Evolution happens. That's a fact.

reply to post by SpearMint


"Isolated species can evolve into a completely separate species over a very long time"
Please give examples where one species of animal has become a completly different species of animal.

reply to post by chuckfeezzy

We share 70% of our genome with a sea sponge.

What better way to transport life from star to star than to have a few cryogenically frozen embryos, eggs and seeds for the "gardeners" to set up on other planets. Sort of interstellar Johhny Appleseeds who establish original greenhouses on each new planet. "Like" a garden of eden? "Gods" gardeners? Minimum cargo space required ? "Trees of life"?

Somehow that makes a lot more sense to me than some religious fantasy interpretation of it.

"Terra forming" must be a big business. Just look at the result of one successful project:

Earth

Having read a number of Dawkins books, the evidence is pretty substantial for evolution.

My favourite example is Belayev ion the 1950s a scientist who chose wild Siberian foxes and chose only those that were friendly towards humans. After only a few generations, these looked remarkably like dogs.

Molecular evidence backs up physical evidence

reply to post by templar knight


ummmm. That doesn't support evolution... That supports contrary theories more...lol...

Of course you would have to actually read some alternative theories with an open mind in order to know that...

Jaden

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by SpearMint

 

"Isolated species can evolve into a completely separate species over a very long time"
Please give examples where one species of animal has become a completly different species of animal.

Christina Aguilera

Anyhow, a serious response: its a slow process..you think a chicken is going to pop out a dog one day?

just watch this and watch the pretty pictures

Originally posted by templar knight
Having read a number of Dawkins books, the evidence is pretty substantial for evolution.

My favourite example is Belayev ion the 1950s a scientist who chose wild Siberian foxes and chose only those that were friendly towards humans. After only a few generations, these looked remarkably like dogs.

Molecular evidence backs up physical evidence

That's not macro-evolution. Everyone here believes in micro-evolution which is what you describe and horrible example of evolution.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Yeah it seems to all makes sense when you add pretty graphics but that's hardly the case. The gaps are getting smaller because they insert fossils into certain groups this should be pretty obvious, that's why it appears to be smaller but I bet you they'll never find a missing link. So what if they found 2 different fossils that have similar bones….? that proves NOTHING.

No one is denying that fossilize bones is an extreme case, the thing to consider here is that from the millions of fossils found show no data or evidence in linkage of species, all fossils are complete creatures of their OWN KIND. Why is that evolutionist only compare fossils that fit their theory but why not any creatures that don't fit their theory?

Trying to mix in DNA with evolution is just plain silly unless they can find a direct match in links but as of now the complexity of DNA only disproving evolution which fails miserably..

Any 5th grader can take 5 species with similar traits and arrange them in any way they want and call that proof for evolution....

Ostrich > frog > dog > tree > fruit fly > humans

See how easy that is? That's essentially what's going on with NO REAL hard evidence.. Do the research.

Um, pasteurization causes lactose intolerance. You can drink milk when you're a baby because you're drinking raw breast milk. Enzymes a beneficial bacteria intact.

Q: I'm lactose intolerant. Can I drink raw milk?

A: Chances are good that you may, even if you're of African or Asian descent, assuming you can find a reliable source near your home. Unheated milk contains its full complement of enzymes and lactase-producing bacteria needed by our bodies to break down and assimilate the milk sugar lactose. These helpful bacteria are killed in the pasteurization/homogenization process. Fermented milk products, such as yogurt and kefir, naturally lower in lactose due to the actions of various Lactobacillus and other lactic acid-producing bacteria, may be better tolerated by some.

www.raw-milk-facts.com...

Not much to do with evolution.

Well, if evolution is fact, why is it so necessary to disregard anomalies, and even bury them in some cases? Why would it be necessary to fabricate evidence, assuming as you say, it is readily available? Sometimes the scientific field is so intent on proving a point, that it forgets that its original intent was to prove or disprove theories. Is evolution real? Yes! Science has evolved from a once small group of open minded men whom needed to satisfy their own need for understanding, to the new egotystical, narrow minded masses that aim to use science as a tool to silence naysayers. The evolution of science has pivotted 180 degrees on its fulcrum, and it has become the maligned ideology that the first scientists were intent on thwarting. Further, the theory of evolution itself has evolved- eachtime part of the theory is disproved, a new stroke of genius adds a more obscure tenant, one that is more difficult to disprove. Proof? Science has lost all regards for proof, it is much more interested in the allusiveness of truth.

reply to post by onthedownlow


Sure sounds like your saying science is turning into a religion to me. At least people aren't forced to believe in religion anymore except when it's called a science.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Why would the physical decay of a system, as you put it, affect the spread of DNA in it's offspring? You're not really making sense.

