable nothingness?


Theory: Earth was designated a penal colony by the rulers of other planets (the gods) as a place for them to house the reprobates and criminals of their civilizations, thusly man became the "sons of the gods". The rulers of the other planets then installed the van allen belt to KEEP us here. This also explains the various races. It seems we haven't evolved all that much, we're still mostly reprobates but the criminals are now the rulers.




posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by HappyBunny

There is a huge flaw in your argument. There is no such thing as "devolution." Creatures do not suddenly revert to more primitive forms. Natural selection doesn't depend on increasing advances in complexity but in the most efficient and effective use of resources for better reproductive success.

Here's an example. The loss of eyes or vision in species that inhabit dark places like caves or the deep ocean isn't a step backwards on the evolutionary scale. It is an adaptation to their environment.

In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Where are your calculations showing that the rate of mutation is too fast?


If we look at fossil records from 1 billion plus years ago there were 1 to 6 or more eyed creatures. It seems that evolution was in the experimental phase of what would end up mostly 2 eyed creatures. One thing to remember, and why it seems only humans have the big brain, everything takes energy and if we give evolution enough time it will progress down what is the most efficient path since less efficiency means extinction.


You're looking at this from an anthropocentric point of view and you're not really addressing the fact that there is no such thing as devolution.

We are not, and haven't been the only creatures on Earth to have a big brain. If you compare brain to body size, the ant actually has the biggest brain on the planet. All mammals have "big" brains--and the evidence is that they grew large because of an overdeveloped sense of smell that dates back approximately 180 million years.

Sperm whales have the largest brains. Even the dolphin's brain is bigger than ours. And everyone knows that Neanderthals brains were larger than ours. And...Cro Magnon or Early Modern Human's brain was also larger 40,000 years ago than ours are now. According to you, that means we've devolved. But have we?


Two eyes have become the most efficient number it seems, or what is also plausible in the big reset of life from snow ball earth 650 million years ago advance life that did survive most likely had just two eyes and all advance life today is from that pool.


1) I wasn't talking about the number of eyes a creature has. I was talking about the function. But that's okay.

2) In vertebrates, the eyes are an extension of the brain. In all, there are something like 10 different types of eye "layouts". Creatures evolved vision that was suited to their environment. The last common ancestor of animals had the biochemical wherewithal to develop vision, so as a result all animals have the apparatus to do so. Even blind fish in caves still have eyes--they are just non-functional.

Microorganisms can sense light from dark as well.

3) As to why two eyes, first of all, a creature will not adopt more eyes than it needs. That is a waste of resources. The second reason is because of symmetry. The body plans of ALL living vertebrates is symmetrical because our ancestors' were symmetrical. Which in and of itself is evidence of evolution.


Back to our brain...it uses 25% of our energy so it is really an over kill when dealing with evolution. The fact that we are weak and slow to other animals may mean we had to gain some advantage, and it seems our brain was it, but it is still a rather wasteful user of energy, and most likely why we do not see a lot of other big brain animals.


Big brains require lots of energy, absolutely true. Diet played a huge part in that development, as did the development of language. But I think you have it backwards. We didn't evolve a big brain to gain an advantage--rather, we lost our ability to survive in the wild because we had big, problem-solving brains. We could develop tools and other implements to help us control our environment. So gradually, over a long period of time (~ 2 million years since H. erectus), we lost those skills.


A large part of our genome is dead weight, so if something mutates and doesn't fit it just becomes dead weight.


Er, cite for that?


To have another eye would be an extremely advance mutation process of a big part of our genome all at once and that just would not happen. Our genome is rather robust and copies very well with extremely small changes, but give it 50 million years and we can see what changes take place.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


We won't evolve another eye if we don't need another eye.

I'm still not understanding how you've come to the conclusion that the rate of mutation is too fast.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
you still have failed to show evidence for intelligent design... your creator god is hardly intelligent.. the andromeda galaxy is on a collision course heading straight for us, and once it reaches us, we will be demolished into absolute nothingness.. why would a creator create something only to have it lead to inevitable nothingness?


Theory: Earth was designated a penal colony by the rulers of other planets (the gods) as a place for them to house the reprobates and criminals of their civilizations, thusly man became the "sons of the gods". The rulers of the other planets then installed the van allen belt to KEEP us here. This also explains the various races. It seems we haven't evolved all that much, we're still mostly reprobates but the criminals are now the rulers.



LOL Yep, we're Mostly Harmless.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I am still waiting for the creationists to tell me what is their definition of a "species". I keep on hearing that one species cannot change into another, but no creationist can tell me what they mean when they talk about a species.

Is a species any creature that can mate with another and have offspring?
or is it a any creature that can mate with each other and have fertile offspring?

if so, what about creatures that reproduce asexually, with self-fertilization, or with parthenogenesis, etc, etc, etc.......?


One species cannot mate with another and have fertile offspring. Simple definition regardless of belief.



OK, then what about creatures that reproduce asexually? Do they constitute a species?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I wouldn't go so far as to call us harmless. In ones and twos we're okay and two minds are usually better than one, its those crowds (committees) that always somehow manage to evolve into dogma and tyranny.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I am still waiting for the creationists to tell me what is their definition of a "species". I keep on hearing that one species cannot change into another, but no creationist can tell me what they mean when they talk about a species.

Is a species any creature that can mate with another and have offspring?
or is it a any creature that can mate with each other and have fertile offspring?

if so, what about creatures that reproduce asexually, with self-fertilization, or with parthenogenesis, etc, etc, etc.......?


One species cannot mate with another and have fertile offspring. Simple definition regardless of belief.



OK, then what about creatures that reproduce asexually? Do they constitute a species?


Yes, but the offspring inherit the genes of one parent only. Asexual reproduction can also be inherited in sexual species.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


I wouldn't go so far as to call us harmless. In ones and twos we're okay and two minds are usually better than one, its those crowds (committees) that always somehow manage to evolve into dogma and tyranny.



I'm reading a book right now called "Wired for Culture" by an evolutionary biologist named Mark Pagel that deals with some of those points.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


LOL, once in awhile I'll imagine that I had an original thought and then one of you guys come along. I'll try to track down that book, thanks.






top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join