Evolution - defies accepted science

reply to post by randyvs


We didn't. Our backs haven't caught up to us walking upright, which is why chronic back pain is such a problem.

Originally posted by milkyway12
There is no way, according to observations and this accepted law, that life can come from nonliving matter using a natural process. One either believes that life (mysteriously) came to and evolution began, or life was created and evolution began from that point.

And yet, it is treated like settled science.

Evolution, you got some explainin' to do!

One thing I should mention - there is a big difference between science and scientism. Some people are religious without even knowing it.

If you want creation taught in school, send your kid to Catholic school.

reply to post by DarkKnight21



Tell us how we pray to Darwin and follow the 10 rules of science...... Its up to the person to accept or reject a claim... even if it was accepted by entire science association you can deny it... there won;t be anyone coming to you home to burn you for not believing in it.

Thats the best part, you can go against the theory and redo the test, and that's why peer-reviewed articles are taken as fact, because it was redone many times.

Theory of evolution does not state how life started, that would be Hypothesis of Abiogenesis, which is a guess with extrapolating current evidence.... and there is no alternative view on it(god did it does not offer anything, there is no explanation).

Theory of evolution is supported by facts, observed and experimented facts. There is no way we are ever going to see man turn into something else... you could even say, compare to few generations ago, the height of avg human is getting less and less... but anyway that's my opinion...

__________________________________________________________________________________

Anti-evolution crowd likes to separate the evolution into different parts, because of the divide and conquer tactics...

They agree with micro-evolution because it can be proven in our immediate time, but they take that away from the entire evolution theory so they can still sh*t on evolution and don't give credit. A person that understand evolution does not differentiate between "types" of evolution.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
If you want creation taught in school, send your kid to Catholic school.

Problem is that they don't teach Creationism in Catholic Schools... They teach Evolution.

Might want to try Baptist instead...

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by nixie_nox
If you want creation taught in school, send your kid to Catholic school.

Problem is that they don't teach Creationism in Catholic Schools... They teach Evolution.

Might want to try Baptist instead...

edit on 12-10-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

They actually teach heavily modified version of Evolution... Some school accepts Evolution, with god as the initiator, and some school go with Intelligent Designer, and you have some schools outright go with creationism(only few school like this exist). Even the Christians schools don;t believe in absolute creationism, its only those uneducated, indoctrinated, pastorized, folks that are still adamant.

reply to post by luciddream

Living matter does not come from non-living rocks. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way. Spontaneous generation is silly science - not settled. And at least religious people admit that their views are faith-based. As others have said, creationism is just as credible as evolution. Even a Harvard evolutionist professor is willing to admit that.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I chose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible."
-Dr. George Wald, Professor of Biology at Harvard University

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by nixie_nox
If you want creation taught in school, send your kid to Catholic school.

Problem is that they don't teach Creationism in Catholic Schools... They teach Evolution.

Might want to try Baptist instead...

edit on 12-10-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

They actually teach heavily modified version of Evolution... Some school accepts Evolution, with god as the initiator, and some school go with Intelligent Designer, and you have some schools outright go with creationism(only few school like this exist). Even the Christians schools don;t believe in absolute creationism, its only those uneducated, indoctrinated, pastorized, folks that are still adamant.

No... I went to Catholic schools. There was nothing modified. Evolution was taught with no caveats or disclaimers.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


I guess ill have to take your word for it, because i never been to one during my high school, i just heard it from friends i have accumulated in my life.

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
Living matter does not come from non-living rocks. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way. Spontaneous generation is silly science - not settled. And at least religious people admit that their views are faith-based. As others have said, creationism is just as credible as evolution. Even a Harvard evolutionist professor is willing to admit that.

1. You're not very up to date on abiogenesis. Go for example here for a simplified animation. There's a group at NASA that made a set of autocatalytic RNA molecules. They have a publication pending: Copley, S.D., Smith, E. & Morowitz, H.j. (In Press). The origin of the RNA World: Co-evolution of genes and metabolism. I'm pretty sure it will be open access, and out relatively soon. You might want to check it out..