Example. Put an original in a copier machine and reproduce it. Then copy the copy over and over until it is so fuzzy you can no longer read it. Each replication of DNA over millions of years (if you like) induces errors in the Genome. Those mutations are debilitating, period. The copies will never be as good as the original.

The bodies healing processes stave off the eventual decline of the body but only for so long. Thats why we grow old, become diseased and die. Same goes for all the diseases and birth defects in the world today. The list of "mutations" is endless and ever growing. Nowhere, anywhere do I see a natural "mutation" that cures cancer or Leukemia or prevents a million other defects in the genome from occurring. We are "devolving" from the original.
Does not conflict at all with the Department of Entropy.

Well assuming what you said is true (which it isn't), that's evolution. Even though it's negative, it's still evolution.
There is no such thing as devolution.

Originally posted by kalamatas
Um, pasteurization causes lactose intolerance. You can drink milk when you're a baby because you're drinking raw breast milk. Enzymes a beneficial bacteria intact.

Q: I'm lactose intolerant. Can I drink raw milk?

A: Chances are good that you may, even if you're of African or Asian descent, assuming you can find a reliable source near your home. Unheated milk contains its full complement of enzymes and lactase-producing bacteria needed by our bodies to break down and assimilate the milk sugar lactose. These helpful bacteria are killed in the pasteurization/homogenization process. Fermented milk products, such as yogurt and kefir, naturally lower in lactose due to the actions of various Lactobacillus and other lactic acid-producing bacteria, may be better tolerated by some.

www.raw-milk-facts.com...

Not much to do with evolution.

You didn't actually read the thread did you...

Also, no where there does it suggest that pasteurized milk causes lactose intolerance. It says raw milk contains the enzymes needed to digest lactose which could be beneficial to lactose intolerant people, pasteurization kills them. So that's quite irrelevant really. I never drank breast milk, just pasteurized cow milk.

Originally posted by onthedownlow
Well, if evolution is fact, why is it so necessary to disregard anomalies, and even bury them in some cases? Why would it be necessary to fabricate evidence, assuming as you say, it is readily available? Sometimes the scientific field is so intent on proving a point, that it forgets that its original intent was to prove or disprove theories. Is evolution real? Yes! Science has evolved from a once small group of open minded men whom needed to satisfy their own need for understanding, to the new egotystical, narrow minded masses that aim to use science as a tool to silence naysayers. The evolution of science has pivotted 180 degrees on its fulcrum, and it has become the maligned ideology that the first scientists were intent on thwarting. Further, the theory of evolution itself has evolved- eachtime part of the theory is disproved, a new stroke of genius adds a more obscure tenant, one that is more difficult to disprove. Proof? Science has lost all regards for proof, it is much more interested in the allusiveness of truth.

Can you provide an example of burying anomalies and fabricating evidence please?

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

I'm sorry this is way off topic, but I think it's funny that you're arguing with someone who also has an Egyptian pharaoh motif avatar.

Lol I didn’t even realise.

I will definitely concede though that randyvs moustache is far cooler than anything I could have ever dreamed up for an avatar.

Originally posted by randyvs

By the way I'm bored witrh this whinning. Can you get back on topic or cease addressing me ? Please.

Done



Back on topic….

I raised a few points on page 9 of this thread which have sadly gone unanswered by those who disagree with the theory of evolution and want to take this opportunity to see if anyone is willing to give me a straight answer.

*Micro vs Macro Evolution: There is no difference. After a few million years of successful 'micro' mutations what do you think the logical end point is? Do you really think a species is somehow trapped in some sort of pre-defined mold unable to anything more than slight changes in coloration or minor skeletal morphology?

*Assuming evolution does not occur, and assuming however that we have had mass extinctions in the past and that many species are and continue to become extinct, does this then mean that the Earth was once populated with nearly 100 times more animal/plant species than that which occurs today? The Earth back then would have been mighty crowded.

*What are the alternative theories that you suggest take the place of the theory of evolution and where is the evidence for them?

………………………

It is all very well to deny deny deny but unless you can offer up an alternative theory with supporting evidence then you yourselves are only proving yourselves to be ignorant of not only basic biology but also the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution.