2. The issue here is not abiogenesis, but evolution. Not being 100% able to explain the first yet does not in any mean negate the fact of evolution.

3. Creationism is just a silly story. It's not backed up by anything. And more than anything, modern biology has completely falsified it (at least the literal Biblical version).

reply to post by milkyway12

I just finished reading all 15 pages of responses, and the hostility is really quite apparent - on both sides. Does Evolutionary Theory deserve a good thread? Yes, of course it does. First, we need to identify what your concerns are. There is a ton of responses here. For starters, I will just respond to the original posts.

The Law of Biogenesis: This is not covered under Evolutionary Theory. This is Ambiogenesis, which is a hypothesis as stated above. It should not be part of the discussion.

Acquired Characteristics: This has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. It does hint at a misunderstanding of micro-evolution, though. However, since it is not relevant, it should not be part of the discussion.

Mendel's Law: This is definitely relevant. "No new genetics are created" is an invalid statement. Down Syndrome is a mutation that caused an extra chromosome to develop. Klinefelter's syndrome is even more interesting. Also, Mendel's Law was created before we even knew what genes were. He just explained how traits can transfer from parent to children. Great work. It just was an incomplete picture. So, your problem with this statement is definitely wrong. A quick internet search on those two topics (not to mention the tons of associated links) will explain why.

Natural Selection: Based on your examples, you do seem to have a firm grasp on what natural selection is. Your second bullet point is definitely the most relevant: "Perhaps it had a mutation which made it harder for pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism's proteins, or a mutation changed the regulatory function / transport function of certain proteins." This is exactly what natural selection is. The only part that doesn't make sense is when you said "Natural Selection stops major evolutionary changes". Nothing you stated supports this conclusion. In fact, the previous portion of that header completely contradicts your conclusion.

Mutations: Your opening statement is wrong again. Mutations are random. Some good, some bad, some meaningless. The benefit of a mutation may also be subject to the environment. Take a look at sicklecell anema. Bad mutation, right? Unless you live in Panama, then it is a benefit. It specifically counteracts maleria, which is frequent there. A great link discussion beneficial mutations is here.

Complex Organs: This has alread been addressed under Mendel's Law. What do you think the most genetically complex living this is on this plant? It certainly isn't man. Try a fern.

Fully-Developed Species: Sorry, your statement is wrong again. Ostrichs have wings, but cannot fly. Whales have leg bones. Humans have tail bones. How many more examples you need?

Distinct Species: It is interesting reading this statement because it shows you haven't studied genetic relationships at all. The Genome project is still in progress, but has already found common links between certain animals that we did not know beforehand. (Do a search on the geneome project for sea urchins.) The platypus isone where they are still doing studies on because it is so special. The connection is definitely during the early phases of mammal development, with an early branch. The tests they perform are well documented,and rather fascinating if you take the time to read them.

Language: First, I would like to point out that you should read the Bible more, as it clearly explains why there is a language divergence. Now, the scientific area this falls under is Evolutionary linquistics. Your explaination of complex to simplier is purely subjective (and definitely wrong). No linquistics professor would agree with you. (American) English is considered the most difficult language in the world to learn. Why? We have1 rule, and 50,000 exceptions - all caused by the language evolving over time. New words are created each year. Text messaging as definitely changed the way people communicate. I am failing to see where you draw your conclusions from as there is zero evidence to suggest what you stated. Please supply some.

Speech: Nothing in this section is wrong, but at the same time, nothing is said to make your point.

Codes and Information: Purely subjective in nature. If you are going to debate, use facts, not opinion.

Evolution or Design?: This doesn't make sense... to you. Just because you do not understand something doesn't make it impossible or even improbable. I am trying to understand how such disinformation gets spread around, but it still happens.

Vestigial Organs: Already addressed under Fully-Developed Species.

Cell Life: This has already been proven wrong by previous posters. Just because you didn't do the research doesn't make you automatically correct.

reply to post by DarkKnight21

Living matter does not come from non-living rocks. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way. Spontaneous generation is silly science - not settled.

the theory of evolution never stated that. Ever. It has never attempted to address HOW life started, or why, only how it diverged into the variety we see today.

This is the part I can't grasp... Why the religious folks take issue with this...

It clearly leaves room for a "god" to initiate the entire process. Personally, i don't buy into that, but it's right there slapping you in the face, religion "creationsim" and evolution can co-exist as cogs in the wheel.

This thread, probably more so before all the mod actions, is a perfect example of why those of us who believe in evolution have little patience for those who don't.

Each and every "problem" you guys have with evolution, has nothing to do with evolution. Instead, it just highlights your ignorance on the subject. the sad part is, plenty of people are providing you with information, corrects, and such, but most tend to ignore it.
==============
Please, please, please, if you are going to post a thread attacking evolution, at least attack the theory of evolution, not parts you made up. It's unbecoming of ATS

Soo...wow

What if we did(do) find, microbial lifeforms elsewere.
In our solarsystem or maybe outside...

Hypothetically thinking.
Did OUR god create them aswell or do they have their own?

OR:

Did they sprout from a form of EVOLUTION

HYPOTHETICALLY THINKING

Originally posted by CrimsonMoon

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by CrimsonMoon

 

I much rather be ignorant than wrong.

I would never have guessed....

Its ideas and beliefs like this that are holding the human race back. We can be so much more if we cut this baggage loose.

If all the religious extremists keep going to war over religion and fighting each other maybe one day they will become extinct. Now that would be natural selection and survival of the fittest at its finest.

It's fairly ignorant of yourself to assume that all who believe in God are either A) 'extremists' or B) ready to go to war.

Actually, all who claim to believe in 'God' and simultaneously believe that War is necessary are some of the largest hypocrites there are.

But you also haven't stated a single piece of evidence as to why this is 'baggage.' How is this holding us back?
Like the OP points out, if evolution truly is the end-all-be-all..then what started the universe? The big bang? Okay, then what got the big bang ready and in place to happen? And then what put that into motion? Where did the energy come from? Where did the movement begin? Where did life come from? Something can NOT evolve from nothing.
Any ideas?

Originally posted by BlindBastards
The animals, humans, the earth and even the universe are a mere 6,000 years old... Yeah, because that’s logical and that makes sense... I suppose the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real too.

Where did the OP make this claim?
(Hint: he didn't.)

reply to post by SpearMint

There is literally no difference between saying "A giant unicorn with seven legs created the universe from his sparkly faeces" and "God created the universe". Both statements have the same amount of evidence to back it up, and both are as scientific as each other.

Yes except that evolution doesn't deal with origins - only the current biological diversity of life on this planet.

The OP was addressing evolution, not origins.

The one thing I've never heard creationists discuss is geology or earth sciences. We know from a scientific stand point that certain rock formations take millions of years to form and that said fossils are found in these layers. I know this because I've seen some of the earliest fossils on the planet in Newfoundland (Newfoundland Fossils). Wouldn't this be enough to disprove creationism or were they just placed there by god to mess with our heads? As for the universe, well we know that stars have a shelf life. We see this happening all the time with stars that go nova to either form a new star or get blasted to bits. This will eventually happen to our own star when it moves to become a red giant, then eventually go boom. Does god blow up stars or is it the natural way of evolution in the universe?

Wow, and it exploded. Dammit, how am i suppose to argue now ...

Belief in a divine creator and belief in the evolution of species doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.... does it?

Nah....

reply to post by milkyway12

how am i suppose to argue now ...

Should be easy enough. The topic is evolution, just stay in context.