It is very easy to take one specific example which does not completely correspond with how one would expect the process of evolution to take place; and then run with it and suggest that this completely disproves evolution takes place. But the fact is when you are dealing with something as complex as nature it is only logical that things will not always work the way they are expected to.

I can see only one purpose for evolution. That is to seperate humanity even further from our Heavenly Father.
The Creator, Designer, Lord of hosts, God. I can't understand anyone, wanting more of what has plagued us from the very beginning. When it's so damned obvious that it is this same seperation, that has brought death and pain and calamity and war upon us. We chose to do it our way so God stepped back and let us have at it.

Well the results of that aren't very pretty are they ? you people all have eyes so don't tell me you don't see it.

Our wortld ? Is the only thing we have evolved for ourselves and it is killing the only planet we can call home.
Our Leaders only lead us to our death. I see it so clearly, evolution is a simple trade off.. I believe in God and that being the Creator, he is quite capable of getting us the message he wants us to have. Evolution .asks us to give up what at least I believe God has said. And what Christ has done. For what man has most definetly said.
Thru whatever authority or high dollar institute of his own learning.

Just because it's science ? In no way means it's correct let alone righteous. Just because education costs a pretty penny, doesn't mean what was learned was applicable or the truth.

reply to post by randyvs


Can you please explain to me why evolution is so against Christianity?
Is it just because of the Adam and Eve thing or is there more?

I hope someone answers 1littlewolf, they're some very good points.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
I can site one major example for evidence of evolution.. I must state first that I do not believe in god, but I would never be arrogant enough to assume that he/she/it does not exist in any form.. I can't really prove either way, and neither can anyone else. Therefore I remain open to educated argument either way...

Although I must say... One of the theories does certainly hold considerably more credence with me than the other, purely because I am a creature of reason and logic....

Darwin himself stated that his "theory" was not complete... And there were "some" things he couldn't explain... However, it is the best theory we have so far, based on what little observable evidence we have... Which although is limited, is rather convincing, as others above have undoubtedly proven...

I like your way of presenting your disbelief (or non belief, however you want to word it). This is pretty much exactly the same way I explain my reasons for not believing in God. Sure, it's possible, but there is really no reason to believe it, so I don't.

Now, onto what you said about Darwin. You are right to say that Darwin's theory of evolution was not complete. It was not, and he knew it wasn't. However, modern evolutionary theory is not "Darwinism". Darwin made the initial strides (arguably, because there was another guy who thought up natural selection around the same time) in evolutionary theory.

The important thing to remember here is the difference between evolutionary theory and evolution itself. Evolution DOES happen, and it DID happen. This is as close to a fact as one can get. By looking at the geologic column and using even elementary reason, you can easily deduce that evolution must occur. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.

Evolutionary theory, however, is the current theory as to how exactly the process of evolution happens. The theory is the "best guess" that we can make thus far. It may not be correct, but that's the essence of science. You don't make claims that you absolutely know how something happened unless you are 100% absolutely sure. This would require observation. Since observation of something that happens over millions of years cannot possibly exists without time travel or extremely long time lapse photography, a theory is all we have.

When or if evidence is found that refutes modern evolutionary theory, then the theory will change. This will not mean that evolution itself doesn't occur, but that we were wrong about how it occurred. Darwin wasn't totally correct, but that's fine. He helped modern science get where it is today.

I would like to close with an analogy. If you throw a ball into the air, it comes back down. Gravity exists, and you cannot refute that. However, Newton's law of universal gravitation was not complete, and has since been replaced by Einstein's general relativity.

From Wikipedia:
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity.

Just because Newton wasn't right about how gravity worked does not mean that gravity doesn't exist.

The geologic column and millions of fossils are our ball falling down. Our explanation is incomplete, and possibly wrong, but that's the beauty of science.

reply to post by SpearMint


It refutes Creation doesn't it ? By merely disecting and explaining the mechanics and dreaming up an alternative to what is Gods glory. And it makes God out to be a liar.

The horrible thing about it for you is, you paid good money and gave up valuble time to learn something you can't even use unless you become professed at it and can further the lie.

reply to post by randyvs


No not really, you could say that we evolved from God's creation. It doesn't have to disprove God.

No one knows how life started on earth.

No one knows how life started on earth.

reply to post by SpearMint


According to you. You see that / how you just tried to dictate something to me. The Bible no matter how much ridicule someone puts to it ? Is still thee Bible and not hurt by any of it. It does give an explanation where science and evolution doesn't.

It's also very simply far more believable, believe it or not.